PFD report

Somtera Bibi · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 2 May 2026•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
6

Raised in this report

Recipients
1

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 1 recipient

Stated actions
11

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 raised6

  1. Lack of a relapse prevention or risk management plan developed with the patient and family members
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to involve families and carers in mental health care planning and decisionsPart of recurring concern: Failure to reliably develop and review risk-reduction plans
  2. Lack of home-environment risk assessment and practical safety advice for the family
  3. Failure to involve safeguarding or social care services to protect vulnerable family members
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.7

  1. Action

    Review and strengthen risk assessment and management processes, including clinical-recording-system changes and staff training.

    Stated by East London NHS Foundation TrustStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 10 July 2026.
  2. Action

    Provide staff guidance and regular advice to service users and carers on safeguarding, community safety and police routes for mitigating identified risks.

    Stated by East London NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 10 July 2026.
  3. Action

    Train 60 Trust-wide Domestic Abuse Ambassadors in DASH assessment and provide quarterly supervision through Named Professionals.

    Stated by East London NHS Foundation TrustStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 10 July 2026.

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

  1. Position

    Family and community safety risks should be addressed through safeguarding, community safety pathways or police liaison rather than direct health responses.

    Stated by East London NHS Foundation TrustRedirects responsibilityThe respondent said that another organisation was responsible for deciding or taking action.

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 a relapse prevention or risk management plan developed with the patient and family members

Wider context from the report

“The patient/perpetrator was identified as being a risk to others when unwell. His risk assessment identified domestic abuse; sexual abuse; possession/preoccupation with weapons; threats to kill family members. The risk assessment noted a prior conviction for possession of a knife and threatening behaviour. Despite identifying the above risks over a period of many years, there was no relapse prevention plan; family safety plan or significant attempts to safeguard the family. Specifically: (i) There was no adequate evidence of a response to multiple attempts by the police to formulate a safety plan for the family (ii) No advice was sought from the forensic psychiatric team in light of the previous conviction; nature of risk and assault on his mother in October 2020 (iii) No DASH risk assessment was completed or attempted, following incidents where family were harmed or threatened (iv) No attempts to involve the safeguarding or social care team to protect vulnerable family members (v) No relapse prevention plan/risk management plan, drawn up with the input of the patient and family members (vi) There was no risk assessment within the home environment with practical advice to the family on how to keep safe in the event of another violent relapse ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to involve families and carers in mental health care planning and decisions; Failure to reliably develop and review risk-reduction plans.

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 home-environment risk assessment and practical safety advice for the family

Wider context from the report

“The patient/perpetrator was identified as being a risk to others when unwell. His risk assessment identified domestic abuse; sexual abuse; possession/preoccupation with weapons; threats to kill family members. The risk assessment noted a prior conviction for possession of a knife and threatening behaviour. Despite identifying the above risks over a period of many years, there was no relapse prevention plan; family safety plan or significant attempts to safeguard the family. Specifically: (i) There was no adequate evidence of a response to multiple attempts by the police to formulate a safety plan for the family (ii) No advice was sought from the forensic psychiatric team in light of the previous conviction; nature of risk and assault on his mother in October 2020 (iii) No DASH risk assessment was completed or attempted, following incidents where family were harmed or threatened (iv) No attempts to involve the safeguarding or social care team to protect vulnerable family members (v) No relapse prevention plan/risk management plan, drawn up with the input of the patient and family members (vi) There was no risk assessment within the home environment with practical advice to the family on how to keep safe in the event of another violent relapse ”

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

Failure to involve safeguarding or social care services to protect vulnerable family members

Wider context from the report

“The patient/perpetrator was identified as being a risk to others when unwell. His risk assessment identified domestic abuse; sexual abuse; possession/preoccupation with weapons; threats to kill family members. The risk assessment noted a prior conviction for possession of a knife and threatening behaviour. Despite identifying the above risks over a period of many years, there was no relapse prevention plan; family safety plan or significant attempts to safeguard the family. Specifically: (i) There was no adequate evidence of a response to multiple attempts by the police to formulate a safety plan for the family (ii) No advice was sought from the forensic psychiatric team in light of the previous conviction; nature of risk and assault on his mother in October 2020 (iii) No DASH risk assessment was completed or attempted, following incidents where family were harmed or threatened (iv) No attempts to involve the safeguarding or social care team to protect vulnerable family members (v) No relapse prevention plan/risk management plan, drawn up with the input of the patient and family members (vi) There was no risk assessment within the home environment with practical advice to the family on how to keep safe in the event of another violent relapse ”

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

Failure to complete or attempt a DASH risk assessment

Wider context from the report

“The patient/perpetrator was identified as being a risk to others when unwell. His risk assessment identified domestic abuse; sexual abuse; possession/preoccupation with weapons; threats to kill family members. The risk assessment noted a prior conviction for possession of a knife and threatening behaviour. Despite identifying the above risks over a period of many years, there was no relapse prevention plan; family safety plan or significant attempts to safeguard the family. Specifically: (i) There was no adequate evidence of a response to multiple attempts by the police to formulate a safety plan for the family (ii) No advice was sought from the forensic psychiatric team in light of the previous conviction; nature of risk and assault on his mother in October 2020 (iii) No DASH risk assessment was completed or attempted, following incidents where family were harmed or threatened (iv) No attempts to involve the safeguarding or social care team to protect vulnerable family members (v) No relapse prevention plan/risk management plan, drawn up with the input of the patient and family members (vi) There was no risk assessment within the home environment with practical advice to the family on how to keep safe in the event of another violent relapse ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Domestic abuse risk assessment is unreliable.

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 seek forensic psychiatric advice on identified violence risks

Wider context from the report

“The patient/perpetrator was identified as being a risk to others when unwell. His risk assessment identified domestic abuse; sexual abuse; possession/preoccupation with weapons; threats to kill family members. The risk assessment noted a prior conviction for possession of a knife and threatening behaviour. Despite identifying the above risks over a period of many years, there was no relapse prevention plan; family safety plan or significant attempts to safeguard the family. Specifically: (i) There was no adequate evidence of a response to multiple attempts by the police to formulate a safety plan for the family (ii) No advice was sought from the forensic psychiatric team in light of the previous conviction; nature of risk and assault on his mother in October 2020 (iii) No DASH risk assessment was completed or attempted, following incidents where family were harmed or threatened (iv) No attempts to involve the safeguarding or social care team to protect vulnerable family members (v) No relapse prevention plan/risk management plan, drawn up with the input of the patient and family members (vi) There was no risk assessment within the home environment with practical advice to the family on how to keep safe in the event of another violent relapse ”

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

Failure to respond adequately to attempts to formulate a family safety plan

Wider context from the report

“The patient/perpetrator was identified as being a risk to others when unwell. His risk assessment identified domestic abuse; sexual abuse; possession/preoccupation with weapons; threats to kill family members. The risk assessment noted a prior conviction for possession of a knife and threatening behaviour. Despite identifying the above risks over a period of many years, there was no relapse prevention plan; family safety plan or significant attempts to safeguard the family. Specifically: (i) There was no adequate evidence of a response to multiple attempts by the police to formulate a safety plan for the family (ii) No advice was sought from the forensic psychiatric team in light of the previous conviction; nature of risk and assault on his mother in October 2020 (iii) No DASH risk assessment was completed or attempted, following incidents where family were harmed or threatened (iv) No attempts to involve the safeguarding or social care team to protect vulnerable family members (v) No relapse prevention plan/risk management plan, drawn up with the input of the patient and family members (vi) There was no risk assessment within the home environment with practical advice to the family on how to keep safe in the event of another violent relapse ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to involve families and carers in safety-critical care decisions.

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

Review and strengthen risk assessment and management processes, including clinical-recording-system changes and staff training.

Verbatim wording from the response

“16. The Trust has a large piece of work underway reviewing and strengthening risk assessment and management processes. This will involve changes to our clinical recording system as well as staff training. This is intended to create processes that are more focused on risk formulation, based on current factors and historical risk. For clarity, these processes would always be expected to involve the service user and also family/carers where this is relevant.”

Source location

Response from East London Foundation NHS Trust
Page 3 · response
Published 10 July 2026

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 staff guidance and regular advice to service users and carers on safeguarding, community safety and police routes for mitigating identified risks.

Verbatim wording from the response

“19. In relation to the specific risks relating to this case, the relevant actions are those around risk formulation in terms of identifying risks (as per concern 5). In terms of mitigating identified risks, these should flow from the risk assessment and include the home environment where relevant. In relation to family or carer safety, the appropriate actions will predominantly relate to either safeguarding processes (DASH assessment/ MARAC referral etc) or community safety/police liaison processes. Learning for these is covered in relation to concerns 1, 3 and 4 as per the learning statements.”

Source location

Response from East London Foundation NHS Trust
Page 3 · response
Published 10 July 2026

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

Train 60 Trust-wide Domestic Abuse Ambassadors in DASH assessment and provide quarterly supervision through Named Professionals.

Verbatim wording from the response

“12. Throughout May and June 2026, the Corporate Safeguarding Team has been delivering training for 60 Trust-wide Domestic Abuse Ambassadors. The training sessions aim to upskill operational staff members to act as a local point of expertise on Domestic Abuse best practice, with Named Professionals as the next point of contact for staffing focus. The training focuses on DASH risk assessment as the tool for assessment. All Domestic Abuse Ambassadors will be provided with quarterly supervision delivered by Named Professionals.”

Source location

Response from East London Foundation NHS Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 10 July 2026

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

Reaffirm and circulate the process for obtaining forensic consultation, including direct referral routes.

Verbatim wording from the response

“8. The process for seeking forensic consultation has been re-affirmed and circulated. Very simply, referrals can be made directly to a forensic colleague via their secretary. Where the threshold for review or consultation is met, the forensic consultant will take this forward.”

Source location

Response from East London Foundation NHS Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 10 July 2026

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 safeguarding case advice and regular safeguarding supervision, including enhanced inpatient safeguarding huddles and supervision.

Verbatim wording from the response

“15. Named Professionals for Safeguarding provide case advice to clinicians when requested. Quarterly Safeguarding Supervision is delivered across the Trust. Inpatient mental health services have a fortnightly huddle and 4 weekly supervision with the Corporate Safeguarding Team.”

Source location

Response from East London Foundation NHS Trust
Page 3 · response
Published 10 July 2026

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

Integrate safeguarding work with Local Authority colleagues through joint case-review and planning forums.

Verbatim wording from the response

“14. Since this tragic incident, the Trust’s Newham Mental Health Service has made great efforts to integrate our safeguarding work with Local Authority colleagues through the introduction and bolstering of joint forums where cases are reviewed and plans are agreed.”

Source location

Response from East London Foundation NHS Trust
Page 3 · response
Published 10 July 2026

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

Circulate Trust-wide expectations for contacting and communicating with police.

Verbatim wording from the response

“7. On 21 April 2026 communication was circulated Trust-wide including expectations around contacting the police.”

Source location

Response from East London Foundation NHS Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 10 July 2026

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

Family and community safety risks should be addressed through safeguarding, community safety pathways or police liaison rather than direct health responses.

Verbatim wording from the response

“19. In relation to the specific risks relating to this case, the relevant actions are those around risk formulation in terms of identifying risks (as per concern 5). In terms of mitigating identified risks, these should flow from the risk assessment and include the home environment where relevant. In relation to family or carer safety, the appropriate actions will predominantly relate to either safeguarding processes (DASH assessment/ MARAC referral etc) or community safety/police liaison processes. Learning for these is covered in relation to concerns 1, 3 and 4 as per the learning statements.”

Source location

Response from East London Foundation NHS Trust
Page 3 · response
Published 10 July 2026

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

Hazard-management advice is not practical or robust for long-term risk management or acutely dangerous situations.

Verbatim wording from the response

“20. Other direct health based responses would be focused on treating the underlying mental health condition where this is relevant, as did happen in this case. The Trust might support hazard management advice (eg: locking away sharps) as a temporary measure, perhaps in the context of awaiting court approval for a MHA assessment. However, this would not be practical or robust for either a long-term approach or to manage an acutely dangerous situation. Safeguarding/Community Safety approaches or involving the police would be the approved and expected routes respectively. These are clearly outlined to staff and feature prominently in regular advice to both service users and carers respectively.”

Source location

Response from East London Foundation NHS Trust
Page 3 · response
Published 10 July 2026

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.4

  1. 1

    Disseminate Trust-wide learning from domestic homicide and abuse-related death reviews through newsletters, including DASH assessment learning.

    Stated by East London NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 10 July 2026.
  2. 2

    Implement the multi-year Triangle of Care programme, beginning with baseline assessment and local action plans for inpatient and crisis services.

    Stated by East London NHS Foundation TrustStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 10 July 2026.
  3. 3

    Convene a multi-area workshop to review forensic and general adult mental health liaison and co-working arrangements.

    Stated by East London NHS Foundation TrustStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 10 July 2026.
  4. 4

    Circulate access routes for the FIND forensic consultation team to relevant staff.

    Stated by East London NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 10 July 2026.

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 Trust-wide learning from domestic homicide and abuse-related death reviews through newsletters, including DASH assessment learning.

Verbatim wording from the response

“13. In addition, the Corporate Safeguarding team shares Trust-wide learning from DHR (Domestic Homicide Review)/DARDs (Domestic Abuse Related Death Review) by newsletter which identifies the use of the DASH as learning from deaths.”

Source location

Response from East London Foundation NHS Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 10 July 2026

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 the multi-year Triangle of Care programme, beginning with baseline assessment and local action plans for inpatient and crisis services.

Verbatim wording from the response

“17. The Trust is also working to improve our work with carers which will be important in supporting carers where issues of risk are relevant. This will be a multi-year programme focused on the “Triangle of Care”, in association with the Carer’s Trust. For Year 1 (2026), our focus will be on establishing a clear baseline across Mental Health Inpatient and Crisis Services through the Triangle of Care self-assessment process, identifying areas of good practice and opportunities for improvement, and supporting directorates to develop local action plans.”

Source location

Response from East London Foundation NHS Trust
Page 3 · response
Published 10 July 2026

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

Convene a multi-area workshop to review forensic and general adult mental health liaison and co-working arrangements.

Verbatim wording from the response

“10. The Trust is also convening a workshop on 14 July 2026 to review co-working and liaison arrangements between forensic and general adult mental health services to ensure good practice is shared, including to review which kinds of cases are appropriate to discuss. This will include representatives from all Trust geographical areas and all areas within North East London.”

Source location

Response from East London Foundation NHS Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 10 July 2026

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

Circulate access routes for the FIND forensic consultation team to relevant staff.

Verbatim wording from the response

“9. In 2023 the NE London integrated care board launched the FIND (Forensic Intellectual and Neurodevelopmental Disabilities) team. This would now be an additional consultative resource to support NE London teams working with service users with Learning Disability where there was a concern around potential contact with criminal justice services. Routes to access this resource has been circulated amongst staff.”

Source location

Response from East London Foundation NHS Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 10 July 2026

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