PFD report

Alison BINYON · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 11 Nov 2024•Derby and Derbyshire

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
4

Raised in this report

Recipients
1

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 1 recipient

Stated actions
4

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 raised4

  1. Failure to manage communication with service users about moving accommodation carefully and accurately
  2. Lack of clear communication to community supporters about the moving-accommodation process
  3. Failure to conduct internal reviews following deaths
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to learn from deaths through systematic review
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.3

  1. Action

    Create and introduce a visual accommodation-process flowchart showing steps, timescales, MDT involvement and information-sharing responsibilities.

    Stated by Leicestershire County CouncilStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 11 November 2024.
  2. Action

    Issue staff guidance through the weekly newsletter on reassuring individuals, checking understanding, sharing information, managing anxiety and considering move timescales.

    Stated by Leicestershire County CouncilStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 11 November 2024.
  3. Action

    Develop and implement a procedure requiring Adult Social Care managers to conduct internal reviews after unexpected deaths and identify learning or required policy changes.

    Stated by Leicestershire County CouncilStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 11 November 2024.

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 manage communication with service users about moving accommodation carefully and accurately

Wider context from the report

“The court heard evidence from the Adult Social Care Team that communication with service users around moving accommodation needs to be managed carefully as false assurances can undermine trust between the service user and the supporting team. The court further heard that uncertainty can be a potential stressor or trigger for self-harm for those with a diagnosis of Emotionally Unstable Personality Disorder. There is an inherent uncertainty in the timescales for moving as it depends on the availability of suitable accommodation and the situation therefore requires careful management and communication. Whilst consideration had been given to conversations with the service user in this situation, the court heard evidence from those supporting Alison (including community mental health nurses) that they were unclear on the stage the process had reached, the specific steps of the process and the likely timescales involved. This affected the type of support they could provide. There was a lack of evidence of a specific approach or policy addressing how the process can be clearly communicated to those supporting service users in the community. Further, no internal review was carried out at Leicestershire County Council following Alison's death. If such reviews are not conducted this could lead to inadequate learning from deaths which creates a risk of further deaths. ”

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

Lack of clear communication to community supporters about the moving-accommodation process

Wider context from the report

“The court heard evidence from the Adult Social Care Team that communication with service users around moving accommodation needs to be managed carefully as false assurances can undermine trust between the service user and the supporting team. The court further heard that uncertainty can be a potential stressor or trigger for self-harm for those with a diagnosis of Emotionally Unstable Personality Disorder. There is an inherent uncertainty in the timescales for moving as it depends on the availability of suitable accommodation and the situation therefore requires careful management and communication. Whilst consideration had been given to conversations with the service user in this situation, the court heard evidence from those supporting Alison (including community mental health nurses) that they were unclear on the stage the process had reached, the specific steps of the process and the likely timescales involved. This affected the type of support they could provide. There was a lack of evidence of a specific approach or policy addressing how the process can be clearly communicated to those supporting service users in the community. Further, no internal review was carried out at Leicestershire County Council following Alison's death. If such reviews are not conducted this could lead to inadequate learning from deaths which creates a risk of further deaths. ”

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 conduct internal reviews following deaths

Wider context from the report

“The court heard evidence from the Adult Social Care Team that communication with service users around moving accommodation needs to be managed carefully as false assurances can undermine trust between the service user and the supporting team. The court further heard that uncertainty can be a potential stressor or trigger for self-harm for those with a diagnosis of Emotionally Unstable Personality Disorder. There is an inherent uncertainty in the timescales for moving as it depends on the availability of suitable accommodation and the situation therefore requires careful management and communication. Whilst consideration had been given to conversations with the service user in this situation, the court heard evidence from those supporting Alison (including community mental health nurses) that they were unclear on the stage the process had reached, the specific steps of the process and the likely timescales involved. This affected the type of support they could provide. There was a lack of evidence of a specific approach or policy addressing how the process can be clearly communicated to those supporting service users in the community. Further, no internal review was carried out at Leicestershire County Council following Alison's death. If such reviews are not conducted this could lead to inadequate learning from deaths which creates a risk of further deaths. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to learn from deaths through systematic review.

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

Uncertainty in moving-accommodation timescales creating a potential self-harm trigger

Wider context from the report

“The court heard evidence from the Adult Social Care Team that communication with service users around moving accommodation needs to be managed carefully as false assurances can undermine trust between the service user and the supporting team. The court further heard that uncertainty can be a potential stressor or trigger for self-harm for those with a diagnosis of Emotionally Unstable Personality Disorder. There is an inherent uncertainty in the timescales for moving as it depends on the availability of suitable accommodation and the situation therefore requires careful management and communication. Whilst consideration had been given to conversations with the service user in this situation, the court heard evidence from those supporting Alison (including community mental health nurses) that they were unclear on the stage the process had reached, the specific steps of the process and the likely timescales involved. This affected the type of support they could provide. There was a lack of evidence of a specific approach or policy addressing how the process can be clearly communicated to those supporting service users in the community. Further, no internal review was carried out at Leicestershire County Council following Alison's death. If such reviews are not conducted this could lead to inadequate learning from deaths which creates a risk of further deaths. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

No recurring-concern membership is currently published.

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

Create and introduce a visual accommodation-process flowchart showing steps, timescales, MDT involvement and information-sharing responsibilities.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The Adult Social Care team have carefully considered this matter and reviewed my department’s current processes and policies around communication with individuals and other agencies supporting accommodation moves proposed and actual. As a result, the team are improving our current processes by creating a visual flowchart of the accommodation process from beginning to end so that all those involved can clearly see what the next steps are and how close the individual is to any proposed move. Within the flow chart, Adult Social Care workers will be reminded that they must include the MDT working with the individual concerned (including care providers and Community Mental Health Teams) so that accurate information can be shared regarding future plans, and appropriate actions taken.”

Source location

Response from Leicestershire County Council
Page 2 · response
Published 11 November 2024

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

Issue staff guidance through the weekly newsletter on reassuring individuals, checking understanding, sharing information, managing anxiety and considering move timescales.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The Adult Social Care Workers will be provided with communication from the department within our weekly internal newsletter, which directs them to our key goal: that staff are aware of the need to reassure individuals at each stage of the process, check for clarification of understanding, and ensure that providers and other professionals are made aware of any raised anxiety levels. The newsletter will also direct staff to be person-centred when considering the date or timescales of a move and to avoid any periods of time where an individual may already be experiencing stress or anxiety. This information will be included in the newsletter circulated week commencing 13th January 2025.”

Source location

Response from Leicestershire County Council
Page 2 · response
Published 11 November 2024

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 and implement a procedure requiring Adult Social Care managers to conduct internal reviews after unexpected deaths and identify learning or required policy changes.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Nevertheless, in light of this concern being raised in the RPRD, I have considered this matter and consultation has occurred within the department around the internal review process for when an unexpected death occurs.”

Source location

Response from Leicestershire County Council
Page 3 · response
Published 11 November 2024

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.1

  1. 1

    Remind staff to document delegated safeguarding-enquiry responsibilities in strategy discussions and meetings.

    Stated by Leicestershire County CouncilStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 11 November 2024.

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

Remind staff to document delegated safeguarding-enquiry responsibilities in strategy discussions and meetings.

Verbatim wording from the response

“There are existing policies and procedures already in place in line with the statutory duties on local authorities to make safeguarding adults enquiries under s42 of the Care Act 2014 including responding to Safeguarding Alerts and undertaking Safeguarding Enquiries. As explained during the inquest, in Alison’s case, Derbyshire County Council’s adult social care department were the lead authority for the s42 enquiry. However, we acknowledge that there is a need to communicate clarity around roles and responsibilities for Leicestershire County Council as the commissioning authority where an individual is living outside of this authority’s geographical area, as was the case here. Furthermore, staff have been reminded that strategy discussions and meetings should clearly detail any elements of a Safeguarding Enquiry that are being delegated by the host authority to any other parties.”

Source location

Response from Leicestershire County Council
Page 3 · response
Published 11 November 2024

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