PFD report

LUKE ALF EDWARD MOULDING · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 13 Apr 2017•Bedfordshire and Luton

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
1

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 1 recipient

Stated actions
0

Described in responses

Recipients and published 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.

Concerns raised2

  1. Failure to send required opt-in letters
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to reliably send required mental health service communications to service users
  2. Reliance on typed opt-in letters instead of readily available information formats
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 send required opt-in letters

Wider context from the report

“(1) The Deceased saw ████████, Speciality Doctor in Psychiatry, at Beacon House Community Mental Health Team on 11th November 2016. The deceased left part way through the consultation. ████████ decided an “opt in” letter was required. It was not sent. (2) The evidence is that “opt in” letters are “normally typed and sent by 10 working days. (3) There seems to be no reason why a typed letter is required. A pre-printed letter/brochure/card would suffice and give the service users sufficient information, should they require it. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to reliably send required mental health service communications to service users.

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

Reliance on typed opt-in letters instead of readily available information formats

Wider context from the report

“(1) The Deceased saw ████████, Speciality Doctor in Psychiatry, at Beacon House Community Mental Health Team on 11th November 2016. The deceased left part way through the consultation. ████████ decided an “opt in” letter was required. It was not sent. (2) The evidence is that “opt in” letters are “normally typed and sent by 10 working days. (3) There seems to be no reason why a typed letter is required. A pre-printed letter/brochure/card would suffice and give the service users sufficient information, should they require it. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

No recurring-concern membership is currently published.

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

Data last updated 7 September 2026