PFD report

Lee Leslie Carpenter · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 3 Mar 2020•East 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
0

Of 1 recipient

Stated actions
0

Described in 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 document important clinical decisions and rationale in the triage of GP referrals
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to reliably document the rationale for consequential decisionsPart of recurring concern: Unreliable documentation of clinical triage decisions and advice
  2. Failure to discuss downgraded GP referral urgency with the patient or GP
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable community mental-health response to urgent GP concernsPart of recurring concern: Unreliable referral urgency categorisation and prioritisation
  3. Failure to identify and make accountable the staff member making GP referral triage decisions
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable documentation of clinical triage decisions and advice
Responses linked to these concerns

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

No linked response statements

No respondent-stated action or position is clearly linked to these concerns.

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 document important clinical decisions and rationale in the triage of GP referrals

Wider context from the report

“The matter of concern during the course of the Inquest, was that a GP had made a referral to the mental health team requesting an urgent review of Mr Carpenter. This was sent on the 9th August 2019 to the Havering Access Assessment and Brief Intervention Team. The referral was received on the same date and appears to have been triaged for a non-urgent response. The decision determining the non-urgent response was not documented. There was no documented rationale for overriding the GP’s request for an urgent review. There was no discussion with the patient or the GP before the decision to downgrade the urgency. The member of staff who made the decision was not identified within the medical records. The first telephone assessment of Mr Carpenter did not take place until the 23rd August 2019. As at the date of the Inquest, there is no system in place within the Trust for important clinical decision relating to the triage of GP referrals to be clearly documented within patient records and for the member of staff making the decision, to be clearly identified and accountable. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to reliably document the rationale for consequential decisions; Unreliable documentation of clinical triage decisions and advice.

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 discuss downgraded GP referral urgency with the patient or GP

Wider context from the report

“The matter of concern during the course of the Inquest, was that a GP had made a referral to the mental health team requesting an urgent review of Mr Carpenter. This was sent on the 9th August 2019 to the Havering Access Assessment and Brief Intervention Team. The referral was received on the same date and appears to have been triaged for a non-urgent response. The decision determining the non-urgent response was not documented. There was no documented rationale for overriding the GP’s request for an urgent review. There was no discussion with the patient or the GP before the decision to downgrade the urgency. The member of staff who made the decision was not identified within the medical records. The first telephone assessment of Mr Carpenter did not take place until the 23rd August 2019. As at the date of the Inquest, there is no system in place within the Trust for important clinical decision relating to the triage of GP referrals to be clearly documented within patient records and for the member of staff making the decision, to be clearly identified and accountable. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable community mental-health response to urgent GP concerns; Unreliable referral urgency categorisation and prioritisation.

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 identify and make accountable the staff member making GP referral triage decisions

Wider context from the report

“The matter of concern during the course of the Inquest, was that a GP had made a referral to the mental health team requesting an urgent review of Mr Carpenter. This was sent on the 9th August 2019 to the Havering Access Assessment and Brief Intervention Team. The referral was received on the same date and appears to have been triaged for a non-urgent response. The decision determining the non-urgent response was not documented. There was no documented rationale for overriding the GP’s request for an urgent review. There was no discussion with the patient or the GP before the decision to downgrade the urgency. The member of staff who made the decision was not identified within the medical records. The first telephone assessment of Mr Carpenter did not take place until the 23rd August 2019. As at the date of the Inquest, there is no system in place within the Trust for important clinical decision relating to the triage of GP referrals to be clearly documented within patient records and for the member of staff making the decision, to be clearly identified and accountable. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable documentation of clinical triage decisions and advice.

Open source report
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
0/1

Data last updated 7 September 2026

No official response is included in the current published snapshot.