PFD report

Eliza Simpson · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 27 Aug 2015•Birmingham and Solihull

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
2

Raised in this report

Recipients
2

Named on the report

Responses found
0

Of 2 recipients

Stated actions
0

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 raised2

  1. Failure to reassess and renew deprivation of liberty safeguarding orders when required
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to maintain effective safeguarding review and monitoringPart of recurring concern: Inadequate deprivation of liberty safeguarding for people lacking capacity
  2. Lack of CCTV
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable safety CCTV monitoring systems
Responses linked to these concerns

Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.

No linked response statements

No respondent-stated action or position is clearly linked to these concerns.

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 reassess and renew deprivation of liberty safeguarding orders when required

Wider context from the report

“(1) The Roseneath Care Home appeared to have no system for ensuring that when deprivation of liberty safeguarding orders expired the client was re-assessed to determine whether the need for an order persisted and, where appropriate, seeking further order. In this case the home would have had no legal authority to hold Mrs. Simpson if she had been detected attempting to leave the premises on the 2nd April 2015. The very act of assessing Mrs. Simpson and renewing an application would have served to enforce to the Care Home and its staff the risk of her absconding and may have resulted in closer observation. Although the Roseneath Care Home has now closed if such a system is not standard in Care Homes this issue may arise elsewhere. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to maintain effective safeguarding review and monitoring; Inadequate deprivation of liberty safeguarding for people lacking capacity.

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 CCTV

Wider context from the report

“(2) The absence of CCTV hampered the Police investigation, although this is unlikely to have contributed to Mrs. Simpson’s death this may not always be the case and did mean that a very vulnerable member of society was left wondering around on her own when she might otherwise have been found with the aid of CCTV footage. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable safety CCTV monitoring systems.

Open source report
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
0/2

Data last updated 7 September 2026

No official response is included in the current published snapshot.