PFD report

Marie ZARINS · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 14 Aug 2023•Leicester City and South Leicestershire

Report record

Published report and response evidence

This page connects the concerns raised in this report with statements found in recipients’ published responses. A link shows a clear evidence connection; it does not assign responsibility.

View original report
Concerns
4

Raised in this report

Recipients
1

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 1 recipient

Stated actions
7

Described in responses

Recipients and published responses

Source document

Full report text

This is the full text from the original published report.

Open published report

Concerns and recipient responses

Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

Report evidence summary

Concerns raised4

  1. Failure to review patients’ records before CRISIS team MDT meetings
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to review relevant clinical records before care decisionsPart of recurring concern: Unreliable crisis team care provision
  2. Failure of Serious Incident investigations to provide robust critical analysis and identify learning for patient safety
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate safety incident investigationsPart of recurring concern: Unreliable formal safety-incident management processes
  3. Failure of CRISIS team MDT meetings to use accurate patient medication information when agreeing treatment plans
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to incorporate relevant clinical history and diagnoses into care decisionsPart of recurring concern: Unsafe operation of multidisciplinary clinical meetings
Responses linked to these concerns

Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.

Actions described in response An action is something a recipient says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to a concern raised.3

  1. Action

    Obtain accreditation for the Trust’s Serious Incident investigation and review processes through the Royal College of Psychiatrists’ accreditation network.

    Stated by Leicestershire Partnership NHS TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 6 September 2023.
  2. Action

    Review the original Serious Incident report with input from the previously unavailable Locum Consultant.

    Stated by Leicestershire Partnership NHS TrustStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 6 September 2023.
  3. Action

    Review Crisis Team MDT processes and improve the functionality of recording and documenting MDT meeting notes through a quality improvement programme.

    Stated by Leicestershire Partnership NHS TrustStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 6 September 2023.

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.1

  1. Position

    Current serious incident reporting processes meet a high standard, as demonstrated by national accreditation and subsequent improvement since the case investigation.

    Stated by Leicestershire Partnership NHS TrustDisputes the concernThe respondent disagreed with part of the concern or the basis for it.

Source evidence

How this individual concern was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. Response links show a clear evidence connection; they do not assign responsibility.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Failure to review patients’ records before CRISIS team MDT meetings

Wider context from the report

“1) I am concerned about the CRISIS team MDT meetings and their functionality. It is difficult to understand how a meeting attended by around 7 people agreed a treatment plan which was based upon incorrect information relating to the patient’s medication status. This is particularly difficult to understand when the correct medication status is clearly documented in the patient’s core assessment paperwork (which was completed by the Liaison Team on 22 November 2021 and sent to the CRISIS Team). An LPT staff member was candid about the fact that he did not have enough time to review patients’ records before the MDT meetings, this is a grave concern. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to review relevant clinical records before care decisions; Unreliable crisis team care provision.

Open source report

Source evidence

How this individual concern was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. Response links show a clear evidence connection; they do not assign responsibility.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Failure of Serious Incident investigations to provide robust critical analysis and identify learning for patient safety

Wider context from the report

“3) I remain gravely concerned about the inadequacies in the Serious Incident Investigation and Reporting processes at Leicestershire Partnership NHS Trust. The Serious Incident Investigation failed to identify the errors in the care provided to Miss Zarins making the use of the process somewhat otiose in this case. The failure to properly investigate led to the wholly untenable situation where errors in care were uncovered for the first time at inquest, which took place some 20 months after the date of death (due to witness availability). I am concerned that the lack of robust critical analysis and investigation of the care provided to Miss Zarins before her death has caused a delay to, and led to missed opportunities (for some staff) to learn lessons that are vital to patient safety. My concerns relating to the inadequacy of the Trust Serious Incident Investigations and the risks related to that go far beyond just the care provided by the CRISIS Team. The risks have the ability to prevent learning, therefore negatively impact upon patient safety, across the entire Trust. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate safety incident investigations; Unreliable formal safety-incident management processes.

Open source report

Source evidence

How this individual concern was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. Response links show a clear evidence connection; they do not assign responsibility.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Failure of CRISIS team MDT meetings to use accurate patient medication information when agreeing treatment plans

Wider context from the report

“1) I am concerned about the CRISIS team MDT meetings and their functionality. It is difficult to understand how a meeting attended by around 7 people agreed a treatment plan which was based upon incorrect information relating to the patient’s medication status. This is particularly difficult to understand when the correct medication status is clearly documented in the patient’s core assessment paperwork (which was completed by the Liaison Team on 22 November 2021 and sent to the CRISIS Team). An LPT staff member was candid about the fact that he did not have enough time to review patients’ records before the MDT meetings, this is a grave concern. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to incorporate relevant clinical history and diagnoses into care decisions; Unsafe operation of multidisciplinary clinical meetings.

Open source report

Source evidence

How this individual concern was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. Response links show a clear evidence connection; they do not assign responsibility.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Failure to complete and retain sufficiently detailed MDT discussion documentation

Wider context from the report

“2) I remain concerned about both the standard of documentation and lack of documentation relating to the discussion of Miss Zarins at the two MDT meetings. The Trust were only able to provide me with documentation relating to one of the two MDT meetings. That documentation is incorrectly completed and lacks detail. In particular, there is no detail about medication despite there being a specific box within which to document this. This problem of poor and/or missing documentation is not a risk that is limited to the CRISIS Team, it is one that could have ramifications not only across the Trust but across all of the bodies who come together to provide care for patients. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Incomplete, inaccurate or unavailable clinical and care records.

Open source report

Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Obtain accreditation for the Trust’s Serious Incident investigation and review processes through the Royal College of Psychiatrists’ accreditation network.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Earlier this year, the Royal College of Psychiatrists’ Serious Incident Review Accreditation Network (SIRAN) awarded accreditation to the Trust for our Serious Incident (SI) processes. This is a national quality improvement and accreditation network for Mental Health Trusts. This accreditation concentrates on the quality of investigations and reviews and ensures processes are in place to work meaningfully with patients, their families and staff equally to identify learning. We were awarded this accreditation in recognition of the high standard of SI reporting undertaken by the Trust in 2023. We believe that this demonstrates the pace and extent of improvement undertaken since the time of the SI report in relation to Miss Zarin’s death. We continue to build on this as we transition towards the Patient Safety Incident Response Framework.”

Source location

Response from Leicestershire Partnership NHS Trust
Page 3 · response
Published 6 September 2023

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Review the original Serious Incident report with input from the previously unavailable Locum Consultant.

Verbatim wording from the response

“As agreed during the inquest, contact details were shared with the Trust and the Locum Consultant is now engaging in our review of the original SI report.”

Source location

Response from Leicestershire Partnership NHS Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 6 September 2023

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Review Crisis Team MDT processes and improve the functionality of recording and documenting MDT meeting notes through a quality improvement programme.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In order to learn and improve, the Trust has actioned a quality improvement programme which will review our MDT processes and improve the functionality of the recording and documenting of MDT meeting notes. This is focussed within the Crisis Team initially and will be further rolled out to Community Mental Health Teams and inpatient areas. We will capture the learning from this inquest and other SI reports produced by the Trust and will share this learning across the Trust through our learning forums and Quality Improvement Collaboratives.”

Source location

Response from Leicestershire Partnership NHS Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 6 September 2023

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent position was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Current serious incident reporting processes meet a high standard, as demonstrated by national accreditation and subsequent improvement since the case investigation.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Earlier this year, the Royal College of Psychiatrists’ Serious Incident Review Accreditation Network (SIRAN) awarded accreditation to the Trust for our Serious Incident (SI) processes. This is a national quality improvement and accreditation network for Mental Health Trusts. This accreditation concentrates on the quality of investigations and reviews and ensures processes are in place to work meaningfully with patients, their families and staff equally to identify learning. We were awarded this accreditation in recognition of the high standard of SI reporting undertaken by the Trust in 2023. We believe that this demonstrates the pace and extent of improvement undertaken since the time of the SI report in relation to Miss Zarin’s death. We continue to build on this as we transition towards the Patient Safety Incident Response Framework.”

Source location

Response from Leicestershire Partnership NHS Trust
Page 3 · response
Published 6 September 2023

Open published response

Other statements in published responses

These actions and other statements could not be clearly connected to one concern in this report.

Recipient-stated actions An action is something a recipient says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to a concern raised.4

  1. 1

    Include limitations sections in Serious Incident reports when investigation evidence or perspectives could not be obtained.

    Stated by Leicestershire Partnership NHS TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 6 September 2023.
  2. 2

    Roll out the MDT process and documentation improvements to Community Mental Health Teams and inpatient areas.

    Stated by Leicestershire Partnership NHS TrustStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 6 September 2023.
  3. 3

    Continue developing Serious Incident processes while transitioning to the Patient Safety Incident Response Framework.

    Stated by Leicestershire Partnership NHS TrustStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 6 September 2023.
  4. 4

    Capture learning from the inquest and Trust Serious Incident reports and share it through Trust learning forums and Quality Improvement Collaboratives.

    Stated by Leicestershire Partnership NHS TrustStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 6 September 2023.

Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Include limitations sections in Serious Incident reports when investigation evidence or perspectives could not be obtained.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The Trust was unaware of any information from the Locum Consultant’s perspective and could not include the new evidence provided by them on the day within the initial SI report. Whilst we notified you of this lack of engagement on the day, we understand that you were not aware of this when initially reading the SI Report. We now include a limitations section in our SI reports so that it is clear if there are any areas that we have been unable to include within the investigation.”

Source location

Response from Leicestershire Partnership NHS Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 6 September 2023

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Roll out the MDT process and documentation improvements to Community Mental Health Teams and inpatient areas.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In order to learn and improve, the Trust has actioned a quality improvement programme which will review our MDT processes and improve the functionality of the recording and documenting of MDT meeting notes. This is focussed within the Crisis Team initially and will be further rolled out to Community Mental Health Teams and inpatient areas. We will capture the learning from this inquest and other SI reports produced by the Trust and will share this learning across the Trust through our learning forums and Quality Improvement Collaboratives.”

Source location

Response from Leicestershire Partnership NHS Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 6 September 2023

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Continue developing Serious Incident processes while transitioning to the Patient Safety Incident Response Framework.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Earlier this year, the Royal College of Psychiatrists’ Serious Incident Review Accreditation Network (SIRAN) awarded accreditation to the Trust for our Serious Incident (SI) processes. This is a national quality improvement and accreditation network for Mental Health Trusts. This accreditation concentrates on the quality of investigations and reviews and ensures processes are in place to work meaningfully with patients, their families and staff equally to identify learning. We were awarded this accreditation in recognition of the high standard of SI reporting undertaken by the Trust in 2023. We believe that this demonstrates the pace and extent of improvement undertaken since the time of the SI report in relation to Miss Zarin’s death. We continue to build on this as we transition towards the Patient Safety Incident Response Framework.”

Source location

Response from Leicestershire Partnership NHS Trust
Page 3 · response
Published 6 September 2023

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Capture learning from the inquest and Trust Serious Incident reports and share it through Trust learning forums and Quality Improvement Collaboratives.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In order to learn and improve, the Trust has actioned a quality improvement programme which will review our MDT processes and improve the functionality of the recording and documenting of MDT meeting notes. This is focussed within the Crisis Team initially and will be further rolled out to Community Mental Health Teams and inpatient areas. We will capture the learning from this inquest and other SI reports produced by the Trust and will share this learning across the Trust through our learning forums and Quality Improvement Collaboratives.”

Source location

Response from Leicestershire Partnership NHS Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 6 September 2023

Open published response
Back to top

Information checked against the published report and official responses · Data reviewed 7 Sep 2026 · About data quality and limitations

Official responses located
1/1

Data last updated 7 September 2026