PFD report

Songul BOZDAG · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 26 Jul 2017•Inner North London

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
6

Raised in this report

Recipients
1

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 1 recipient

Stated actions
8

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.

Report evidence summary

Concerns raised6

  1. Failure to arrange mandatory post-discharge reviews
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to provide timely and adequate follow-up after discharge
  2. Failure to update drug cards to reflect increased prescriptions
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable implementation of medication changes
  3. Absence of a system safety net for detecting individual care errors
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.7

  1. Action

    Provide monthly supervision for all care coordinators, covering care-plan delivery, reviews, CPA status and record-keeping, with regular compliance audits.

    Stated by East London NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 25 September 2017.
  2. Action

    Implement a central referrals inbox for communicating hospital discharge plans to CMHT staff, with daily administrative review and senior oversight.

    Stated by East London NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 25 September 2017.
  3. Action

    Review internal monitoring processes to identify gaps in CPA reviews and regular contact.

    Stated by East London NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 25 September 2017.

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.2

  1. Position

    The London Borough of Tower Hamlets is handling formal processes addressing the care coordinator’s conduct, with Trust support.

    Stated by East London NHS Foundation TrustRedirects responsibilityThe respondent said that another organisation was responsible for deciding or taking action.

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 arrange mandatory post-discharge reviews

Wider context from the report

“1. Ms Bozdag’s care co-ordinator did not arrange for what was a mandatory say review of Ms Bozdag after discharge from hospital in August/September 2016. 2. She recorded monthly reviews of Ms Bozdag on only half of the months from September 2016 to Ms Bozdag’s death in February 2017, though monthly reviews were mandatory. 3. The care co-ordinator gave evidence at inquest that she had actually reviewed Ms Bozdag once a fortnight when Ms Bozdag came for her depot injections, but in the main did not record these discussions. She did include in her statement for the court one note recording the nature of a discussion had on 10 February. This was in fact the day after death. She said this was an error. 4. She described having a very good recollection of individual consultations with Ms Bozdag, such as one on 6 September 2016 though there was no record supporting this description. However, she had not had a sufficient recollection of Ms Bozdag’s treatment during her life to notice that the need for a care plan approach (CPA) had not been recorded on the computer system. 5. Finally, the care co-ordinator did not ensure that the drug card in use reflected the psychiatrist’s increased prescription of 50mg of risperidone rather than the original one of 37.5mg. Ms Bozdag was therefore under medicated on an ongoing basis. These were the errors of an individual, but there is an additional point that they were not captured by any sort of system safety net during Ms Bozdag’s life. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to provide timely and adequate follow-up after discharge.

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 update drug cards to reflect increased prescriptions

Wider context from the report

“1. Ms Bozdag’s care co-ordinator did not arrange for what was a mandatory say review of Ms Bozdag after discharge from hospital in August/September 2016. 2. She recorded monthly reviews of Ms Bozdag on only half of the months from September 2016 to Ms Bozdag’s death in February 2017, though monthly reviews were mandatory. 3. The care co-ordinator gave evidence at inquest that she had actually reviewed Ms Bozdag once a fortnight when Ms Bozdag came for her depot injections, but in the main did not record these discussions. She did include in her statement for the court one note recording the nature of a discussion had on 10 February. This was in fact the day after death. She said this was an error. 4. She described having a very good recollection of individual consultations with Ms Bozdag, such as one on 6 September 2016 though there was no record supporting this description. However, she had not had a sufficient recollection of Ms Bozdag’s treatment during her life to notice that the need for a care plan approach (CPA) had not been recorded on the computer system. 5. Finally, the care co-ordinator did not ensure that the drug card in use reflected the psychiatrist’s increased prescription of 50mg of risperidone rather than the original one of 37.5mg. Ms Bozdag was therefore under medicated on an ongoing basis. These were the errors of an individual, but there is an additional point that they were not captured by any sort of system safety net during Ms Bozdag’s life. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable implementation of medication changes.

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

Absence of a system safety net for detecting individual care errors

Wider context from the report

“1. Ms Bozdag’s care co-ordinator did not arrange for what was a mandatory say review of Ms Bozdag after discharge from hospital in August/September 2016. 2. She recorded monthly reviews of Ms Bozdag on only half of the months from September 2016 to Ms Bozdag’s death in February 2017, though monthly reviews were mandatory. 3. The care co-ordinator gave evidence at inquest that she had actually reviewed Ms Bozdag once a fortnight when Ms Bozdag came for her depot injections, but in the main did not record these discussions. She did include in her statement for the court one note recording the nature of a discussion had on 10 February. This was in fact the day after death. She said this was an error. 4. She described having a very good recollection of individual consultations with Ms Bozdag, such as one on 6 September 2016 though there was no record supporting this description. However, she had not had a sufficient recollection of Ms Bozdag’s treatment during her life to notice that the need for a care plan approach (CPA) had not been recorded on the computer system. 5. Finally, the care co-ordinator did not ensure that the drug card in use reflected the psychiatrist’s increased prescription of 50mg of risperidone rather than the original one of 37.5mg. Ms Bozdag was therefore under medicated on an ongoing basis. These were the errors of an individual, but there is an additional point that they were not captured by any sort of system safety net during Ms Bozdag’s life. ”

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 maintain records supporting individual consultations

Wider context from the report

“1. Ms Bozdag’s care co-ordinator did not arrange for what was a mandatory say review of Ms Bozdag after discharge from hospital in August/September 2016. 2. She recorded monthly reviews of Ms Bozdag on only half of the months from September 2016 to Ms Bozdag’s death in February 2017, though monthly reviews were mandatory. 3. The care co-ordinator gave evidence at inquest that she had actually reviewed Ms Bozdag once a fortnight when Ms Bozdag came for her depot injections, but in the main did not record these discussions. She did include in her statement for the court one note recording the nature of a discussion had on 10 February. This was in fact the day after death. She said this was an error. 4. She described having a very good recollection of individual consultations with Ms Bozdag, such as one on 6 September 2016 though there was no record supporting this description. However, she had not had a sufficient recollection of Ms Bozdag’s treatment during her life to notice that the need for a care plan approach (CPA) had not been recorded on the computer system. 5. Finally, the care co-ordinator did not ensure that the drug card in use reflected the psychiatrist’s increased prescription of 50mg of risperidone rather than the original one of 37.5mg. Ms Bozdag was therefore under medicated on an ongoing basis. These were the errors of an individual, but there is an additional point that they were not captured by any sort of system safety net during Ms Bozdag’s life. ”

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 mandatory monthly care reviews

Wider context from the report

“1. Ms Bozdag’s care co-ordinator did not arrange for what was a mandatory say review of Ms Bozdag after discharge from hospital in August/September 2016. 2. She recorded monthly reviews of Ms Bozdag on only half of the months from September 2016 to Ms Bozdag’s death in February 2017, though monthly reviews were mandatory. 3. The care co-ordinator gave evidence at inquest that she had actually reviewed Ms Bozdag once a fortnight when Ms Bozdag came for her depot injections, but in the main did not record these discussions. She did include in her statement for the court one note recording the nature of a discussion had on 10 February. This was in fact the day after death. She said this was an error. 4. She described having a very good recollection of individual consultations with Ms Bozdag, such as one on 6 September 2016 though there was no record supporting this description. However, she had not had a sufficient recollection of Ms Bozdag’s treatment during her life to notice that the need for a care plan approach (CPA) had not been recorded on the computer system. 5. Finally, the care co-ordinator did not ensure that the drug card in use reflected the psychiatrist’s increased prescription of 50mg of risperidone rather than the original one of 37.5mg. Ms Bozdag was therefore under medicated on an ongoing basis. These were the errors of an individual, but there is an additional point that they were not captured by any sort of system safety net during Ms Bozdag’s life. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Incomplete, inaccurate or unavailable clinical and care records.

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 the need for a care plan approach on the computer system

Wider context from the report

“1. Ms Bozdag’s care co-ordinator did not arrange for what was a mandatory say review of Ms Bozdag after discharge from hospital in August/September 2016. 2. She recorded monthly reviews of Ms Bozdag on only half of the months from September 2016 to Ms Bozdag’s death in February 2017, though monthly reviews were mandatory. 3. The care co-ordinator gave evidence at inquest that she had actually reviewed Ms Bozdag once a fortnight when Ms Bozdag came for her depot injections, but in the main did not record these discussions. She did include in her statement for the court one note recording the nature of a discussion had on 10 February. This was in fact the day after death. She said this was an error. 4. She described having a very good recollection of individual consultations with Ms Bozdag, such as one on 6 September 2016 though there was no record supporting this description. However, she had not had a sufficient recollection of Ms Bozdag’s treatment during her life to notice that the need for a care plan approach (CPA) had not been recorded on the computer system. 5. Finally, the care co-ordinator did not ensure that the drug card in use reflected the psychiatrist’s increased prescription of 50mg of risperidone rather than the original one of 37.5mg. Ms Bozdag was therefore under medicated on an ongoing basis. These were the errors of an individual, but there is an additional point that they were not captured by any sort of system safety net during Ms Bozdag’s life. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable Care Programme Approach care coordination; Unreliable recording of safety-critical mental health information.

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

Provide monthly supervision for all care coordinators, covering care-plan delivery, reviews, CPA status and record-keeping, with regular compliance audits.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The key system for monitoring the ongoing support provided to service users by a care coordinator is monthly supervision. This had not been robustly undertaken within the CMHT and I am pleased to report that this is now working in line with Trust procedures with all care coordinators receiving monthly supervision. Standing agenda items in supervision include CPA status, delivery of the care plan including monitoring of visits and medical reviews and the standard to record keeping. Regular audits are being undertaken to maintain a robust oversight on the process and also actively respond to any gaps in the system in a timely way and to provide assurance that staff are working to agreed record keeping standards and practice.”

Source location

Response from East London NHS Foundation Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 25 September 2017

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 a central referrals inbox for communicating hospital discharge plans to CMHT staff, with daily administrative review and senior oversight.

Verbatim wording from the response

“There is now a new Operational Team Lead in post and this member of staff has imbedded robust systems within the CMHT. The first change is the implementation of an Inbox based system to communicate discharge care plans to CMHT staff.”

Source location

Response from East London NHS Foundation Trust
Page 1 · response
Published 25 September 2017

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 internal monitoring processes to identify gaps in CPA reviews and regular contact.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In addition to the above a review of internal monitoring process has been undertaken to assure the Trust that systems are sufficiently robust and will flag up any cases where service users on CPA are not being seen regularly or reviewed by their consultant. Teams have access to live reports which allows real time activity by the Team and can be drilled down to provide data on an individual service user. The Team administrator also sends out weekly prompts around key performance indicators to the Operational Team Lead and this includes activity for patients on CPA.”

Source location

Response from East London NHS Foundation Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 25 September 2017

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

Extend seven-day post-discharge follow-up to everyone discharged from hospital, not only people under the Care Programme Approach.

Verbatim wording from the response

“A seven day follow up following discharge from hospital is a key intervention and has now been extended to include all individuals following discharge from hospital, not just those under the Care Programme Approach.”

Source location

Response from East London NHS Foundation Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 25 September 2017

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 care coordinators’ caseloads against agreed record-keeping standards and practice.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Before setting out the steps that the Trust is taken in relation to improving systems I would like to reassure you that the issues highlighted in relation to the conduct of the care co-ordinator. One of the first actions taken was an audit of the care coordinators case load to ascertain if she was working to agreed record keeping standards and practice. The gaps in the care that she provided to Ms Bozdag are currently being dealt with by her employer, the London Borough of Tower Hamlets, through formal processes with the full support of the Trust and the individual in question is not working with patients whilst these processes are ongoing.”

Source location

Response from East London NHS Foundation Trust
Page 1 · response
Published 25 September 2017

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

Provide teams with live activity reports and weekly performance prompts covering CPA patients.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In addition to the above a review of internal monitoring process has been undertaken to assure the Trust that systems are sufficiently robust and will flag up any cases where service users on CPA are not being seen regularly or reviewed by their consultant. Teams have access to live reports which allows real time activity by the Team and can be drilled down to provide data on an individual service user. The Team administrator also sends out weekly prompts around key performance indicators to the Operational Team Lead and this includes activity for patients on CPA.”

Source location

Response from East London NHS Foundation Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 25 September 2017

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

Require Senior Practitioners to allocate and monitor discharge-plan actions, using duty workers when care coordinators are unavailable.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Senior Practitioners are now responsible for ensuring that actions arising from discharge plans are allocated to care coordinators and monitored to ensure they have been followed up. This will include seven day follow ups, medical reviews and changes in medication. This new process will also allow senior practitioners to allocate actions to a duty worker if the care coordinator is absent from work or unable to undertake an intervention for any reason.”

Source location

Response from East London NHS Foundation Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 25 September 2017

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 London Borough of Tower Hamlets is handling formal processes addressing the care coordinator’s conduct, with Trust support.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Before setting out the steps that the Trust is taken in relation to improving systems I would like to reassure you that the issues highlighted in relation to the conduct of the care co-ordinator. One of the first actions taken was an audit of the care coordinators case load to ascertain if she was working to agreed record keeping standards and practice. The gaps in the care that she provided to Ms Bozdag are currently being dealt with by her employer, the London Borough of Tower Hamlets, through formal processes with the full support of the Trust and the individual in question is not working with patients whilst these processes are ongoing.”

Source location

Response from East London NHS Foundation Trust
Page 1 · response
Published 25 September 2017

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

Implemented CMHT systems are considered sufficient to address concerns about monitoring care coordinators.

Verbatim wording from the response

“With the systems that are now implemented at the CMHT I hope you will be content that the Trust has taken these issues seriously and adequately addressed your concerns.”

Source location

Response from East London NHS Foundation Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 25 September 2017

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.1

  1. 1

    Appoint a new Operational Team Lead within the CMHT to strengthen leadership and oversight.

    Stated by East London NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 25 September 2017.

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

Appoint a new Operational Team Lead within the CMHT to strengthen leadership and oversight.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In relation to systems within the Community Mental Health Team (CMHT) it is acknowledged that during 2016 and early 2017 the leadership and oversight was compromised and significant work has been undertaken to improve this position.”

Source location

Response from East London NHS Foundation Trust
Page 1 · response
Published 25 September 2017

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