Charlotte Emily BEVAN and Zaani Bevan Malbrouck · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 27 Oct 2015•Avon

Published report and response evidence

This report’s concerns and statements found in recipients’ published responses. Statements are included even where no link to an individual concern is recorded. A link shows an 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
3

Described in responses

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. Failure to hold multi-disciplinary team meetings when pregnant women have known mental health conditions
    Part of recurring concern: Insufficient multi-disciplinary coordination in mental health care
  2. Failure to widely circulate care plans to involved professionals
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable care-planning processes
  3. Failure to draw up appropriate multi-agency care plans
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to convene coordinated professional case-planning discussions for safety concernsPart of recurring concern: Unreliable care-planning processes

Stated actions An action is something a recipient says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to a concern raised.3

  1. Avon and Wiltshire Mental Health Partnership NHS Trust

    Review perinatal pathways against NICE guidance and consult and test draft algorithms for a consistent Trust-wide pathway.

  2. Avon and Wiltshire Mental Health Partnership NHS Trust

    Produce and prominently issue a reflective training vignette through the internal safety alert system, requiring confirmation of action and monitoring implementation through supervision and appraisal.

  3. Avon and Wiltshire Mental Health Partnership NHS Trust

    Continue working with NHS England to support review of the commissioning model for perinatal mental health services.

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

  1. Avon and Wiltshire Mental Health Partnership NHS Trust

    No revision of existing policies, systems or procedures was considered necessary in light of the deaths.

    No action considered necessaryThe respondent said that 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

Failure to hold multi-disciplinary team meetings when pregnant women have known mental health conditions

Wider context from the report

“It was not stated in evidence - that in all cases when a lady with a known mental health condition becomes pregnant that there is a multi-disciplinary team meeting to include all or some of the following professionals: GP, midwife, obstetrician, consultant psychiatrist, care co-ordinator, social services; and any others to be deemed appropriate. It was not stated in evidence - that and an appropriate care plan involving all agencies and professionals is drawn up and then widely circulated to those professionals who are involved with the care and treatment of the patient. That group to include; GP, midwife, obstetrician, consultant psychiatrist, care co-ordinator, social services; and any others to be deemed appropriate. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Insufficient multi-disciplinary coordination 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 widely circulate care plans to involved professionals

Wider context from the report

“It was not stated in evidence - that in all cases when a lady with a known mental health condition becomes pregnant that there is a multi-disciplinary team meeting to include all or some of the following professionals: GP, midwife, obstetrician, consultant psychiatrist, care co-ordinator, social services; and any others to be deemed appropriate. It was not stated in evidence - that and an appropriate care plan involving all agencies and professionals is drawn up and then widely circulated to those professionals who are involved with the care and treatment of the patient. That group to include; GP, midwife, obstetrician, consultant psychiatrist, care co-ordinator, social services; and any others to be deemed appropriate. ”

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 draw up appropriate multi-agency care plans

Wider context from the report

“It was not stated in evidence - that in all cases when a lady with a known mental health condition becomes pregnant that there is a multi-disciplinary team meeting to include all or some of the following professionals: GP, midwife, obstetrician, consultant psychiatrist, care co-ordinator, social services; and any others to be deemed appropriate. It was not stated in evidence - that and an appropriate care plan involving all agencies and professionals is drawn up and then widely circulated to those professionals who are involved with the care and treatment of the patient. That group to include; GP, midwife, obstetrician, consultant psychiatrist, care co-ordinator, social services; and any others to be deemed appropriate. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to convene coordinated professional case-planning discussions for safety concerns; 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

Review perinatal pathways against NICE guidance and consult and test draft algorithms for a consistent Trust-wide pathway.

Verbatim wording from the response

“At our December Critical Incident Overview Group meeting, we examined the perinatal pathways in place across the Trust for pregnant women and noted that there was variability, and more variability than can be accounted for by the different commissioning arrangements and service delivery models. As such, Dr Kathryn Bundle, Consultant Perinatal Psychiatrist has been tasked to review the individual pathway arrangements against the NICE guidelines for antenatal and post-natal mental health care, with the aim of agreeing a pathway that can be agreed and implemented Trust wide. This work is well underway with draft algorithms developed that are being consulted on and tested.”

Source location

2015-0418-Response
Page 1 · response
Published 27 October 2015

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

Produce and prominently issue a reflective training vignette through the internal safety alert system, requiring confirmation of action and monitoring implementation through supervision and appraisal.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In addition, although we have not found the need to revise our existing policies, systems and procedures in light of Charlotte’s and Zaanyi’s deaths, we do plan to produce and issue in the New Year a vignette of Charlotte’s care that can be shared with all teams as a valuable reflective training exercise. This will place emphasis on the importance of multi-disciplinary working and care planning. This vignette will be issued with prominence via our internal safety alert system, that requires our positive confirmation that action has been taken. Implementation of change will be monitored via our supervision and appraisal processes.”

Source location

2015-0418-Response
Page 1 · response
Published 27 October 2015

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

Continue working with NHS England to support review of the commissioning model for perinatal mental health services.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Finally, we will of course continue to work with NHS England to help them review the commissioning model for perinatal mental health services.”

Source location

2015-0418-Response
Page 1 · response
Published 27 October 2015

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

No revision of existing policies, systems or procedures was considered necessary in light of the deaths.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In addition, although we have not found the need to revise our existing policies, systems and procedures in light of Charlotte’s and Zaanyi’s deaths, we do plan to produce and issue in the New Year a vignette of Charlotte’s care that can be shared with all teams as a valuable reflective training exercise. This will place emphasis on the importance of multi-disciplinary working and care planning. This vignette will be issued with prominence via our internal safety alert system, that requires our positive confirmation that action has been taken. Implementation of change will be monitored via our supervision and appraisal processes.”

Source location

2015-0418-Response
Page 1 · response
Published 27 October 2015

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