PFD report

Andrew Mark Largin · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 25 Jan 2023•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
9

Raised in this report

Recipients
1

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 1 recipient

Stated actions
10

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 raised9

  1. Lack of shared understanding of neighbourhood team patient-contact response times
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable coordination of mental health crisis responses
  2. Failure to identify decision makers’ reasoning and shared misconceptions after safety incidents
  3. Delays in neighbourhood team allocation after discharge
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to provide timely and adequate follow-up after discharge
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.5

  1. Action

    Resume regular Neighbourhood Team and Crisis Pathway meetings and produce an action plan to communicate shared referral processes and criteria.

    Stated by East London NHS Foundation TrustStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 30 January 2023.
  2. Action

    Require Serious Incident reviewers to consider integrated working practices between different services during quality assurance.

    Stated by East London NHS Foundation TrustStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 30 January 2023.
  3. Action

    Implement a six-month rolling training programme for Neighbourhood Teams on clinical risk, referral processes, and risk indicators.

    Stated by East London NHS Foundation TrustStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 30 January 2023.

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

  1. Position

    Existing procedures are considered sufficient for neighbourhood team clinicians to refer service users back to the crisis team when necessary.

    Stated by East London 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

Lack of shared understanding of neighbourhood team patient-contact response times

Wider context from the report

“8. The SI review also did not identify that members of the crisis team and the neighbourhood team did not share an understanding of how quickly the neighbourhood team aims to make contact with patients, to assist in their decision making about the correct pathway for a patient. In fact, a member of the neighbourhood team itself gave evidence about the response times that, I was told later, was not correct. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable coordination of mental health crisis responses.

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 decision makers’ reasoning and shared misconceptions after safety incidents

Wider context from the report

“7. Thus, nobody from ELFT found out what the decision maker’s thinking had been, or what misconceptions she might have had that other staff members might share. The former crisis team member who made the decision still works for ELFT. As far as I could ascertain, her decision making concerning Mr Largin has never been discussed with her by ELFT managers. ”

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 neighbourhood team allocation after discharge

Wider context from the report

“1. The ELFT serious incident (SI) review report identified that, although Mr Largin was discharged to the Woodberry Wetlands neighbourhood rehabilitation team from the crisis (i.e. home treatment) team on 25 January 2022, the neighbourhood team did not allocate him to a team member until 3 February. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to provide timely and adequate follow-up after discharge.

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 clarity about neighbourhood team referral back to the crisis team

Wider context from the report

“9. Finally, the operations lead for the neighbourhood team had great difficulty in giving me clear evidence about whether his team would or could refer a patient back to the crisis team if they felt the circumstances warranted. He demonstrated a lack of clarity on the point that I found very concerning. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable crisis-team access 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 to document hot debriefs in notes or medical records

Wider context from the report

“6. It is believed, I was told, that there was a hot de-brief after Mr Largin’s death. However, no notes were made of that and no entry was made on Mr Largin’s medical record. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

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

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 crisis team to reassess patients and reopen crisis-team cases when clinically indicated

Wider context from the report

“2. The report also identified that, despite receiving an email from the Homerton University Hospital community rehabilitation team on 2 February, saying that Mr Largin had been seen on 1 February and was still very depressed, the crisis team failed to reassess him or to re-open his case to the crisis team, but instead referred the community team to the neighbourhood team. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to provide timely continuing mental health reviews and follow-up; 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 ELFT managers to discuss crisis-team decision making with the decision maker

Wider context from the report

“7. Thus, nobody from ELFT found out what the decision maker’s thinking had been, or what misconceptions she might have had that other staff members might share. The former crisis team member who made the decision still works for ELFT. As far as I could ascertain, her decision making concerning Mr Largin has never been discussed with her by ELFT managers. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable supervisory review of mental-health clinical decisions.

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 record reasons for crisis-team pathway decisions

Wider context from the report

“3. However, the SI report did not identify that the crisis team member who made the decision on 2 February simply to advise that Mr Largin should be dealt with by the neighbourhood team failed to record any reasons for her decision. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to reliably document the rationale for consequential decisions; Incomplete, inaccurate or unavailable clinical and care records.

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 interview relevant decision makers and provide feedback

Wider context from the report

“4. The SI reviewer giving evidence in court said that the SI reviewing team had not even spoken to that crisis team member as part of their investigation, let alone fed back to her. 5. He said they did not at the time realise that she still worked for ELFT, though he accepted that it would have been an extremely straightforward matter to find out. The crisis team member’s manager gave evidence that she thought the relevant decision maker had left the team before Mr Largin’s death, so between 3 and 6 February 2022. When I invited that manager to make a call while the inquest was ongoing to check, she later told me that the team member had not left the crisis team until 29 April 2022. ”

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 respondent action was interpreted

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

PFD Monitor interpretation

Resume regular Neighbourhood Team and Crisis Pathway meetings and produce an action plan to communicate shared referral processes and criteria.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Additionally, the Deputy Borough Director for City and Hackney has confirmed that the Neighbourhood Teams and Crisis Pathway teams (which includes HTT) are resuming their regular pathways meeting on 7 April 2023. They will produce an action plan around communicating a shared understanding of referral process and criteria.”

Source location

Response from East London NHS Foundation Trust
Page 4 · response
Published 30 January 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

Require Serious Incident reviewers to consider integrated working practices between different services during quality assurance.

Verbatim wording from the response

“I have considered that the Trust SI review failed to highlight that there was no shared understanding between the HTT and the WWNT about referral timelines and I agree that this should have been explored.”

Source location

Response from East London NHS Foundation Trust
Page 4 · response
Published 30 January 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

Implement a six-month rolling training programme for Neighbourhood Teams on clinical risk, referral processes, and risk indicators.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Further, the Trust is implementing a training programme for all Neighbourhood Teams to highlight issues of clinical risk when triaging incoming referrals. This programme, due to start on 22 March 2023, will run monthly for 6 months in a rolling fashion. Its aim is to train staff and maintain a constant discussion in how to think about complex issues of risk for patients referred to the Neighbourhood Teams, whether that is from Crisis Pathway Teams (which include HTT), GPs, or elsewhere. It will use didactic teaching, role play with actors, sample cases, discussion, and reflection, and will be facilitated by an experienced Consultant Psychiatrist, as well as the Associate Clinical Director for the Neighbourhood Teams. An important part of this training will be to improve understanding of referrals and risk signifiers from the Crisis Team to the Neighbourhood Team.”

Source location

Response from East London NHS Foundation Trust
Page 5 · response
Published 30 January 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 how learning from incidents is investigated and recorded through implementation of the Patient Safety Incident Response Framework.

Verbatim wording from the response

“5. HOT DE-BRIEF RECORD”

Source location

Response from East London NHS Foundation Trust
Page 4 · response
Published 30 January 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

Amend the Serious Incident reviewer responsibilities document to require relevant staff to be contacted through Human Resources for review involvement.

Verbatim wording from the response

“I was troubled that the Trust’s SI review did not highlight that the relevant crisis team member did not record their rationale explaining why Mr Largin should remain with WWNT. I asked the Trust’s Associate Director of Governance and Risk to explore this further.”

Source location

Response from East London NHS Foundation Trust
Page 3 · response
Published 30 January 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

Existing procedures are considered sufficient for neighbourhood team clinicians to refer service users back to the crisis team when necessary.

Verbatim wording from the response

“7. Referral to Crisis Team”

Source location

Response from East London NHS Foundation Trust
Page 5 · response
Published 30 January 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

Hot debriefs are not recorded in clinical notes because they are informal staff-support processes; learning is captured through 48-hour and serious incident reports.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Following serious incidents such as violence, aggression or death, clinical teams at the Trust hold a debrief as soon after the incident as is practicable. The debrief is usually facilitated by the manager or the team psychologist to explore thoughts and feelings around the incident, the impact on staff, the service user and the team. These incidents are not documented in the clinical notes as it is focused on initial staff reactions and is not a formal process to look at lessons learned.”

Source location

Response from East London NHS Foundation Trust
Page 4 · response
Published 30 January 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.5

  1. 1

    Divide the Home Treatment Team into two service-user groups with smaller allocated staff groups to improve continuity and referral decision-making.

    Stated by East London NHS Foundation TrustStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 30 January 2023.
  2. 2

    Provide Home Treatment Team training on documenting what is being implemented, why it is being implemented, and how it is being implemented.

    Stated by East London NHS Foundation TrustStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 30 January 2023.
  3. 3

    Require Neighbourhood Team staff to attend the next Trust Legal Affairs training on explaining clinical procedures to the Coroner.

    Stated by East London NHS Foundation TrustStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 30 January 2023.
  4. 4

    Update the Neighbourhood Rehabilitation Team policy to require risk assessment of patients with the most serious mental health concerns within seven days of referral.

    Stated by East London NHS Foundation TrustStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 30 January 2023.
  5. 5

    Inform staff to contact Human Resources when employment dates are ambiguous during investigations into service users’ care.

    Stated by East London NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 30 January 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

Divide the Home Treatment Team into two service-user groups with smaller allocated staff groups to improve continuity and referral decision-making.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The City and Hackney Directorate is currently in the process of transforming the Crisis Pathway. Consequently, the HTT is presently being divided into two discrete sub-groups. A smaller number of staff will be allocated to a specific group of service users, with the goal of ensuring they have better knowledge of the service users individual needs. It is anticipated that this will greatly enhance continuity of care and ensure that the MDTs have all information when making decisions about appropriate referrals.”

Source location

Response from East London NHS Foundation Trust
Page 3 · response
Published 30 January 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

Provide Home Treatment Team training on documenting what is being implemented, why it is being implemented, and how it is being implemented.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Additionally, the Deputy Borough Director for City and Hackney has reassured me that training will be provided to all HTT staff around documenting the following three principles of care:”

Source location

Response from East London NHS Foundation Trust
Page 3 · response
Published 30 January 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

Require Neighbourhood Team staff to attend the next Trust Legal Affairs training on explaining clinical procedures to the Coroner.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The Deputy Borough Director has also explained to WWNT staff members that they must be able to clearly explain Trust procedures to the Coroner as part of their clinical roles. To facilitate this, they will all be required to attend the next Coroner’s Training provided by the Trust’s Legal Affairs Team which is currently being planned.”

Source location

Response from East London NHS Foundation Trust
Page 5 · response
Published 30 January 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

Update the Neighbourhood Rehabilitation Team policy to require risk assessment of patients with the most serious mental health concerns within seven days of referral.

Verbatim wording from the response

“However, I agree that this may result in a care gap in some circumstances. With this in mind the WWNT are updating their Operational Policy to ensure that patients with the most serious mental health concerns are risk assessed within 7 days of referral to the WWNT.”

Source location

Response from East London NHS Foundation Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 30 January 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

Inform staff to contact Human Resources when employment dates are ambiguous during investigations into service users’ care.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Crisis Team Manager”

Source location

Response from East London NHS Foundation Trust
Page 4 · response
Published 30 January 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