PFD report

Resmije Ahmetaj · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 12 Aug 2025•Essex

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
8

Raised in this report

Recipients
2

Named on the report

Responses found
2

Of 2 recipients

Stated actions
10

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 raised8

  1. Incomplete mental health care records
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable recording of safety-critical mental health information
  2. Failure to escalate and act on markedly subtherapeutic clozapine levels
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to escalate significant clinical concerns to appropriately senior cliniciansPart of recurring concern: Unreliable medication-specific blood-level monitoring
  3. Failure to consider the risk of psychosis relapse
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate mental health risk assessment
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.8

  1. Action

    Obtain contractor quotes for proposed mesh stairway covers and extended railings at the car park pedestrian link walkway.

    Stated by BTCM LimitedStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 14 August 2025.
  2. Action

    Take forward MDT learning on documenting and escalating inconsistencies between clozapine assays, adherence reports and clinical stability.

    Stated by Essex Partnership University NHS Foundation TrustStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 14 August 2025.
  3. Action

    Deliver dedicated teaching on monitoring and documenting clozapine side effects.

    Stated by Essex Partnership University NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 14 August 2025.

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.3

  1. Position

    Clinical assessment and the already scheduled psychiatric review were considered sufficient; no earlier appointment was indicated without evidence of deterioration.

    Stated by Essex Partnership University NHS Foundation TrustExisting 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

Incomplete mental health care records

Wider context from the report

“(4) The mental health Trust record-keeping did not contain all relevant information relating to the care and treatment there were omissions relating to symptoms and potential signs of deterioration and compliance with medication. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable recording of safety-critical mental health information.

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 escalate and act on markedly subtherapeutic clozapine levels

Wider context from the report

“(3) There were issues around communication and escalation within the Trust mental health team. A routine 6-month blood anti-psychotic to check clozapine levels assay was taken on 3 June and the results reported on 7 June were sent to the psychiatrist and showed markedly subtherapeutic blood levels of antipsychotic medication. This subtherapeutic level was not acted upon and was contrary to: a. Ms Ahmetaj insisting she was compliant with her medication b. Ms Ahmetaj did not have any noted risks that would cause interference with her medication. c. Ms Ahmetaj informed EPUT clinicians that: i. On 24 June she thought her medication Clozapine was not working ii. On 27 June she no longer wished to take her prescribed antipsychotic medication , and iii. Did not agree she had Schizophrenia, and iv. wanted to revert to a previous medication Quetiapine. These matters were not escalated to the psychiatrist and Ms Ahmetaj was informed to continue her clozapine and wait for her appointment on 1 July and there was no consideration of the risk of relapse of psychosis. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to escalate significant clinical concerns to appropriately senior clinicians; Unreliable medication-specific blood-level monitoring.

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 consider the risk of psychosis relapse

Wider context from the report

“(3) There were issues around communication and escalation within the Trust mental health team. A routine 6-month blood anti-psychotic to check clozapine levels assay was taken on 3 June and the results reported on 7 June were sent to the psychiatrist and showed markedly subtherapeutic blood levels of antipsychotic medication. This subtherapeutic level was not acted upon and was contrary to: a. Ms Ahmetaj insisting she was compliant with her medication b. Ms Ahmetaj did not have any noted risks that would cause interference with her medication. c. Ms Ahmetaj informed EPUT clinicians that: i. On 24 June she thought her medication Clozapine was not working ii. On 27 June she no longer wished to take her prescribed antipsychotic medication , and iii. Did not agree she had Schizophrenia, and iv. wanted to revert to a previous medication Quetiapine. These matters were not escalated to the psychiatrist and Ms Ahmetaj was informed to continue her clozapine and wait for her appointment on 1 July and there was no consideration of the risk of relapse of psychosis. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate mental health risk assessment.

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 verify antidepressant prescription doses

Wider context from the report

“(2) There was confusion about the mental health Trust prescribing dose for Ms Ahmetaj antidepressant medication and an overreliance on discussions with her rather than checking the prescription dose and communication with the GP was delayed. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable medication dosage verification and communication.

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 the mental health team to undertake mental state examinations

Wider context from the report

“(1) EPUT mental health team were relying on the clozapine clinic staff to monitor Ms Ahmetaj’s mental health, but this was not the purpose of the clinic. Staff took blood samples and vital signs with a quick chat that took about 5 minutes and were not undertaking a mental state examination. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable assessment of patients’ mental state.

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 fall mitigation on the penultimate car park floor with a pedestrian link walkway

Wider context from the report

“(6) The car park has a link walkway to residential housing on the penultimate floor from where Resmije Ahmetaj fell. The top floor has mitigation that would prevent a person from jumping/falling but the penultimate floor that has a pedestrian link walkway does not. There is likely to be more pedestrian footfall on the penultimate floor as a consequence and any fall from this height would inevitably be fatal. ”

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

Delays in managing clozapine constipation

Wider context from the report

“(5) Clozapine constipation was raised as a serious side effect such that there is a Trust policy to manage this matter. This was not dealt with within the Trust for Ms Ahmetaj, and it took two weeks to raise this for the GP to manage. This did not cause or contribute to Ms Ahmetaj’s death however there is a concern for the long delay for other patients. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to provide timely treatment for constipation and impacted faeces.

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

Delays in communication with the GP about antidepressant prescribing

Wider context from the report

“(2) There was confusion about the mental health Trust prescribing dose for Ms Ahmetaj antidepressant medication and an overreliance on discussions with her rather than checking the prescription dose and communication with the GP was delayed. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable communication of critical medication information to GPs; Unreliable doctor-to-doctor coordination of prescribing.

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 contractor quotes for proposed mesh stairway covers and extended railings at the car park pedestrian link walkway.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In response to the Coroner’s opinion concerning actions BTCM Limited can take, we have approached contractors with a view to installing mitigation measures at the car park level concerned (pedestrian link walkway). The mitigation measures will be to cover up the stairways using mesh and to extend the railings 1m either side of the stairwells from Level 10 to Level 4 on both sides of the car park.”

Source location

Response from Basildon Car Park Management
Page 1 · response
Published 14 August 2025

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

Take forward MDT learning on documenting and escalating inconsistencies between clozapine assays, adherence reports and clinical stability.

Verbatim wording from the response

“On reflection, while the management of this case was consistent with current guidance, there are learning points regarding communication and escalation. Specifically, inconsistencies between assay findings, patient-reported adherence, and clinical stability should have been explicitly documented and escalated to the consultant psychiatrist at an earlier stage. Doing so would have provided additional assurance around risk management and strengthened the therapeutic dialogue with the patient. This learning is being taken forward by the MDT.”

Source location

Response from Essex Partnership University NHS Foundation Trust
Page 4 · response
Published 14 August 2025

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

Deliver dedicated teaching on monitoring and documenting clozapine side effects.

Verbatim wording from the response

“We can assure the court that the Trust provides staff with clear guidance in the Clozapine policy last issued in January 2025 on the assessment, monitoring, and documentation of Clozapine-related constipation. The updated policy from January 2025 has been disseminated widely across the medical teams, and a dedicated teaching session took place on 2nd of October 2025 to reinforce best practice in the monitoring and documentation of Clozapine side effects.”

Source location

Response from Essex Partnership University NHS Foundation Trust
Page 5 · response
Published 14 August 2025

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

Discuss case-related record-keeping requirements with service leads and task service managers with reinforcing their importance to staff.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Additionally we can confirm that discussions have been undertaken with service leads with regards to record keeping in respect of this particular case and highlighting importance of timely and detailed record keeping. Service Managers were tasked to emphasise the importance of this service staff.”

Source location

Response from Essex Partnership University NHS Foundation Trust
Page 4 · response
Published 14 August 2025

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

Reinforce with medical staff the need to communicate medication-dose inconsistencies clearly and promptly.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Whilst this discrepancy was not causative of the sad outcome in this matter, reliance on the patient’s report was made in good faith as part of the therapeutic process. I can assure the Court that, moving forward, the importance of clearly communicating and communicating any inconsistencies between a patient’s reported medication dosage and the dosage prescribed by the GP will be reinforced with the medical team, in order to ensure safe and effective prescribing and to minimise the risk of confusion.”

Source location

Response from Essex Partnership University NHS Foundation Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 14 August 2025

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

Disseminate the January 2025 updated clozapine policy across medical teams to strengthen constipation assessment, monitoring and documentation.

Verbatim wording from the response

“We can assure the court that the Trust provides staff with clear guidance in the Clozapine policy last issued in January 2025 on the assessment, monitoring, and documentation of Clozapine-related constipation. The updated policy from January 2025 has been disseminated widely across the medical teams, and a dedicated teaching session took place on 2nd of October 2025 to reinforce best practice in the monitoring and documentation of Clozapine side effects.”

Source location

Response from Essex Partnership University NHS Foundation Trust
Page 5 · response
Published 14 August 2025

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 clinical record-keeping guidance defining the characteristics of a good clinical record.

Verbatim wording from the response

“To further support staff the Trust has developed a new Clinical record keeping guidance to help guide staff on what is a good clinical record.”

Source location

Response from Essex Partnership University NHS Foundation Trust
Page 4 · response
Published 14 August 2025

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 the Record Keeping Safety Improvement Programme to improve documentation-related patient safety through learning and regular review.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The Trust has continued with a Record Keeping Safety Improvement Programme (SIP). This SIP program is focusing on improving patient safety in respect of documentation specifically. The approach will be to support continuous learning and improvement and regular review.”

Source location

Response from Essex Partnership University NHS Foundation Trust
Page 4 · response
Published 14 August 2025

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

Clinical assessment and the already scheduled psychiatric review were considered sufficient; no earlier appointment was indicated without evidence of deterioration.

Verbatim wording from the response

“National and local guidelines emphasise that Clozapine plasma levels are an adjunct to clinical decision-making and should not be used in isolation to guide practice. Clinical assessment of the patient remains the primary determinant of treatment intervention.”

Source location

Response from Essex Partnership University NHS Foundation Trust
Page 3 · response
Published 14 August 2025

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

The maximum licensed sertraline dose meant no dose increase was possible, so no additional prescribing action was considered necessary before the planned review.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In this case, during the consultation with the doctor on the 22nd May 2024 the patient reported that she was taking sertraline ████████ and this was documented in the clinical notes on the day by the doctor. A brief letter was sent to the GP on the same day requesting an increase in dose of Sertraline (████████). The GP responded on the 24th May 2024 advising that the patient was in fact prescribed and reporting use of sertraline 200 mg. This is the maximum licensed dose. This meant there was no role for recommending a further increase, and the appropriate course of action was to review the patient at her next planned appointment which would be on 1st July 2024 to consider alternative treatment options. At this time there were no indications to suggest a need to bring the appointment forward.”

Source location

Response from Essex Partnership University NHS Foundation Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 14 August 2025

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

The clozapine assay showed low plasma levels, not sub-therapeutic prescribing, because the prescribed dose remained unchanged.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The plasma Clozapine assay undertaken on 3rd June 2024 and reported on 7th June demonstrated a markedly low levels of clozapine in the plasma. The result was reviewed by the clinical team. It is important to emphasise that this did not reflect sub-therapeutic prescribing, as the patient’s Clozapine dose had remained unchanged since discharge. A previous Clozapine assay undertaken in 2023, at the same dosage, confirmed a therapeutic plasma level of 0.53.”

Source location

Response from Essex Partnership University NHS Foundation Trust
Page 3 · response
Published 14 August 2025

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.2

  1. 1

    Share the PFD and Court findings with the mental health team for review and reflection.

    Stated by Essex Partnership University NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 14 August 2025.
  2. 2

    Monitor the stated provisions to assess their contribution to patient safety and therapeutic care.

    Stated by Essex Partnership University NHS Foundation TrustStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 14 August 2025.

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

Share the PFD and Court findings with the mental health team for review and reflection.

Verbatim wording from the response

“We would like to assure the Court and the family that this concern has been shared with the mental health team manager and team in order that review and reflection can be carried out in respect of this PFD and the Court findings in this case.”

Source location

Response from Essex Partnership University NHS Foundation Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 14 August 2025

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

Monitor the stated provisions to assess their contribution to patient safety and therapeutic care.

Verbatim wording from the response

“I hope that I have provided some reassurances around the steps that we have taken to address the issues of concern contained within your report. We know there is an acute need to embed and effect change, hence we will monitor the above provisions to ensure these are contributing to our overall aim of keeping patients safe and delivering therapeutic care.”

Source location

Response from Essex Partnership University NHS Foundation Trust
Page 5 · response
Published 14 August 2025

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
2/2

Data last updated 7 September 2026