PFD report

Chentoоri Chanthirakumar · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 5 Feb 2016•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
2

Raised in this report

Recipients
2

Named on the report

Responses found
0

Of 2 recipients

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 raised2

  1. Failure to consider personal meetings when communicating significant academic decisions
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable communication of significant academic decisions and support actions to students
  2. Failure to distinguish receiving and acting on third-party concerns from disclosing patient details
    Part of recurring concern: Unsafe confidentiality and information-sharing arrangements in service mental health care
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 consider personal meetings when communicating significant academic decisions

Wider context from the report

“The decision that Ms Chanthirakumar could re-take the fourth year of her medical degree was seen by the medical school as a helpful decision. The re-take was allowed on the basis of her ill health and was not a criticism of her academic achievement. That she would not be able to take her fourth year examinations in August 2015 came to be regarded as almost self evident, because she had not been able to attend the majority of her recent clinical placement and had been so recently so unwell. However, unbeknown to the university staff, Ms Chanthirakumar appears to have lacked some insight at this point, and was actually hoping not to have to re-take the year, but instead to take her fourth year exams in August 2015. Given the very particular course of very recent events leading up to the medical school’s decision, I wonder whether a personal meeting to discuss matters with her could have been arranged, rather than communicating this by email. A face to face meeting may not necessarily have had any impact on the outcome, but nevertheless I think would be a helpful consideration for the process in the future. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable communication of significant academic decisions and support actions to students.

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 distinguish receiving and acting on third-party concerns from disclosing patient details

Wider context from the report

“After the medical school was alerted to Ms Chanthirakumar’s illness by two of her friends on 17 June 2015, a senior lecturer working in student support services (and, as it happens, herself a general practitioner) rang Globe Ward of Mile End Hospital and spoke to a treating nurse. Her intention in making this call was to deliver information, most specifically to relay concerns that Ms Chanthirakumar was not being wholly open with staff about the extent of her distress. However, such was the ward nurse’s anxiety not to breach patient confidentiality, the conversation was not as meaningful or as productive as it might otherwise have been. It seems to me that nurses and doctors working in mental health particularly, would benefit from a reminder of the difference between absorbing (and, if appropriate, acting upon) concerns raised by a patient’s relatives, friends, tutors etc., and divulging a patient’s private details. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unsafe confidentiality and information-sharing arrangements in service mental health care.

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
0/2

Data last updated 7 September 2026

No official response is included in the current published snapshot.