PFD report

Timothy Robert DE BOOS · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 13 Dec 2024•Suffolk

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
3

Raised in this report

Recipients
1

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 1 recipient

Stated actions
1

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 raised3

  1. Lack of Mental Health Unit inpatient beds
    Part of recurring concern: Insufficient psychiatric inpatient bed capacity
  2. Failure to treat the views of experienced mental health professionals, patients and families as sufficient evidence in voluntary inpatient admission decisions
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to involve families and carers in mental health care planning and decisionsPart of recurring concern: Failure to provide patient-centred care and decisions
  3. Delays in Crisis Resolution and Home Treatment Team review for Mental Health Unit admission
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable urgent mental health referral and assessment pathways
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.1

  1. Action

    Publish statutory guidance on safe discharge from mental health inpatient settings.

    Stated by Department of Health and Social CareStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 19 December 2024.

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.1

  1. Position

    The Crisis Team remains responsible for inpatient assessments under national practice to ensure community alternatives are considered before admission.

    Stated by Department of Health and Social CareExisting arrangements considered sufficientThe respondent said that existing arrangements were sufficient, so no further action was needed.

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 Mental Health Unit inpatient beds

Wider context from the report

“1. I am concerned of the continuing lack of Mental Health Unit inpatient beds in Suffolk, and more widely throughout England and Wales. At the time of Tim’s mental health crisis on the 2ⁿᵈ February 2024, had the decision to admit him been possible, he still would not have been admitted as there were five other individuals in the queue before him also waiting for admission. The lack of available beds is not a new problem, and I have previously issued two Regulation 28 Prevention of Future Death Reports in which a lack of inpatient Mental Health Unit beds have contributed to a death- Nicola Rayner (died 10ᵗʰ June 2023), reported 7ᵗʰ March 2024. Piotr Kierzkowski (died 17ᵗʰ December 2019), reported 12ᵗʰ October 2020. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Insufficient psychiatric inpatient bed 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

Failure to treat the views of experienced mental health professionals, patients and families as sufficient evidence in voluntary inpatient admission decisions

Wider context from the report

“2. In Tim’s case, on the 2ⁿᵈ of February 2024 Tim’s family, Tim himself, and Tim’s Mental Health Care Coordinator (a Senior Mental Health Nurse who had been supporting Tim for a year), all wished for his admission to a Mental Health Unit as a voluntary patient. It was heard in evidence that a different team (the Crisis Resolution and Home Treatment Team) were the ‘gatekeepers’ for admission and this team could not review Tim until the next day. When reviewed by Crisis Resolution and Home Treatment Team staff (who had never met Tim before), they believed his crisis had subsided and his admission was denied. In evidence Tim’s Mental Health Care Coordinator was adamant that Tim should have been hospitalised on the 2ⁿᵈ February, as both his family and Tim himself had also wished. I am therefore concerned that the views of an experienced mental health professional, a patient’s family, and the patient themselves, is deemed insufficient evidence for an admission to a Mental Health Unit as a voluntary inpatient. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to involve families and carers in mental health care planning and decisions; Failure to provide patient-centred care and 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

Delays in Crisis Resolution and Home Treatment Team review for Mental Health Unit admission

Wider context from the report

“2. In Tim’s case, on the 2ⁿᵈ of February 2024 Tim’s family, Tim himself, and Tim’s Mental Health Care Coordinator (a Senior Mental Health Nurse who had been supporting Tim for a year), all wished for his admission to a Mental Health Unit as a voluntary patient. It was heard in evidence that a different team (the Crisis Resolution and Home Treatment Team) were the ‘gatekeepers’ for admission and this team could not review Tim until the next day. When reviewed by Crisis Resolution and Home Treatment Team staff (who had never met Tim before), they believed his crisis had subsided and his admission was denied. In evidence Tim’s Mental Health Care Coordinator was adamant that Tim should have been hospitalised on the 2ⁿᵈ February, as both his family and Tim himself had also wished. I am therefore concerned that the views of an experienced mental health professional, a patient’s family, and the patient themselves, is deemed insufficient evidence for an admission to a Mental Health Unit as a voluntary inpatient. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable urgent mental health referral and assessment pathways.

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

Publish statutory guidance on safe discharge from mental health inpatient settings.

Verbatim wording from the response

“It is also important that when people are discharged, this happens in a way that considers their needs on discharge and any risks to their safety. To help support safe and timely discharge decisions, the Department published statutory guidance on Discharge from mental health inpatient settings in January 2024 and which is available at: Discharge from mental health inpatient settings - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk). This sets out how health and care systems should work together to support safe discharge from all mental health and learning disability and autism inpatient settings for children, young people and adults.”

Source location

Response from DHSC
Page 2 · response
Published 19 December 2024

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 Crisis Team remains responsible for inpatient assessments under national practice to ensure community alternatives are considered before admission.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The Crisis Team remains the assessors for inpatient services in line with national practice. This is to ensure all opportunities for community interventions are explored because the evidence confirms this generally leads to better recovery outcomes. The community team made the referral to the Crisis Team on 2 February who then completed a visit on 3 and 4 February. The visits assessed that admission to hospital was no longer the immediate care need.”

Source location

Response from DHSC
Page 2 · response
Published 19 December 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