PFD report

Jacob Sulaiman · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 20 Aug 2018•Inner North London

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
3

Raised in this report

Recipients
1

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 1 recipient

Stated actions
3

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 raised3

  1. Failure to record and share relevant information about contacts with other services and their outcomes
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to communicate clinically important information reliably between care servicesPart of recurring concern: Unreliable inter-agency information sharing for coordinated care
  2. Lack of written records of response-officer visits in the property
  3. Inaccessibility of information about recent contacts with other services during emergency call-outs
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to communicate clinically important information reliably between care servicesPart of recurring concern: Failure to provide emergency responders with readily accessible safety-critical patient informationPart of recurring concern: Ineffective communication during medical emergencies
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

    Introduce an emergency-services referral checklist requiring Careline to provide London Ambulance Service with the caller’s full history.

    Stated by London Borough of CamdenStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 25 September 2018.
  2. Action

    Develop information-sharing arrangements with London Ambulance Service.

    Stated by London Borough of CamdenStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 25 September 2018.
  3. Action

    Migrate records to a new platform and train staff to support timely, complete recording and mobile working.

    Stated by London Borough of CamdenStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 25 September 2018.

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.2

  1. Position

    Calls not resulting in a Careline visit are not routinely passed to response officers because no action from them is required.

    Stated by London Borough of CamdenExisting arrangements considered sufficientThe respondent said that existing arrangements were sufficient, so no further action was needed.

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 record and share relevant information about contacts with other services and their outcomes

Wider context from the report

“(1) Response officers from Careline visited Mr Sulaiman twice during the night of 7/8 December 2017. It is not usual practice to leave a written record of those visits in the property. (2) In addition, Mr Sulaiman made a number of calls to Wellbeing which were referred to response officers for guidance. (3) Response officers only know about calls made to Wellbeing if the information is placed on the shared database. Response officers did not know the outcome of the paramedics’ visit in the early hours of 8 December when they visited at 3.40 am. (4) Information regarding the nature and number of recent contacts with Wellbeing is not easily accessible to response officers dealing with an emergency call out. (5) From the evidence before me, it is evident that the services which visited Mr Sulaiman on the night of 7/8 December 2017 had an incomplete picture of the number of other services that Mr Sulaiman had contacted and his presentation at those times. In particular, had the London Ambulance Service had more information regarding the nature and number of calls that Mr Sulaiman had made to Careline, this may have had some bearing on the steps taken to assess his mental capacity and how Mr Sulaiman was managed. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to communicate clinically important information reliably between care services; Unreliable inter-agency information sharing for coordinated care.

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

Lack of written records of response-officer visits in the property

Wider context from the report

“(1) Response officers from Careline visited Mr Sulaiman twice during the night of 7/8 December 2017. It is not usual practice to leave a written record of those visits in the property. (2) In addition, Mr Sulaiman made a number of calls to Wellbeing which were referred to response officers for guidance. (3) Response officers only know about calls made to Wellbeing if the information is placed on the shared database. Response officers did not know the outcome of the paramedics’ visit in the early hours of 8 December when they visited at 3.40 am. (4) Information regarding the nature and number of recent contacts with Wellbeing is not easily accessible to response officers dealing with an emergency call out. (5) From the evidence before me, it is evident that the services which visited Mr Sulaiman on the night of 7/8 December 2017 had an incomplete picture of the number of other services that Mr Sulaiman had contacted and his presentation at those times. In particular, had the London Ambulance Service had more information regarding the nature and number of calls that Mr Sulaiman had made to Careline, this may have had some bearing on the steps taken to assess his mental capacity and how Mr Sulaiman was managed. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

No recurring-concern membership is currently published.

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

Inaccessibility of information about recent contacts with other services during emergency call-outs

Wider context from the report

“(1) Response officers from Careline visited Mr Sulaiman twice during the night of 7/8 December 2017. It is not usual practice to leave a written record of those visits in the property. (2) In addition, Mr Sulaiman made a number of calls to Wellbeing which were referred to response officers for guidance. (3) Response officers only know about calls made to Wellbeing if the information is placed on the shared database. Response officers did not know the outcome of the paramedics’ visit in the early hours of 8 December when they visited at 3.40 am. (4) Information regarding the nature and number of recent contacts with Wellbeing is not easily accessible to response officers dealing with an emergency call out. (5) From the evidence before me, it is evident that the services which visited Mr Sulaiman on the night of 7/8 December 2017 had an incomplete picture of the number of other services that Mr Sulaiman had contacted and his presentation at those times. In particular, had the London Ambulance Service had more information regarding the nature and number of calls that Mr Sulaiman had made to Careline, this may have had some bearing on the steps taken to assess his mental capacity and how Mr Sulaiman was managed. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to communicate clinically important information reliably between care services; Failure to provide emergency responders with readily accessible safety-critical patient information; Ineffective communication during medical emergencies.

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

Introduce an emergency-services referral checklist requiring Careline to provide London Ambulance Service with the caller’s full history.

Verbatim wording from the response

“This change is well underway, migrating records to the new IT system and training staff, so that it will be in place before the end of 2018. As part of working practices, there will be a checklist for referring to the emergency services, including ensuring that a full history is given to London Ambulance Service when a call is made. Caroline, which will now have a full history, will pass on all the information to LAS call centre, to be recorded as a part of the callout.”

Source location

2018-0252-Response-by-London-Borough-of-Camden
Page 5 · response
Published 25 September 2018

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

Develop information-sharing arrangements with London Ambulance Service.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The London Ambulance Service is represented on the Adults Safeguarding Board and we would expect them to participate in any SAR. In addition, the senior manager responsible for the Caroline service has already made contact with LAS to begin discussions about how information could be better shared in future.”

Source location

2018-0252-Response-by-London-Borough-of-Camden
Page 5 · response
Published 25 September 2018

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

Migrate records to a new platform and train staff to support timely, complete recording and mobile working.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In preparation for this move, a new IT platform was required to support the”

Source location

2018-0252-Response-by-London-Borough-of-Camden
Page 4 · response
Published 25 September 2018

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

Calls not resulting in a Careline visit are not routinely passed to response officers because no action from them is required.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Wellbeing pass on information to response officers when there is likely to be a need for a visit. A call that does not result in a visit is not routinely passed on to Careline, as no action from them is required.”

Source location

2018-0252-Response-by-London-Borough-of-Camden
Page 3 · response
Published 25 September 2018

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

Wellbeing coordinated the responses, and there was no evidence that the individual lacked capacity or required mental-health intervention.

Verbatim wording from the response

“It is correct to say that none of the individuals attending Mr Sulaiman’s property on the night of his death had a full picture of all the calls that day, however, Wellbeing were aware of, and coordinated the responses, whether they were remotely or in person.”

Source location

2018-0252-Response-by-London-Borough-of-Camden
Page 3 · response
Published 25 September 2018

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