PFD report

Oliver Marc Robinson · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 4 Feb 2026•Manchester North

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
5

Raised in this report

Recipients
1

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 1 recipient

Stated actions
5

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 raised5

  1. Continuation of medicinal cannabis prescriptions obstructing appropriate psychiatric and addictions care
    Part of recurring concern: Unsafe medication prescribing
  2. Failure to exhaust available treatment options before prescribing medicinal cannabis
    Part of recurring concern: Unsafe medication prescribing
  3. Failure to base prescribing decisions on complete and current clinical information
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to incorporate relevant clinical history and diagnoses into care decisionsPart of recurring concern: Unsafe medication prescribing
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.5

  1. Action

    Reviewed the approach to patients with complex psychiatric presentations and reinforced coordination with relevant external mental health services through coordinated-care arrangements.

    Stated by Curaleaf ClinicStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 10 February 2026.
  2. Action

    Required CMHT contact and explicit consent or non-objection before commencing CBMP treatment for patients receiving CMHT care.

    Stated by Curaleaf ClinicStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 10 February 2026.
  3. Action

    Reinforced documentation of available clinical information and review of incomplete external information through MDT and clinical governance processes.

    Stated by Curaleaf ClinicStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 10 February 2026.

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.5

  1. Position

    The summary care record was less than a year old and contained information sufficient for the prescribing assessment.

    Stated by Curaleaf ClinicDisputes the concernThe respondent disagreed with part of the concern or the basis for it.

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

Continuation of medicinal cannabis prescriptions obstructing appropriate psychiatric and addictions care

Wider context from the report

“(4) The continuation of prescriptions for medicinal cannabis acted as an obstacle to Oliver receiving appropriate psychiatric and addictions care. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unsafe medication prescribing.

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 exhaust available treatment options before prescribing medicinal cannabis

Wider context from the report

“(1) The Consultant Psychiatrist who reviewed Oliver at Cureleaf specialised in Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and had no Consultant level experience in treating adult patients with Oliver’s complex presentation or in the type of treatments available for adult patients with treatment-resistant depression. Treatment options had not been exhausted at the time that medicinal cannabis was prescribed. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unsafe medication prescribing.

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 base prescribing decisions on complete and current clinical information

Wider context from the report

“(2) Cureleaf's initial prescribing decision was based on an out-of-date GP summary care record and without the knowledge that Oliver was under the care of a Consultant Psychiatrist at the Priory. As such the prescribing decision was based on incomplete information. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to incorporate relevant clinical history and diagnoses into care decisions; Unsafe medication prescribing.

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

Lack of consultant-level expertise in treating adults with complex, treatment-resistant depression

Wider context from the report

“(1) The Consultant Psychiatrist who reviewed Oliver at Cureleaf specialised in Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and had no Consultant level experience in treating adult patients with Oliver’s complex presentation or in the type of treatments available for adult patients with treatment-resistant depression. Treatment options had not been exhausted at the time that medicinal cannabis was prescribed. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to provide effective consultant psychiatrist oversight in mental health care.

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 communicate directly with treating psychiatrists and obtain their views

Wider context from the report

“(3) Once Cureleaf Clinic became aware that Oliver had been reviewed by Consultant Psychiatrists at the Priory and the NHS, it did not communicate directly with them or seek to inform themselves of the treating Psychiatrists’ views. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to obtain and consider relevant treating psychiatrists' views.

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

Reviewed the approach to patients with complex psychiatric presentations and reinforced coordination with relevant external mental health services through coordinated-care arrangements.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Curaleaf Clinic has reflected carefully on the concerns raised in this case. The following changes have been implemented:”

Source location

Response from Curaleaf Clinic
Page 8 · response
Published 10 February 2026

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

Required CMHT contact and explicit consent or non-objection before commencing CBMP treatment for patients receiving CMHT care.

Verbatim wording from the response

“• For patients under Community Mental Health Team (CMHT) care, the clinic’s established process now requires that contact is made with the CMHT and that a decision to prescribe is not made until this has been confirmed.”

Source location

Response from Curaleaf Clinic
Page 5 · response
Published 10 February 2026

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

Reinforced documentation of available clinical information and review of incomplete external information through MDT and clinical governance processes.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Our internal investigation identified the reliance on SCRs as an area for improvement. The following changes were implemented prior to the inquest:”

Source location

Response from Curaleaf Clinic
Page 5 · response
Published 10 February 2026

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

Implemented access to the NHS National Care Records Service to obtain contemporaneous clinical information for assessments and ongoing care.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Our internal investigation identified the reliance on SCRs as an area for improvement. The following changes were implemented prior to the inquest:”

Source location

Response from Curaleaf Clinic
Page 5 · response
Published 10 February 2026

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

Introduced electronic-record controls to identify external psychiatric or CMHT involvement, monitor engagement, and document relevant care coordination.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Internal Investigation Findings and Actions Taken”

Source location

Response from Curaleaf Clinic
Page 6 · response
Published 10 February 2026

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 summary care record was less than a year old and contained information sufficient for the prescribing assessment.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Coroner’s concern: Curaleaf’s initial prescribing decision was based on an out-of-date GP summary care record and without the knowledge that Oliver was under the care of a Consultant Psychiatrist at the Priory. As such the prescribing decision was based on incomplete information.”

Source location

Response from Curaleaf Clinic
Page 4 · response
Published 10 February 2026

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

Communication responsibility was not exclusively Curaleaf’s because other treating providers knew about the prescription and raised no concerns.

Verbatim wording from the response

“We acknowledge that, with the benefit of hindsight, more proactive steps could have been taken by Curaleaf Clinic to establish direct communication with Mr Robinson’s other treating psychiatrists. However, the concern, as framed, attributes the communication failure exclusively to Curaleaf Clinic. Communication is a two-way process. Throughout Mr Robinson’s treatment, Curaleaf Clinic sent clinical letters to his GP after each consultation and expressly invited collaboration with other healthcare professionals. When Mr Robinson informed ████████ that another psychiatrist was involved in his care, she asked him to provide the relevant contact details. He agreed to do so but did not subsequently provide this information. Mr Robinson himself made efforts to facilitate communication between his healthcare providers.”

Source location

Response from Curaleaf Clinic
Page 6 · response
Published 10 February 2026

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

Treatment options were considered exhausted because multiple medication classes and extensive non-pharmacological treatments had already been tried.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Exhaustion of Treatment Options”

Source location

Response from Curaleaf Clinic
Page 3 · response
Published 10 February 2026

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 prescribing psychiatrist had substantial adult psychiatry training and experience despite specialising in child and adolescent psychiatry.

Verbatim wording from the response

“We have engaged with this concern and respectfully disagree, for the reasons set out below.”

Source location

Response from Curaleaf Clinic
Page 2 · response
Published 10 February 2026

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

Continuing medicinal cannabis did not obstruct psychiatric or addictions care, which continued through the GP, Priory and NHS services.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Coroner’s concern: The continuation of prescriptions for medicinal cannabis acted as an obstacle to Oliver receiving appropriate psychiatric and addictions care.”

Source location

Response from Curaleaf Clinic
Page 7 · response
Published 10 February 2026

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 positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when they do not describe a specific action.1

  1. 1

    Mandatory multidisciplinary review meant prescribing was not undertaken solely by the consultant psychiatrist.

    Stated by Curaleaf ClinicExisting arrangements considered sufficientThe respondent said that existing arrangements were sufficient, so no further action was needed.

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

Mandatory multidisciplinary review meant prescribing was not undertaken solely by the consultant psychiatrist.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Critically, Mr Robinson’s case was not managed by ████████ in isolation. Curaleaf Clinic operates a formal multidisciplinary team (MDT) process through which every patient must be reviewed before a prescribing decision is made. No individual clinician may unilaterally initiate treatment with cannabis-based medicinal products (CBMPs). The MDT requires a”

Source location

Response from Curaleaf Clinic
Page 2 · response
Published 10 February 2026

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