PFD report

Annabel Mae LEWIS · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 9 Mar 2017•Staffordshire South

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
4

Raised in this report

Recipients
2

Named on the report

Responses found
0

Of 2 recipients

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 raised4

  1. Delays between referral, initial contact and attempted follow-up
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable interim mental health support during care transitions
  2. Failure to engage parents or other support networks when young people have difficulty engaging
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable mental health support pathways for young people who disengage
  3. Failure to record risk, contact details, appointment information and follow-up arrangements
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to maintain accurate next-of-kin information in healthcare recordsPart of recurring concern: Incomplete recording of legally relevant relative details in mental-health recordsPart of recurring concern: Unreliable documentation of safety risk assessmentsPart of recurring concern: Unreliable recording of safety-critical mental health information
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

Delays between referral, initial contact and attempted follow-up

Wider context from the report

“(1) At the inquest it was evident that Annabel had been referred by her GP to your team in November 2015 but that referral had not been accepted. She was referred again on 20/10/2016 by her school. This time the referral was accepted and your team made contact with her by telephone on 21/10/2016. She declined an appointment because she felt she could not get to the venue. No level of risk was recorded and next of kin details were not available. The date of appointment offered and declined were not recorded. Alternative time for appointment was not recorded. No follow up arrangements were recorded. There was no attempt to contact Annabel thereafter. An unsuccessful attempt to contact the referrer was made on 4/11/2016- the day Annabel took her own life. The time period between referral and initial contact and attempted follow up appears considerable. No attempt appears to have been made to engage with her parents who would have been in a position to assist with transport arrangements. The expectation that young people such as Annabel would 'opt in 'to the system may be unrealistic given the difficulties that she had in engaging. Annabel might well have benefitted had she been offered a more proactive service. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable interim mental health support during care transitions.

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 engage parents or other support networks when young people have difficulty engaging

Wider context from the report

“(1) At the inquest it was evident that Annabel had been referred by her GP to your team in November 2015 but that referral had not been accepted. She was referred again on 20/10/2016 by her school. This time the referral was accepted and your team made contact with her by telephone on 21/10/2016. She declined an appointment because she felt she could not get to the venue. No level of risk was recorded and next of kin details were not available. The date of appointment offered and declined were not recorded. Alternative time for appointment was not recorded. No follow up arrangements were recorded. There was no attempt to contact Annabel thereafter. An unsuccessful attempt to contact the referrer was made on 4/11/2016- the day Annabel took her own life. The time period between referral and initial contact and attempted follow up appears considerable. No attempt appears to have been made to engage with her parents who would have been in a position to assist with transport arrangements. The expectation that young people such as Annabel would 'opt in 'to the system may be unrealistic given the difficulties that she had in engaging. Annabel might well have benefitted had she been offered a more proactive service. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable mental health support pathways for young people who disengage.

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 record risk, contact details, appointment information and follow-up arrangements

Wider context from the report

“(1) At the inquest it was evident that Annabel had been referred by her GP to your team in November 2015 but that referral had not been accepted. She was referred again on 20/10/2016 by her school. This time the referral was accepted and your team made contact with her by telephone on 21/10/2016. She declined an appointment because she felt she could not get to the venue. No level of risk was recorded and next of kin details were not available. The date of appointment offered and declined were not recorded. Alternative time for appointment was not recorded. No follow up arrangements were recorded. There was no attempt to contact Annabel thereafter. An unsuccessful attempt to contact the referrer was made on 4/11/2016- the day Annabel took her own life. The time period between referral and initial contact and attempted follow up appears considerable. No attempt appears to have been made to engage with her parents who would have been in a position to assist with transport arrangements. The expectation that young people such as Annabel would 'opt in 'to the system may be unrealistic given the difficulties that she had in engaging. Annabel might well have benefitted had she been offered a more proactive service. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to maintain accurate next-of-kin information in healthcare records; Incomplete recording of legally relevant relative details in mental-health records; Unreliable documentation of safety risk assessments; 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

Failure to provide proactive follow-up after a declined appointment

Wider context from the report

“(1) At the inquest it was evident that Annabel had been referred by her GP to your team in November 2015 but that referral had not been accepted. She was referred again on 20/10/2016 by her school. This time the referral was accepted and your team made contact with her by telephone on 21/10/2016. She declined an appointment because she felt she could not get to the venue. No level of risk was recorded and next of kin details were not available. The date of appointment offered and declined were not recorded. Alternative time for appointment was not recorded. No follow up arrangements were recorded. There was no attempt to contact Annabel thereafter. An unsuccessful attempt to contact the referrer was made on 4/11/2016- the day Annabel took her own life. The time period between referral and initial contact and attempted follow up appears considerable. No attempt appears to have been made to engage with her parents who would have been in a position to assist with transport arrangements. The expectation that young people such as Annabel would 'opt in 'to the system may be unrealistic given the difficulties that she had in engaging. Annabel might well have benefitted had she been offered a more proactive service. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to maintain follow-up of patients who disengage from care; Failure to provide timely continuing mental health reviews and follow-up; Unreliable arrangement and communication of patient appointments and follow-up.

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