PFD report

James Kenneth Herbertson · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 15 Mar 2021•West Sussex

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
11

Raised in this report

Recipients
2

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 2 recipients

Stated actions
8

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 raised11

  1. Failure to include and inform the primary support practitioner in discharge arrangements
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable hospital discharge processes
  2. Lack of mechanism to notify service users when lead practitioners are unavailable
  3. Failure to inform family supporters of discharge
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to ensure discharge information is accessible and understood by patients and carersPart of recurring concern: Failure to ensure safe post-discharge arrangements for vulnerable patients and residentsPart of recurring concern: Failure to involve families and carers in discharge planning and decisionsPart of recurring concern: Unreliable hospital discharge 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.4

  1. Action

    Reduce required post-discharge follow-up contact from seven days to three days under the Care Programme Approach policy.

    Stated by Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 24 March 2021.
  2. Action

    Monitor risk assessments and care plans through monthly reviews to assure compliance.

    Stated by Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 24 March 2021.
  3. Action

    Introduce a revised Horsham ATS induction pack covering collaborative care planning, risk assessment, safety management and suicide prevention.

    Stated by Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 24 March 2021.

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

  1. Position

    The Lead Practitioner was aware of the planned discharge and was notified, contrary to the concern that she was unaware.

    Stated by Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation TrustDisputes the concernThe respondent disagreed with part of the concern or the basis for it.

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 include and inform the primary support practitioner in discharge arrangements

Wider context from the report

“a) The discharge arrangements from Langley Green Hospital did not include the Lead Practitioner who was going to be the primary contact responsible for providing the support to James following discharge. Although she had met him once no therapeutic relationship had been established and at the point of discharge, she was not aware that discharge had taken place. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable hospital discharge processes.

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 mechanism to notify service users when lead practitioners are unavailable

Wider context from the report

“a) The use of Text messaging is a good way of communicating between the Trust staff and a Service User particularly when they require assistance. However, Service users can place a reliance on this method of communication. It is therefore unfortunate that there is no mechanism to notify a service user that their lead practitioner is unavailable (due to leave or other work commitments) to deal with their message. Technology may not currently provide for an automatic “unavailability” response however this does leave service users vulnerable if they are in need of urgent help. ”

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 inform family supporters of discharge

Wider context from the report

“b) Although James was vulnerable his parents were also not aware of his discharge at the point of discharge and therefore were unable to offer support. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to ensure discharge information is accessible and understood by patients and carers; Failure to ensure safe post-discharge arrangements for vulnerable patients and residents; Failure to involve families and carers in discharge planning and decisions; Unreliable hospital discharge processes.

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 assign responsibility for risk management and crisis referral

Wider context from the report

“c) His lead practitioner was not available at the time and nobody appears to have taken responsibility to manage James’ risk or make a referral to the crisis team. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable coordination of mental health crisis responses; Unreliable mental health referral pathways.

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 assessment and recording of service-user risk

Wider context from the report

“b) James’ risk was not adequately accessed or recorded in his medical records following him being placed in the “Red Zone”. ”

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 notify vulnerable service users’ parents of discharge

Wider context from the report

“b) Although James was vulnerable his parents were also not aware of his discharge at the point of discharge and therefore were unable to offer support. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to ensure discharge information is accessible and understood by patients and carers; Unreliable hospital discharge processes.

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 provide safe and therapeutic post-discharge accommodation

Wider context from the report

“c) The accommodation offered to James both on leaving hospital (and subsequently) was not a safe and therapeutic environment for a person who had recognised mental health difficulties with a history of alcohol and substance misuse. Whilst accommodation is a matter for the Local Authority the Trust staff work with partner agencies in the planning for a S17 discharge. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to ensure safe accommodation after discharge from mental health care; Unreliable hospital discharge processes.

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 recording of deterioration in mental health presentation

Wider context from the report

“a) It was clear that James’ Mental health was deteriorating on the visit by the lead practitioner on 8th April 2019. This change in presentation was discussed at the Multidisciplinary meeting on 9th April 2019 but was not adequately recorded. He was placed in “Red Zone”. It was clear from the evidence that there was a lack of understanding by individual staff as to what actions they should be taking following a service user being placed in “Red Zone”. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable recording of safety-critical mental health information.

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 staff understanding of actions required after Red Zone placement

Wider context from the report

“a) It was clear that James’ Mental health was deteriorating on the visit by the lead practitioner on 8th April 2019. This change in presentation was discussed at the Multidisciplinary meeting on 9th April 2019 but was not adequately recorded. He was placed in “Red Zone”. It was clear from the evidence that there was a lack of understanding by individual staff as to what actions they should be taking following a service user being placed in “Red Zone”. ”

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

Provision of accommodation that is not a safe and therapeutic environment

Wider context from the report

“c) The accommodation offered to James both on leaving hospital (and subsequently) was not a safe and therapeutic environment for a person who had recognised mental health difficulties with a history of alcohol and substance misuse. Whilst accommodation is a matter for the Local Authority the Trust staff work with partner agencies in the planning for a S117 discharge. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to ensure safe accommodation after discharge from mental health care.

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 include and alert the primary lead practitioner in discharge arrangements

Wider context from the report

“a) The discharge arrangements from Langley Green Hospital did not include the Lead Practitioner who was going to be the primary contact responsible for providing the support to James following discharge. Although she had met him once no therapeutic relationship had been established and at the point of discharge, she was not aware that discharge had taken place. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable hospital discharge 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

Reduce required post-discharge follow-up contact from seven days to three days under the Care Programme Approach policy.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The Trust agrees that it is best practice for the Lead Practitioner to be actively involved in the acute care discharge process and to ensure that contact is made within 3 days of discharge for follow up; as per the Care Programme Approach policy version 7 March 2020 (current policy appendix 1). At the time of James' discharge, the policy in place (version 6 appendix 2 2017) was for a 7 day follow up, but due to the requirement to improve outcomes, this was reduced in 2020 to a 3 day follow up.”

Source location

2021-0078-Response-from-Sussex-Partnership-NHS-Foundation-Redacted
Page 2 · response
Published 24 March 2021

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

Monitor risk assessments and care plans through monthly reviews to assure compliance.

Verbatim wording from the response

“and suicide prevention. In November 2020, a new induction pack was in place for new starters with leadership support. Ongoing monitoring through monthly review of risk assessment and care plans continues to provide assurance of compliance.”

Source location

2021-0078-Response-from-Sussex-Partnership-NHS-Foundation-Redacted
Page 12 · response
Published 24 March 2021

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

Introduce a revised Horsham ATS induction pack covering collaborative care planning, risk assessment, safety management and suicide prevention.

Verbatim wording from the response

“As an outcome of the SI investigation, the Trust understood the requirement for Lead Practitioners to have induction, training and supervision in order for them to be able to identify when risk assessments should be updated and reviewed.”

Source location

2021-0078-Response-from-Sussex-Partnership-NHS-Foundation-Redacted
Page 11 · response
Published 24 March 2021

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 daily-meeting documentation and audit clinical records to verify recording of identified risk, actions and responsible staff.

Verbatim wording from the response

“from the SI investigation the Trust reviewed the documentation of daily meetings, and completed an audit of the Carenotes noted by the service to ensure adherence. The documentation had to include the identified risk, plan of action and who was undertaking the action. The updated audit of November 2020 illustrated above 97% compliance to the specified requirements.”

Source location

2021-0078-Response-from-Sussex-Partnership-NHS-Foundation-Redacted
Page 10 · response
Published 24 March 2021

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 Lead Practitioner was aware of the planned discharge and was notified, contrary to the concern that she was unaware.

Verbatim wording from the response

“To confirm, James’ Lead Practitioner was aware that he was to be discharged (as per Lead Practitioner statement, Clinical records and Serious Incident report) as the Lead Practitioner had attended the Section 117 discharge aftercare meeting on the 02.08.2018 and on the Ward which James attended, alongside his Lead Practitioner.”

Source location

2021-0078-Response-from-Sussex-Partnership-NHS-Foundation-Redacted
Page 3 · response
Published 24 March 2021

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

Accommodation access and organisation were considered the Local Authority’s responsibility, although Trust staff assisted with referrals and discharge planning.

Verbatim wording from the response

“c) Accommodation on discharge was not safe or therapeutic for a person who had a recognised mental health difficulty. Whilst accommodation is a matter for the Local Authority the trust staff work with partner agencies in planning for 117 discharge.”

Source location

2021-0078-Response-from-Sussex-Partnership-NHS-Foundation-Redacted
Page 6 · response
Published 24 March 2021

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

Existing Care Programme Approach policy and multidisciplinary discharge arrangements were considered sufficient for Lead Practitioner involvement and follow-up.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The Trust agrees that it is best practice for the Lead Practitioner to be actively involved in the acute care discharge process and to ensure that contact is made within 3 days of discharge for follow up; as per the Care Programme Approach policy version 7 March 2020 (current policy appendix 1). At the time of James' discharge, the policy in place (version 6 appendix 2 2017) was for a 7 day follow up, but due to the requirement to improve outcomes, this was reduced in 2020 to a 3 day follow up.”

Source location

2021-0078-Response-from-Sussex-Partnership-NHS-Foundation-Redacted
Page 2 · response
Published 24 March 2021

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

Existing policy and agreed crisis and contingency contacts were considered sufficient where messages to a Lead Practitioner might not receive a response.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Concern Raised: message. Mobile Phone and Text Messaging policy”

Source location

2021-0078-Response-from-Sussex-Partnership-NHS-Foundation-Redacted
Page 13 · response
Published 24 March 2021

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

No further action was considered necessary on family involvement because confidentiality and consent governed information sharing, with contact attempted where consent permitted.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Action Taken or Required Where the hospital/Trust agrees communication with families/carers is central to treatment and clinical decisions, it also has to maintain patient confidentiality where an”

Source location

2021-0078-Response-from-Sussex-Partnership-NHS-Foundation-Redacted
Page 4 · response
Published 24 March 2021

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 Trust could not provide automatic responses to text messages because its information technology systems lacked that capability.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Response to text messaging when Lead Practitioner is not available/ does not see the”

Source location

2021-0078-Response-from-Sussex-Partnership-NHS-Foundation-Redacted
Page 12 · response
Published 24 March 2021

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

Ongoing audits of red-zone risk recording and crisis referral arrangements were considered sufficient, so no additional action was required.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The Serious Incident report highlights the Care and Service delivery problem that the service ‘did not appear to have considered a referral to the crisis team despite clear signs of relapse and concerns raised by family’. In addition, that ‘there was no documented evidence of this discussion’. As an action”

Source location

2021-0078-Response-from-Sussex-Partnership-NHS-Foundation-Redacted
Page 9 · response
Published 24 March 2021

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

    Provide mandatory risk training to all Horsham ATS staff.

    Stated by Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 24 March 2021.
  2. 2

    Participate in monthly multi-agency rough-sleeper meetings across Horsham, Crawley and Mid Sussex to coordinate housing, health and social care support.

    Stated by Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 24 March 2021.
  3. 3

    Participate in regular West Sussex multi-disadvantaged meetings to develop improvements for homeless people.

    Stated by Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 24 March 2021.
  4. 4

    Maintain regular contact with chief executives of local homelessness organisations.

    Stated by Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 24 March 2021.

Recipient positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when they do not describe a specific action.1

  1. 1

    The MDT did not consider homelessness to create risks exceeding those already experienced, and considered the individual capable of deciding about accommodation.

    Stated by Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation TrustDisputes the concernThe respondent disagreed with part of the concern or the basis for it.

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 mandatory risk training to all Horsham ATS staff.

Verbatim wording from the response

“that all Horsham ATS staff received mandatory risk training.”

Source location

2021-0078-Response-from-Sussex-Partnership-NHS-Foundation-Redacted
Page 11 · response
Published 24 March 2021

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

Participate in monthly multi-agency rough-sleeper meetings across Horsham, Crawley and Mid Sussex to coordinate housing, health and social care support.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Since 2019 Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust (SPFT) participates in monthly Rough Sleepers Multi Agency meetings in Horsham, Crawley and Mid Sussex to enable a joined-up approach for individuals who have housing, health and social care needs. In addition to SPFT, the police, probation, county council, and drug and alcohol services (Change Grow Live CGL) are all present. An information sharing agreement is in place to”

Source location

2021-0078-Response-from-Sussex-Partnership-NHS-Foundation-Redacted
Page 8 · response
Published 24 March 2021

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

Participate in regular West Sussex multi-disadvantaged meetings to develop improvements for homeless people.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Strategically, SPFT participate in a regular West Sussex Multi Disadvantaged meeting to develop improvements for homeless individuals in the county. In addition to the agencies already mentioned, SPFT is in regular contact with the CEOs of local homelessness organisations.”

Source location

2021-0078-Response-from-Sussex-Partnership-NHS-Foundation-Redacted
Page 9 · response
Published 24 March 2021

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

Maintain regular contact with chief executives of local homelessness organisations.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Strategically, SPFT participate in a regular West Sussex Multi Disadvantaged meeting to develop improvements for homeless individuals in the county. In addition to the agencies already mentioned, SPFT is in regular contact with the CEOs of local homelessness organisations.”

Source location

2021-0078-Response-from-Sussex-Partnership-NHS-Foundation-Redacted
Page 9 · response
Published 24 March 2021

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 MDT did not consider homelessness to create risks exceeding those already experienced, and considered the individual capable of deciding about accommodation.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Our Acute Adult Inpatient Mental Health Service Operational policy/ Langley Green Hospital states – ‘In the event of a service user being of No Fixed Abode, the mental health and risk assessment will inform how best to arrange accommodation on discharge. This may include referral to the Council’s Homeless Persons Unit or local third sector provider’.”

Source location

2021-0078-Response-from-Sussex-Partnership-NHS-Foundation-Redacted
Page 7 · response
Published 24 March 2021

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
1/2

Data last updated 7 September 2026