PFD report

Alistair Patrick McDonald · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 29 Jul 2019•Manchester City

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
8

Raised in this report

Recipients
1

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 1 recipient

Stated actions
4

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 raised8

  1. Failure to account for partial disclosure of symptomology and history
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to investigate concerning presentations beyond initial appearance and self-reportPart of recurring concern: Incomplete clinical history-taking
  2. Lack of a specific action plan for failed communication with the patient or family
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to establish effective plans to address identified safety concerns
  3. Lack of a specific plan for unsuccessful referrals to other services
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.1

  1. Action

    Review all Choice assessments in a weekly multidisciplinary team meeting to support shared outcome decisions.

    Stated by Herefordshire and Worcestershire Health and Care NHS TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 6 September 2019.

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.7

  1. Position

    The GP is responsible for initial contact and referral to more specialist services, rather than the CAMHS service obtaining detailed feedback.

    Stated by Herefordshire and Worcestershire Health and Care NHS 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

Failure to account for partial disclosure of symptomology and history

Wider context from the report

“1. Whether or not the specific deliberate self-harm or suicidal ideation criteria need to be reviewed and redrafted 2. The lack of a specific plan for referrals to other services which proved unsuccessful 3. The opportunity to take a broader view of the whole position and have an assessment by an experienced psychiatrist. 4. Ensuring a proper line of communication with the patient and the patient’s family to ensure appropriate reviews if the patient’s mental state deteriorates 5. Obtaining detailed feedback from services the patient is referred to, to check on attendance and progress 6. Recognising that some patients will only make partial disclosure of their true symptomology and history. 7. Loss of opportunity to see the bigger picture, which was of an academically bright student but who nonetheless was disclosing physical self-harm and suicidal intent, as well as an inability to deal with stress or pressure; and have a plan to review and deal with this 8. Ensuring if there were any failed communications with the patient or the family, to have a plan to take specific action to deal with this. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to investigate concerning presentations beyond initial appearance and self-report; Incomplete clinical history-taking.

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 a specific action plan for failed communication with the patient or family

Wider context from the report

“1. Whether or not the specific deliberate self-harm or suicidal ideation criteria need to be reviewed and redrafted 2. The lack of a specific plan for referrals to other services which proved unsuccessful 3. The opportunity to take a broader view of the whole position and have an assessment by an experienced psychiatrist. 4. Ensuring a proper line of communication with the patient and the patient’s family to ensure appropriate reviews if the patient’s mental state deteriorates 5. Obtaining detailed feedback from services the patient is referred to, to check on attendance and progress 6. Recognising that some patients will only make partial disclosure of their true symptomology and history. 7. Loss of opportunity to see the bigger picture, which was of an academically bright student but who nonetheless was disclosing physical self-harm and suicidal intent, as well as an inability to deal with stress or pressure; and have a plan to review and deal with this 8. Ensuring if there were any failed communications with the patient or the family, to have a plan to take specific action to deal with this. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to establish effective plans to address identified safety concerns.

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 a specific plan for unsuccessful referrals to other services

Wider context from the report

“1. Whether or not the specific deliberate self-harm or suicidal ideation criteria need to be reviewed and redrafted 2. The lack of a specific plan for referrals to other services which proved unsuccessful 3. The opportunity to take a broader view of the whole position and have an assessment by an experienced psychiatrist. 4. Ensuring a proper line of communication with the patient and the patient’s family to ensure appropriate reviews if the patient’s mental state deteriorates 5. Obtaining detailed feedback from services the patient is referred to, to check on attendance and progress 6. Recognising that some patients will only make partial disclosure of their true symptomology and history. 7. Loss of opportunity to see the bigger picture, which was of an academically bright student but who nonetheless was disclosing physical self-harm and suicidal intent, as well as an inability to deal with stress or pressure; and have a plan to review and deal with this 8. Ensuring if there were any failed communications with the patient or the family, to have a plan to take specific action to deal with this. ”

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 obtain a broad assessment by an experienced psychiatrist

Wider context from the report

“1. Whether or not the specific deliberate self-harm or suicidal ideation criteria need to be reviewed and redrafted 2. The lack of a specific plan for referrals to other services which proved unsuccessful 3. The opportunity to take a broader view of the whole position and have an assessment by an experienced psychiatrist. 4. Ensuring a proper line of communication with the patient and the patient’s family to ensure appropriate reviews if the patient’s mental state deteriorates 5. Obtaining detailed feedback from services the patient is referred to, to check on attendance and progress 6. Recognising that some patients will only make partial disclosure of their true symptomology and history. 7. Loss of opportunity to see the bigger picture, which was of an academically bright student but who nonetheless was disclosing physical self-harm and suicidal intent, as well as an inability to deal with stress or pressure; and have a plan to review and deal with this 8. Ensuring if there were any failed communications with the patient or the family, to have a plan to take specific action to deal with this. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate mental health risk assessment.

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 a plan to review and manage the patient’s combined self-harm, suicidal intent and stress-related difficulties

Wider context from the report

“1. Whether or not the specific deliberate self-harm or suicidal ideation criteria need to be reviewed and redrafted 2. The lack of a specific plan for referrals to other services which proved unsuccessful 3. The opportunity to take a broader view of the whole position and have an assessment by an experienced psychiatrist. 4. Ensuring a proper line of communication with the patient and the patient’s family to ensure appropriate reviews if the patient’s mental state deteriorates 5. Obtaining detailed feedback from services the patient is referred to, to check on attendance and progress 6. Recognising that some patients will only make partial disclosure of their true symptomology and history. 7. Loss of opportunity to see the bigger picture, which was of an academically bright student but who nonetheless was disclosing physical self-harm and suicidal intent, as well as an inability to deal with stress or pressure; and have a plan to review and deal with this 8. Ensuring if there were any failed communications with the patient or the family, to have a plan to take specific action to deal with this. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate safety planning for acute mental-health deterioration and suicide risk.

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 maintain communication with the patient and family for review when mental state deteriorates

Wider context from the report

“1. Whether or not the specific deliberate self-harm or suicidal ideation criteria need to be reviewed and redrafted 2. The lack of a specific plan for referrals to other services which proved unsuccessful 3. The opportunity to take a broader view of the whole position and have an assessment by an experienced psychiatrist. 4. Ensuring a proper line of communication with the patient and the patient’s family to ensure appropriate reviews if the patient’s mental state deteriorates 5. Obtaining detailed feedback from services the patient is referred to, to check on attendance and progress 6. Recognising that some patients will only make partial disclosure of their true symptomology and history. 7. Loss of opportunity to see the bigger picture, which was of an academically bright student but who nonetheless was disclosing physical self-harm and suicidal intent, as well as an inability to deal with stress or pressure; and have a plan to review and deal with this 8. Ensuring if there were any failed communications with the patient or the family, to have a plan to take specific action to deal with this. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to communicate safety-critical care information effectively between care providers and families.

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

Inadequate specific deliberate self-harm or suicidal ideation criteria

Wider context from the report

“1. Whether or not the specific deliberate self-harm or suicidal ideation criteria need to be reviewed and redrafted 2. The lack of a specific plan for referrals to other services which proved unsuccessful 3. The opportunity to take a broader view of the whole position and have an assessment by an experienced psychiatrist. 4. Ensuring a proper line of communication with the patient and the patient’s family to ensure appropriate reviews if the patient’s mental state deteriorates 5. Obtaining detailed feedback from services the patient is referred to, to check on attendance and progress 6. Recognising that some patients will only make partial disclosure of their true symptomology and history. 7. Loss of opportunity to see the bigger picture, which was of an academically bright student but who nonetheless was disclosing physical self-harm and suicidal intent, as well as an inability to deal with stress or pressure; and have a plan to review and deal with this 8. Ensuring if there were any failed communications with the patient or the family, to have a plan to take specific action to deal with this. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable assessment of suicide and self-harm risk.

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 obtain detailed feedback from referred services about attendance and progress

Wider context from the report

“1. Whether or not the specific deliberate self-harm or suicidal ideation criteria need to be reviewed and redrafted 2. The lack of a specific plan for referrals to other services which proved unsuccessful 3. The opportunity to take a broader view of the whole position and have an assessment by an experienced psychiatrist. 4. Ensuring a proper line of communication with the patient and the patient’s family to ensure appropriate reviews if the patient’s mental state deteriorates 5. Obtaining detailed feedback from services the patient is referred to, to check on attendance and progress 6. Recognising that some patients will only make partial disclosure of their true symptomology and history. 7. Loss of opportunity to see the bigger picture, which was of an academically bright student but who nonetheless was disclosing physical self-harm and suicidal intent, as well as an inability to deal with stress or pressure; and have a plan to review and deal with this 8. Ensuring if there were any failed communications with the patient or the family, to have a plan to take specific action to deal with this. ”

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

Review all Choice assessments in a weekly multidisciplinary team meeting to support shared outcome decisions.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Since 2017 the service has introduced a process whereby all Choice assessments are reviewed in the weekly Multidisciplinary Team Meeting (MDT). This meeting is attended by all the disciplines working within the service which includes nurses, psychologists, psychotherapists and psychiatrists. This provides a forum for case discussion with a shared outcome decision.”

Source location

2019-0257-Worcestershire-Health-and-Care-NHS-Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 6 September 2019

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

The GP is responsible for initial contact and referral to more specialist services, rather than the CAMHS service obtaining detailed feedback.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The Worcestershire CAMHS Service has reviewed as to if it is realistic and achievable to follow up and obtain detailed feedback from each service that a patient is referred to. The Service is not commissioned to do this and it is the role of the GP to be the initial point of contact for a person and to refer to more specialist services as required.”

Source location

2019-0257-Worcestershire-Health-and-Care-NHS-Trust
Page 3 · response
Published 6 September 2019

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

Systems and processes introduced since 2017 are considered sufficient to address the overall position and psychiatry concern.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Since 2017 the service has introduced a process whereby all Choice assessments are reviewed in the weekly Multidisciplinary Team Meeting (MDT). This meeting is attended by all the disciplines working within the service which includes nurses, psychologists, psychotherapists and psychiatrists. This provides a forum for case discussion with a shared outcome decision.”

Source location

2019-0257-Worcestershire-Health-and-Care-NHS-Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 6 September 2019

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

Follow-up contact was not expected because the patient was discharged after assessment and signposted to alternative services.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Following the Choice assessment undertaken on the 12th April 2016 Mr Alastair McDonald was discharged with CAMHS following having received signposting information of alternate services. A summary of the assessment and the outcome was detailed in a letter which was sent to both Mr Alastair McDonald and his GP.”

Source location

2019-0257-Worcestershire-Health-and-Care-NHS-Trust
Page 4 · response
Published 6 September 2019

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

The service is not commissioned to obtain detailed feedback from every service to which patients are referred.

Verbatim wording from the response

“5. Obtaining detailed feedback from the services the patient is referred to, to check on attendance and progress”

Source location

2019-0257-Worcestershire-Health-and-Care-NHS-Trust
Page 3 · response
Published 6 September 2019

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

The assessment and communication arrangements were considered reasonable and proportionate, so no further action was identified.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The Choice assessment was attended by the mother of Mr Alastair McDonald, and the detailed assessment notes that her views were taken into consideration in line with the overall formulation of the assessment and outcome.”

Source location

2019-0257-Worcestershire-Health-and-Care-NHS-Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 6 September 2019

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

The actions taken regarding partial disclosure were considered reasonable and proportionate, so no further action was identified.

Verbatim wording from the response

“As previously stated the staff working within the CAMHS SPA are experienced mental health practitioners from a wide range of professional backgrounds, with extensive support and supervision arrangements in place. It is not unusual for patients to not fully disclose the extent of their symptomology. Clinicians are skilled in assessing patients holistically, through a range of mechanisms.”

Source location

2019-0257-Worcestershire-Health-and-Care-NHS-Trust
Page 3 · response
Published 6 September 2019

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

Obtaining detailed feedback after signposting was considered unrealistic and an inappropriate use of resources.

Verbatim wording from the response

“On average the CAMHS SPA service receives 210 referrals a month. Alongside this we have approximately 1500 children under the care of CAMHS.”

Source location

2019-0257-Worcestershire-Health-and-Care-NHS-Trust
Page 3 · response
Published 6 September 2019

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.3

  1. 1

    Require CAMHS SPA referrals to include information and contact details for all signposted agencies.

    Stated by Herefordshire and Worcestershire Health and Care NHS TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 6 September 2019.
  2. 2

    Confirm patient contact details at every opportunity through CAMHS SPA and reception systems.

    Stated by Herefordshire and Worcestershire Health and Care NHS TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 6 September 2019.
  3. 3

    Review the CAMHS SPA and supporting workforce to promote consistent application of clinical referral principles.

    Stated by Herefordshire and Worcestershire Health and Care NHS TrustStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 6 September 2019.

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 CAMHS SPA referrals to include information and contact details for all signposted agencies.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Action: We recognise that we should have included the telephone number so that Mr Alastair McDonald could access Healthy Minds. The requirement for CAMHS SPA to include information and contact details of all agencies to whom they signpost on to was included in September 2018.”

Source location

2019-0257-Worcestershire-Health-and-Care-NHS-Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 6 September 2019

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

Confirm patient contact details at every opportunity through CAMHS SPA and reception systems.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In 2019 we implemented systems with our CAMHS SPA and CAMHS reception staff whereby we take opportunity to confirm contact details at every opportunity.”

Source location

2019-0257-Worcestershire-Health-and-Care-NHS-Trust
Page 4 · response
Published 6 September 2019

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 the CAMHS SPA and supporting workforce to promote consistent application of clinical referral principles.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Action: We are at present reviewing our CAMHS SPA and the workforce supporting the delivery of the service. This will support the consistent application of clinical referral principles which will consider the severity, risk and impact on the individual in line with their presenting mental illness/disorder or emotional health and wellbeing.”

Source location

2019-0257-Worcestershire-Health-and-Care-NHS-Trust
Page 1 · response
Published 6 September 2019

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