PFD report

John Gerard JONES · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 5 Sep 2016•Avon

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
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 raised2

  1. Delays in notifying GPs of Crisis Team discharge
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable crisis team care provisionPart of recurring concern: Unreliable crisis-team access and communicationPart of recurring concern: Unreliable multi-agency communication procedures
  2. Lack of clear Crisis Team training, structural or protocol provision for discharge communication
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable crisis team care provisionPart of recurring concern: Unreliable crisis-team access and communication
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

Delays in notifying GPs of Crisis Team discharge

Wider context from the report

“(1) Mr Jones was initially referred to the Crisis Team because his GP believed that Mr Jones’ suicide risk could not be safely managed within the community. (2) When Mr Jones was in due course discharged from the Crisis Team's care it was approximately a week before his GP was notified of that discharge. That notification was received by fax. (3) This meant that during the important period immediately after discharge from the Crisis Team's care there was a period of approximately a week when Mr Jones was (notionally) back under the care of his GP, but his GP was unaware that this was the case: this meant that Mr Jones would have had no support within the community during this period aside from a single follow up / post-discharge call from the Crisis team. (4) In evidence the GP indicated that it would have been helpful to have been contacted by telephone at the time of Mr Jones’ discharge and notified of it. (5) It did not appear to me that there was any clear provision within the Crisis Team’s training / structure / protocols for the sort of communication envisaged by Mr Jones’ GP. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable crisis team care provision; Unreliable crisis-team access and communication; Unreliable multi-agency communication procedures.

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 clear Crisis Team training, structural or protocol provision for discharge communication

Wider context from the report

“(1) Mr Jones was initially referred to the Crisis Team because his GP believed that Mr Jones’ suicide risk could not be safely managed within the community. (2) When Mr Jones was in due course discharged from the Crisis Team's care it was approximately a week before his GP was notified of that discharge. That notification was received by fax. (3) This meant that during the important period immediately after discharge from the Crisis Team's care there was a period of approximately a week when Mr Jones was (notionally) back under the care of his GP, but his GP was unaware that this was the case: this meant that Mr Jones would have had no support within the community during this period aside from a single follow up / post-discharge call from the Crisis team. (4) In evidence the GP indicated that it would have been helpful to have been contacted by telephone at the time of Mr Jones’ discharge and notified of it. (5) It did not appear to me that there was any clear provision within the Crisis Team’s training / structure / protocols for the sort of communication envisaged by Mr Jones’ GP. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable crisis team care provision; Unreliable crisis-team access and communication.

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.