PFD report

Nicholas Alan Gray · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 5 Jun 2025•Essex

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
1

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 raised1

  1. Failure to maintain accurate and complete PSIRF decision-monitoring information
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable PSIRF safety-incident decision and learning processes
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

    Amend and implement the PSIRF Decision Monitoring Tool template.

    Stated by Essex Partnership University NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 17 June 2025.
  2. Action

    Apply final scrutiny to Decision Monitoring Tools at sign-off by central Patient Safety and Executive Director-level staff.

    Stated by Essex Partnership University NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 17 June 2025.
  3. Action

    Require Care Unit leadership multidisciplinary discussion and sign-off for every completed Decision Monitoring Tool or investigation.

    Stated by Essex Partnership University NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 17 June 2025.

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 accurate and complete PSIRF decision-monitoring information

Wider context from the report

“(1) The Trust PSIRF Decision Monitoring Tool completed after Mr Gray died contained inaccurate information, the dates of EPUT contact and the substance of the interactions were inaccurate: a. Self-harm was noted as “none known or recorded” b. There was no record of the mental health liaison nurse review on 24 June 2023 and the discharge of Mr Gray from EPUT. The information used to inform a potential investigation requirement contained significant omissions and was not consistent with the information known to the Trust. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable PSIRF safety-incident decision and learning processes.

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

Amend and implement the PSIRF Decision Monitoring Tool template.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The template that was used to complete the DMT in relation into Mr Gray’s passing has been reviewed and amended. This was as a result of clinical staff feedback about the template’s effectiveness, the risk of duplication and the potential for confusion to be caused.”

Source location

Response from Essex Partnership University NHS Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 17 June 2025

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

Apply final scrutiny to Decision Monitoring Tools at sign-off by central Patient Safety and Executive Director-level staff.

Verbatim wording from the response

“DMTs are also subject to further final scrutiny at the sign off stage by central Patient Safety and by those at Executive Director level.”

Source location

Response from Essex Partnership University NHS Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 17 June 2025

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

Require Care Unit leadership multidisciplinary discussion and sign-off for every completed Decision Monitoring Tool or investigation.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Every completed DMT or investigation now has a Care Unit leadership Multi-disciplinary Team discussion and sign off process. This involves checks and challenges regarding the information provided, decision making and scrutiny of the learning identified. This process provides more robust governance and oversight regarding sign off of a DMT from a Care Unit and Trust wide leadership perspective.”

Source location

Response from Essex Partnership University NHS Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 17 June 2025

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

    Monitor the implemented Decision Monitoring Tool governance provisions to assess their contribution to patient safety.

    Stated by Essex Partnership University NHS Foundation TrustStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 17 June 2025.

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

Monitor the implemented Decision Monitoring Tool governance provisions to assess their contribution to patient safety.

Verbatim wording from the response

“I hope that I have provided some reassurances around the steps that we have taken to address the issues of concern contained within your report. We know there is an acute need to embed and effect change, hence we will monitor the above provisions to ensure these are contributing to our overall aim of keeping patients safe.”

Source location

Response from Essex Partnership University NHS Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 17 June 2025

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