Simon Moss · Prevention of Future Deaths report

On 19 February 2024 the court commenced an investigation into the death of Simon Moss, 49. The investigation concluded at the end of the inquest on 16 December 2025. The conclusion of the inquest was that of suicide leading to a medical cause of death of multiple injuries. Interested Persons were invited to make submissions on a regulation 28 report following the Christmas break.

Mr Moss was discovered on the roof of the family home on the morning of 14 February 2024. He had recently developed paranoid thinking and was extremely anxious. It was apparent that he was considering suicide. Emergency Services attended. London Ambulance Service made extensive notes of the concerns of his wife, behaviour, inconsistencies in his account, and indications that he was not being open about this thinking. These were recorded in an Electronic Patient Care Record (“EPCR”).

Mr Moss was taken to hospital and triaged for review by the mental health liaison team. The triage nurse made a brief referral note, which was a distillation of the triage handover from the ambulance crew, itself a distillation of their EPRC.

The mental health assessment was conducted without reference to the information set out in the EPCR, and relied on the triage referral note and the evidence provided by Mr Moss. He denied suicidal ideation, cited protective factors, etc. He denied having contacted details for his wife. These contact details were recorded in the EPCR and ordinarily she would have been called as part of the assessment.

Mr Moss was subsequently discharged later that morning. The evidence was that had his wife been called she would have provided collateral information to mental health staff on the extent of his risk to self and would have attended to collect him had she been told of his discharge (she was not).

Mr Moss immediately went to a nearby building of height and deliberately fell to his death that same day (14 February 2024).

The EPRC contained a detailed account of the reasons for which the ambulance paramedics considered the patient at risk to self. It provided a record of details and issues that would have been important to explore in a mental health assessment, including indicators that the patient’s own account could not be relied on.

However, the evidence was that in his subsequent mental health assessment only the triage referral note made by the triage nurse in A&E was relied on, together with the patient’s account. That triage note was necessarily brief and so the detail in the EPCR was lost. Furthermore, the Manchester Triage System only provided the option of “suicidal ideation” or “self-harm” whereas there was evidence in the EPCR of planning and intent.

Further, neither the referral, nor broader medical records contained the contact information of his wife who had called the emergency services. Her mobile number was on the EPCR. Trust policy was that she should have been called as part of his assessment. She was not as the patient would not disclose her number and the EPRC was not consulted.

The evidence was that across several experienced mental health nurses present – who had worked across many roles and mental health trusts – none knew of, or thought to look for the EPCR for further collateral or to seek next of kin details through this or other means. The EPCR was accessible on systems available to the mental health nurse however.

While remedied at the relevant trust, given the evidence of broader practice among mental health nurses I am concerned that there remains a gap in training, practice, policy and/or procedural frameworks for mental health assessments leading to an important source of significant information (EPCR narrative and family contact details) not being known of or used, which could otherwise:

(a) inform an accurate evaluation of the risk to self of patients presenting with mental health illness via ambulance services (i.e. this was not an isolated incident of the EPCR not being known of or used by the specific mental health nurse making the assessment) by (i) providing an independent and detailed account of recent patient history and (ii) contact details for family/friends/individuals who can provide further collateral on their recent presentation, and

(b) allow better mitigation of residual risks at the point of discharge (e.g. through engagement with family and ensuring the patient is collected).

I am concerned that this may undermine the evaluation and mitigation of risk in patients presenting with potential risk-to-self and so represents a risk of future deaths.