PFD report

Karl Qolf Jamil Englemak Cassimjee · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 2 Nov 2018•Manchester West

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
9

Raised in this report

Recipients
2

Named on the report

Responses found
0

Of 2 recipients

Stated actions
0

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 raised9

  1. Sub-optimal Mental Health Act assessment performance
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to ensure timely and appropriate Mental Health Act assessment
  2. Failure to complete Mental Health Act assessment forms in the required format with the required practitioner information
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable Mental Health Act assessment documentationPart of recurring concern: Unreliable documentation of mental health assessments
  3. Failure to implement a revised Multi Disciplinary Team agenda approach
    Part of recurring concern: Insufficient multi-disciplinary coordination in mental health care
Responses linked to these concerns

Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.

No linked response statements

No respondent-stated action or position is clearly linked to these concerns.

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

Sub-optimal Mental Health Act assessment performance

Wider context from the report

“1. Brief circumstances of matter of concern a. A Mental Health Act assessment had been completed without a collateral history being obtained (including Clatterbridge Hospital); b. The assessment completed by the Specialist Registrar was entered on the form ‘Amongst systems’ in the incorrect format with no South Practitioner; c. The assessment, as recorded by the Registrar was accepted to be sub-optimal; d. The risk assessment has no clear formulation of risk and no evidence of collaborative safety planning with the deceased (that is to say, clear evidence that the advice was to means to take in the event of a deterioration in his condition from discharge to being seen by the Mental Health Home Treatment Team. e. It is unclear from patient records as to what information the deceased and/or the British Transport Police (who were tasked with the responsibility of considering the feedback to the response about contact with the MHTT or what action to be taken in the event of a deterioration in the interim). f. A Mental Health Nurse recorded a substantial and detailed history given to her by the deceased setting out the full extent of his florid delusions and paranoid thoughts that to have been fully and adequately properly evaluated by the Specialty Registrar, to the extent that the nurse expressed extreme surprise that the Registrar had not shown the required concern, and Mental Health Act detention where being no means within the operational procedures in place for the nurses concerns to be taken into account. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to ensure timely and appropriate Mental Health Act assessment.

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 complete Mental Health Act assessment forms in the required format with the required practitioner information

Wider context from the report

“1. Brief circumstances of matter of concern a. A Mental Health Act assessment had been completed without a collateral history being obtained (including Clatterbridge Hospital); b. The assessment completed by the Specialist Registrar was entered on the form ‘Amongst systems’ in the incorrect format with no South Practitioner; c. The assessment, as recorded by the Registrar was accepted to be sub-optimal; d. The risk assessment has no clear formulation of risk and no evidence of collaborative safety planning with the deceased (that is to say, clear evidence that the advice was to means to take in the event of a deterioration in his condition from discharge to being seen by the Mental Health Home Treatment Team. e. It is unclear from patient records as to what information the deceased and/or the British Transport Police (who were tasked with the responsibility of considering the feedback to the response about contact with the MHTT or what action to be taken in the event of a deterioration in the interim). f. A Mental Health Nurse recorded a substantial and detailed history given to her by the deceased setting out the full extent of his florid delusions and paranoid thoughts that to have been fully and adequately properly evaluated by the Specialty Registrar, to the extent that the nurse expressed extreme surprise that the Registrar had not shown the required concern, and Mental Health Act detention where being no means within the operational procedures in place for the nurses concerns to be taken into account. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable Mental Health Act assessment documentation; Unreliable documentation of mental health assessments.

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 implement a revised Multi Disciplinary Team agenda approach

Wider context from the report

“2. Whilst the Greater Manchester Mental Health Trust had conducted a comprehensive Incident Review report that correctly identified: a. The need for the Community Mental Health Team operational procedure to be revised; b. The need for a revised Multi Disciplinary Team agenda approach to take place and in such cases; c. A reminder to mental health liaison practitioners to improve record keeping and adherence to existing systems and protocols, including involving all such practitioners in the “decision making” process; However, the evidence received at Inquest confirmed that: i. To date, the operational systems identified as in need of revision and review have not been put in place or actioned; ”

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 record interim deterioration advice and action information

Wider context from the report

“1. Brief circumstances of matter of concern a. A Mental Health Act assessment had been completed without a collateral history being obtained (including Clatterbridge Hospital); b. The assessment completed by the Specialist Registrar was entered on the form ‘Amongst systems’ in the incorrect format with no South Practitioner; c. The assessment, as recorded by the Registrar was accepted to be sub-optimal; d. The risk assessment has no clear formulation of risk and no evidence of collaborative safety planning with the deceased (that is to say, clear evidence that the advice was to means to take in the event of a deterioration in his condition from discharge to being seen by the Mental Health Home Treatment Team. e. It is unclear from patient records as to what information the deceased and/or the British Transport Police (who were tasked with the responsibility of considering the feedback to the response about contact with the MHTT or what action to be taken in the event of a deterioration in the interim). f. A Mental Health Nurse recorded a substantial and detailed history given to her by the deceased setting out the full extent of his florid delusions and paranoid thoughts that to have been fully and adequately properly evaluated by the Specialty Registrar, to the extent that the nurse expressed extreme surprise that the Registrar had not shown the required concern, and Mental Health Act detention where being no means within the operational procedures in place for the nurses concerns to be taken into account. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate safety-netting advice for patients and carers; Unreliable recording of safety-critical mental health information.

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 formulate risk clearly and undertake collaborative safety planning

Wider context from the report

“1. Brief circumstances of matter of concern a. A Mental Health Act assessment had been completed without a collateral history being obtained (including Clatterbridge Hospital); b. The assessment completed by the Specialist Registrar was entered on the form ‘Amongst systems’ in the incorrect format with no South Practitioner; c. The assessment, as recorded by the Registrar was accepted to be sub-optimal; d. The risk assessment has no clear formulation of risk and no evidence of collaborative safety planning with the deceased (that is to say, clear evidence that the advice was to means to take in the event of a deterioration in his condition from discharge to being seen by the Mental Health Home Treatment Team. e. It is unclear from patient records as to what information the deceased and/or the British Transport Police (who were tasked with the responsibility of considering the feedback to the response about contact with the MHTT or what action to be taken in the event of a deterioration in the interim). f. A Mental Health Nurse recorded a substantial and detailed history given to her by the deceased setting out the full extent of his florid delusions and paranoid thoughts that to have been fully and adequately properly evaluated by the Specialty Registrar, to the extent that the nurse expressed extreme surprise that the Registrar had not shown the required concern, and Mental Health Act detention where being no means within the operational procedures in place for the nurses concerns to be taken into account. ”

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 obtain collateral histories during Mental Health Act assessments

Wider context from the report

“1. Brief circumstances of matter of concern a. A Mental Health Act assessment had been completed without a collateral history being obtained (including Clatterbridge Hospital); b. The assessment completed by the Specialist Registrar was entered on the form ‘Amongst systems’ in the incorrect format with no South Practitioner; c. The assessment, as recorded by the Registrar was accepted to be sub-optimal; d. The risk assessment has no clear formulation of risk and no evidence of collaborative safety planning with the deceased (that is to say, clear evidence that the advice was to means to take in the event of a deterioration in his condition from discharge to being seen by the Mental Health Home Treatment Team. e. It is unclear from patient records as to what information the deceased and/or the British Transport Police (who were tasked with the responsibility of considering the feedback to the response about contact with the MHTT or what action to be taken in the event of a deterioration in the interim). f. A Mental Health Nurse recorded a substantial and detailed history given to her by the deceased setting out the full extent of his florid delusions and paranoid thoughts that to have been fully and adequately properly evaluated by the Specialty Registrar, to the extent that the nurse expressed extreme surprise that the Registrar had not shown the required concern, and Mental Health Act detention where being no means within the operational procedures in place for the nurses concerns to be taken into account. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Incomplete clinical history-taking; Unreliable gathering and use of collateral information in mental health assessments.

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 revise and implement the Community Mental Health Team operational procedure

Wider context from the report

“2. Whilst the Greater Manchester Mental Health Trust had conducted a comprehensive Incident Review report that correctly identified: a. The need for the Community Mental Health Team operational procedure to be revised; b. The need for a revised Multi Disciplinary Team agenda approach to take place and in such cases; c. A reminder to mental health liaison practitioners to improve record keeping and adherence to existing systems and protocols, including involving all such practitioners in the “decision making” process; However, the evidence received at Inquest confirmed that: i. To date, the operational systems identified as in need of revision and review have not been put in place or actioned; ”

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 of mental health liaison practitioners to maintain records, follow systems and protocols, and involve practitioners in decision making

Wider context from the report

“2. Whilst the Greater Manchester Mental Health Trust had conducted a comprehensive Incident Review report that correctly identified: a. The need for the Community Mental Health Team operational procedure to be revised; b. The need for a revised Multi Disciplinary Team agenda approach to take place and in such cases; c. A reminder to mental health liaison practitioners to improve record keeping and adherence to existing systems and protocols, including involving all such practitioners in the “decision making” process; However, the evidence received at Inquest confirmed that: i. To date, the operational systems identified as in need of revision and review have not been put in place or actioned; ”

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 of operational procedures to ensure nurses' concerns are taken into account in specialist evaluation and detention decisions

Wider context from the report

“1. Brief circumstances of matter of concern a. A Mental Health Act assessment had been completed without a collateral history being obtained (including Clatterbridge Hospital); b. The assessment completed by the Specialist Registrar was entered on the form ‘Amongst systems’ in the incorrect format with no South Practitioner; c. The assessment, as recorded by the Registrar was accepted to be sub-optimal; d. The risk assessment has no clear formulation of risk and no evidence of collaborative safety planning with the deceased (that is to say, clear evidence that the advice was to means to take in the event of a deterioration in his condition from discharge to being seen by the Mental Health Home Treatment Team. e. It is unclear from patient records as to what information the deceased and/or the British Transport Police (who were tasked with the responsibility of considering the feedback to the response about contact with the MHTT or what action to be taken in the event of a deterioration in the interim). f. A Mental Health Nurse recorded a substantial and detailed history given to her by the deceased setting out the full extent of his florid delusions and paranoid thoughts that to have been fully and adequately properly evaluated by the Specialty Registrar, to the extent that the nurse expressed extreme surprise that the Registrar had not shown the required concern, and Mental Health Act detention where being no means within the operational procedures in place for the nurses concerns to be taken into account. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to incorporate relevant collateral and professional views into clinical assessment.

Open source report
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
0/2

Data last updated 7 September 2026

No official response is included in the current published snapshot.