PFD report

Nadia Wyatt · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 15 Jan 2024•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
10

Raised in this report

Recipients
1

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 1 recipient

Stated actions
13

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 raised10

  1. Lack of bespoke care plans tailored to individual needs
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable care-planning processes
  2. Failure to balance community care for the patient with support for the carer
  3. Failure to record readmission considerations, decision and rationale
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to reliably document the rationale for consequential decisions
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.11

  1. Action

    Remind Crisis Response and Home Treatment Service staff in team meetings about documentation and record-keeping requirements.

    Stated by Essex Partnership University NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 19 January 2024.
  2. Action

    Audit Home Treatment Team records regularly and share findings to reduce copying and pasting and improve individualised clinical notes.

    Stated by Essex Partnership University NHS Foundation TrustStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 19 January 2024.
  3. Action

    Implement the International Fundamentals of Care Framework in urgent and inpatient care, including its principles in Newman’s care-planning form.

    Stated by Essex Partnership University NHS Foundation TrustStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 19 January 2024.

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 bespoke care plans tailored to individual needs

Wider context from the report

“(1) Failure to update Nadia’s records with the outcomes of referrals that were made and whether such referrals were accepted or declined, either for Nadia or her carer. (2) Failure to include within her records considerations and professional opinions reached on the prospect, or not, of readmission for in-patient treatment together with the final decision and rationale. (3) Lack of bespoke care plans tailored to Nadia’s needs. Notwithstanding the fact Nadia had begun to disengage and declined to be involved in her care planning, more personalised plans could have been drafted taking into account her personal characteristics, needs and past medical history. (4) Evidence of “cutting and pasting” into Nadia’s care plan from another patient’s care plan. (5) Failing to undertake risk assessments at all relevant and appropriate stages and/or failure to record that such an assessment had in fact taken place and what the outcome was. (6) Failing to provide a “RAG” rating to risk assessments and/or to indicate where required that a risk exists. (7) Failure to include risk management and contingency planning within Nadia’s care plans as well as key elements of her condition at that time, including her recent inpatient admission. (8) The potential for over-reliance on Nadia’s husband, albeit he was only too willing to support her and care for her, and the need to balance maintaining Nadia’s care and treatment in the community with the need to support her carer as well. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable care-planning 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 balance community care for the patient with support for the carer

Wider context from the report

“(1) Failure to update Nadia’s records with the outcomes of referrals that were made and whether such referrals were accepted or declined, either for Nadia or her carer. (2) Failure to include within her records considerations and professional opinions reached on the prospect, or not, of readmission for in-patient treatment together with the final decision and rationale. (3) Lack of bespoke care plans tailored to Nadia’s needs. Notwithstanding the fact Nadia had begun to disengage and declined to be involved in her care planning, more personalised plans could have been drafted taking into account her personal characteristics, needs and past medical history. (4) Evidence of “cutting and pasting” into Nadia’s care plan from another patient’s care plan. (5) Failing to undertake risk assessments at all relevant and appropriate stages and/or failure to record that such an assessment had in fact taken place and what the outcome was. (6) Failing to provide a “RAG” rating to risk assessments and/or to indicate where required that a risk exists. (7) Failure to include risk management and contingency planning within Nadia’s care plans as well as key elements of her condition at that time, including her recent inpatient admission. (8) The potential for over-reliance on Nadia’s husband, albeit he was only too willing to support her and care for her, and the need to balance maintaining Nadia’s care and treatment in the community with the need to support her carer as well. ”

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 record readmission considerations, decision and rationale

Wider context from the report

“(1) Failure to update Nadia’s records with the outcomes of referrals that were made and whether such referrals were accepted or declined, either for Nadia or her carer. (2) Failure to include within her records considerations and professional opinions reached on the prospect, or not, of readmission for in-patient treatment together with the final decision and rationale. (3) Lack of bespoke care plans tailored to Nadia’s needs. Notwithstanding the fact Nadia had begun to disengage and declined to be involved in her care planning, more personalised plans could have been drafted taking into account her personal characteristics, needs and past medical history. (4) Evidence of “cutting and pasting” into Nadia’s care plan from another patient’s care plan. (5) Failing to undertake risk assessments at all relevant and appropriate stages and/or failure to record that such an assessment had in fact taken place and what the outcome was. (6) Failing to provide a “RAG” rating to risk assessments and/or to indicate where required that a risk exists. (7) Failure to include risk management and contingency planning within Nadia’s care plans as well as key elements of her condition at that time, including her recent inpatient admission. (8) The potential for over-reliance on Nadia’s husband, albeit he was only too willing to support her and care for her, and the need to balance maintaining Nadia’s care and treatment in the community with the need to support her carer as well. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to reliably document the rationale for consequential decisions.

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 assessment completion and outcomes

Wider context from the report

“(1) Failure to update Nadia’s records with the outcomes of referrals that were made and whether such referrals were accepted or declined, either for Nadia or her carer. (2) Failure to include within her records considerations and professional opinions reached on the prospect, or not, of readmission for in-patient treatment together with the final decision and rationale. (3) Lack of bespoke care plans tailored to Nadia’s needs. Notwithstanding the fact Nadia had begun to disengage and declined to be involved in her care planning, more personalised plans could have been drafted taking into account her personal characteristics, needs and past medical history. (4) Evidence of “cutting and pasting” into Nadia’s care plan from another patient’s care plan. (5) Failing to undertake risk assessments at all relevant and appropriate stages and/or failure to record that such an assessment had in fact taken place and what the outcome was. (6) Failing to provide a “RAG” rating to risk assessments and/or to indicate where required that a risk exists. (7) Failure to include risk management and contingency planning within Nadia’s care plans as well as key elements of her condition at that time, including her recent inpatient admission. (8) The potential for over-reliance on Nadia’s husband, albeit he was only too willing to support her and care for her, and the need to balance maintaining Nadia’s care and treatment in the community with the need to support her carer as well. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable documentation of safety risk assessments; Unreliable recording of care plan and risk assessment reviews.

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 key current clinical information in care plans

Wider context from the report

“(1) Failure to update Nadia’s records with the outcomes of referrals that were made and whether such referrals were accepted or declined, either for Nadia or her carer. (2) Failure to include within her records considerations and professional opinions reached on the prospect, or not, of readmission for in-patient treatment together with the final decision and rationale. (3) Lack of bespoke care plans tailored to Nadia’s needs. Notwithstanding the fact Nadia had begun to disengage and declined to be involved in her care planning, more personalised plans could have been drafted taking into account her personal characteristics, needs and past medical history. (4) Evidence of “cutting and pasting” into Nadia’s care plan from another patient’s care plan. (5) Failing to undertake risk assessments at all relevant and appropriate stages and/or failure to record that such an assessment had in fact taken place and what the outcome was. (6) Failing to provide a “RAG” rating to risk assessments and/or to indicate where required that a risk exists. (7) Failure to include risk management and contingency planning within Nadia’s care plans as well as key elements of her condition at that time, including her recent inpatient admission. (8) The potential for over-reliance on Nadia’s husband, albeit he was only too willing to support her and care for her, and the need to balance maintaining Nadia’s care and treatment in the community with the need to support her carer as well. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to incorporate relevant clinical history and diagnoses into care decisions; Unreliable care-planning 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

Copying content from another patient’s care plan

Wider context from the report

“(1) Failure to update Nadia’s records with the outcomes of referrals that were made and whether such referrals were accepted or declined, either for Nadia or her carer. (2) Failure to include within her records considerations and professional opinions reached on the prospect, or not, of readmission for in-patient treatment together with the final decision and rationale. (3) Lack of bespoke care plans tailored to Nadia’s needs. Notwithstanding the fact Nadia had begun to disengage and declined to be involved in her care planning, more personalised plans could have been drafted taking into account her personal characteristics, needs and past medical history. (4) Evidence of “cutting and pasting” into Nadia’s care plan from another patient’s care plan. (5) Failing to undertake risk assessments at all relevant and appropriate stages and/or failure to record that such an assessment had in fact taken place and what the outcome was. (6) Failing to provide a “RAG” rating to risk assessments and/or to indicate where required that a risk exists. (7) Failure to include risk management and contingency planning within Nadia’s care plans as well as key elements of her condition at that time, including her recent inpatient admission. (8) The potential for over-reliance on Nadia’s husband, albeit he was only too willing to support her and care for her, and the need to balance maintaining Nadia’s care and treatment in the community with the need to support her carer as well. ”

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 record referral outcomes and acceptance or decline decisions

Wider context from the report

“(1) Failure to update Nadia’s records with the outcomes of referrals that were made and whether such referrals were accepted or declined, either for Nadia or her carer. (2) Failure to include within her records considerations and professional opinions reached on the prospect, or not, of readmission for in-patient treatment together with the final decision and rationale. (3) Lack of bespoke care plans tailored to Nadia’s needs. Notwithstanding the fact Nadia had begun to disengage and declined to be involved in her care planning, more personalised plans could have been drafted taking into account her personal characteristics, needs and past medical history. (4) Evidence of “cutting and pasting” into Nadia’s care plan from another patient’s care plan. (5) Failing to undertake risk assessments at all relevant and appropriate stages and/or failure to record that such an assessment had in fact taken place and what the outcome was. (6) Failing to provide a “RAG” rating to risk assessments and/or to indicate where required that a risk exists. (7) Failure to include risk management and contingency planning within Nadia’s care plans as well as key elements of her condition at that time, including her recent inpatient admission. (8) The potential for over-reliance on Nadia’s husband, albeit he was only too willing to support her and care for her, and the need to balance maintaining Nadia’s care and treatment in the community with the need to support her carer as well. ”

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 provide risk ratings or indicate identified risks

Wider context from the report

“(1) Failure to update Nadia’s records with the outcomes of referrals that were made and whether such referrals were accepted or declined, either for Nadia or her carer. (2) Failure to include within her records considerations and professional opinions reached on the prospect, or not, of readmission for in-patient treatment together with the final decision and rationale. (3) Lack of bespoke care plans tailored to Nadia’s needs. Notwithstanding the fact Nadia had begun to disengage and declined to be involved in her care planning, more personalised plans could have been drafted taking into account her personal characteristics, needs and past medical history. (4) Evidence of “cutting and pasting” into Nadia’s care plan from another patient’s care plan. (5) Failing to undertake risk assessments at all relevant and appropriate stages and/or failure to record that such an assessment had in fact taken place and what the outcome was. (6) Failing to provide a “RAG” rating to risk assessments and/or to indicate where required that a risk exists. (7) Failure to include risk management and contingency planning within Nadia’s care plans as well as key elements of her condition at that time, including her recent inpatient admission. (8) The potential for over-reliance on Nadia’s husband, albeit he was only too willing to support her and care for her, and the need to balance maintaining Nadia’s care and treatment in the community with the need to support her carer as well. ”

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 undertake risk assessments at relevant stages

Wider context from the report

“(1) Failure to update Nadia’s records with the outcomes of referrals that were made and whether such referrals were accepted or declined, either for Nadia or her carer. (2) Failure to include within her records considerations and professional opinions reached on the prospect, or not, of readmission for in-patient treatment together with the final decision and rationale. (3) Lack of bespoke care plans tailored to Nadia’s needs. Notwithstanding the fact Nadia had begun to disengage and declined to be involved in her care planning, more personalised plans could have been drafted taking into account her personal characteristics, needs and past medical history. (4) Evidence of “cutting and pasting” into Nadia’s care plan from another patient’s care plan. (5) Failing to undertake risk assessments at all relevant and appropriate stages and/or failure to record that such an assessment had in fact taken place and what the outcome was. (6) Failing to provide a “RAG” rating to risk assessments and/or to indicate where required that a risk exists. (7) Failure to include risk management and contingency planning within Nadia’s care plans as well as key elements of her condition at that time, including her recent inpatient admission. (8) The potential for over-reliance on Nadia’s husband, albeit he was only too willing to support her and care for her, and the need to balance maintaining Nadia’s care and treatment in the community with the need to support her carer as well. ”

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 include risk management and contingency planning in care plans

Wider context from the report

“(1) Failure to update Nadia’s records with the outcomes of referrals that were made and whether such referrals were accepted or declined, either for Nadia or her carer. (2) Failure to include within her records considerations and professional opinions reached on the prospect, or not, of readmission for in-patient treatment together with the final decision and rationale. (3) Lack of bespoke care plans tailored to Nadia’s needs. Notwithstanding the fact Nadia had begun to disengage and declined to be involved in her care planning, more personalised plans could have been drafted taking into account her personal characteristics, needs and past medical history. (4) Evidence of “cutting and pasting” into Nadia’s care plan from another patient’s care plan. (5) Failing to undertake risk assessments at all relevant and appropriate stages and/or failure to record that such an assessment had in fact taken place and what the outcome was. (6) Failing to provide a “RAG” rating to risk assessments and/or to indicate where required that a risk exists. (7) Failure to include risk management and contingency planning within Nadia’s care plans as well as key elements of her condition at that time, including her recent inpatient admission. (8) The potential for over-reliance on Nadia’s husband, albeit he was only too willing to support her and care for her, and the need to balance maintaining Nadia’s care and treatment in the community with the need to support her carer as well. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to reliably develop and review risk-reduction plans; Unreliable care-planning 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

Remind Crisis Response and Home Treatment Service staff in team meetings about documentation and record-keeping requirements.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Response: The Trust has revised line management supervision forms to include quality of record keeping, their professional responsibilities, Trust policy and values, and NMC accountability frameworks in respect of record keeping. In addition to discussions during supervision the Crisis Response and Home Treatment Service has been reminded of this in their team meetings.”

Source location

Response from Essex Partnership NHS
Page 1 · response
Published 19 January 2024

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

Audit Home Treatment Team records regularly and share findings to reduce copying and pasting and improve individualised clinical notes.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Response: In order to ensure that clinical notes are individualised, and copy and pasting is not part of the team culture, regular audits on Home Treatment Team record keeping will be undertaken and the findings shared with the team to continuously improve practice. The Home Treatment weekly multi-disciplinary meeting where patients care is reviewed, also provides opportunity for notes to be reviewed and any action required to be taken forward.”

Source location

Response from Essex Partnership NHS
Page 2 · response
Published 19 January 2024

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

Implement the International Fundamentals of Care Framework in urgent and inpatient care, including its principles in Newman’s care-planning form.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Response: The Trust’s Urgent Care and Inpatient Care Unit is implementing a new initiative ‘International Fundamentals of Care Framework’, which is a nursing framework that supports transition and care planning based on trustworthy relationship, integration of care and context of care. The Home Treatment Team in Mid and South have added the framework principles to the Newman’s form that is given to patients to develop and assist with their view and planning of their care and treatment needs. The Newman’s form is based on the Newman’s model of care, which encourages individuals to be involved and interact with their health needs.”

Source location

Response from Essex Partnership NHS
Page 2 · response
Published 19 January 2024

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

Randomly audit patient records monthly for discrepancies in RAG-rated risk assessments and take action where discrepancies are found.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The Trust also randomly audits patients’ records on a monthly basis to identify any concerns with RAG rating of risk assessments in order for actions to be taken where discrepancies are found.”

Source location

Response from Essex Partnership NHS
Page 3 · response
Published 19 January 2024

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

Arrange bespoke documentation training for all staff working in the urgent care pathway.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Bespoke training on the importance of documentation is being arranged for all staff working in the urgent care pathway in April 2024.”

Source location

Response from Essex Partnership NHS
Page 1 · response
Published 19 January 2024

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

Remind staff and Carer Leads to document carers’ views and needs and offer or make consent-based referrals for carer support.

Verbatim wording from the response

“All staff have been reminded via Team meetings to ensure case discussion in the multi-disciplinary team meeting document carer’s views and carer’s needs. The Team Carer’s Leads have been reminded to offer referrals for carers support, and refer on where consent given by carer and the importance of documenting carer’s views clearly.”

Source location

Response from Essex Partnership NHS
Page 4 · response
Published 19 January 2024

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

Revise line-management supervision forms to cover record-keeping quality, responsibilities, policy, values and professional accountability.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Response: The Trust has revised line management supervision forms to include quality of record keeping, their professional responsibilities, Trust policy and values, and NMC accountability frameworks in respect of record keeping. In addition to discussions during supervision the Crisis Response and Home Treatment Service has been reminded of this in their team meetings.”

Source location

Response from Essex Partnership NHS
Page 1 · response
Published 19 January 2024

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

Audit Home Treatment Team assessments regularly and share findings with the team to improve assessment documentation.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In order to ensure the assessments undertaken by the Home Treatment Team are comprehensive and the findings (including the rationale for the decisions made) are clearly documented, regular audits on Home Treatment Team assessments will be undertaken and the findings shared with the team to continuously improve practice.”

Source location

Response from Essex Partnership NHS
Page 1 · response
Published 19 January 2024

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

Deliver Storm training to Teams to enhance risk-assessment skills.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Response: Assessments and clinical notes are reviewed with individuals during their one to one supervision to focus on the quality of their record keeping including risk assessment. Storm training has commenced with Teams to enhance risk assessment skills.”

Source location

Response from Essex Partnership NHS
Page 3 · response
Published 19 January 2024

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

Use the Admission Checklist to support care planning, timely escalation and referrals, and reduce missed actions.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The Admission Checklist in place will also support staff to plan care, escalate required support and referrals in a timely way, and reduces risk levels in respect of avoidance of actions being missed.”

Source location

Response from Essex Partnership NHS
Page 2 · response
Published 19 January 2024

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

Discuss patients’ RAG ratings during daily multidisciplinary reviews and safety huddles to improve record accuracy.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Response: The Teams discuss all patients including their ‘RAG’ rating during their daily multi-disciplinary meeting case reviews and safety huddles to ensure accuracy of records.”

Source location

Response from Essex Partnership NHS
Page 3 · response
Published 19 January 2024

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.2

  1. 1

    Monitor the stated provisions to assess whether they contribute to patient safety and therapeutic care.

    Stated by Essex Partnership University NHS Foundation TrustStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 19 January 2024.
  2. 2

    Commission a unified electronic patient-record system providing access to required clinical systems and robust clinical information sharing.

    Stated by Essex Partnership University NHS Foundation TrustStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 19 January 2024.

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 stated provisions to assess whether they contribute to patient safety and therapeutic care.

Verbatim wording from the response

“I hope that I have provided 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, which we will monitor the above provisions to ensure these are contributing to our overall aim of keeping patients safe and delivering therapeutic care.”

Source location

Response from Essex Partnership NHS
Page 4 · response
Published 19 January 2024

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

Commission a unified electronic patient-record system providing access to required clinical systems and robust clinical information sharing.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The Trust is currently commissioning a unified Electronic Patient Records System. This system will permit access to all of the required clinical systems and will also embed a new mechanism to ensure robust clinical information sharing.”

Source location

Response from Essex Partnership NHS
Page 2 · response
Published 19 January 2024

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