PFD report

Mark-Anthony SUMMERSETT · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 10 Jan 2025•West Sussex, Brighton and Hove

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
10

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 raised3

  1. Lack of sufficient recording, flow and sharing of information across agencies and teams
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable inter-agency information sharing for coordinated carePart of recurring concern: Unreliable interagency sharing of safeguarding risk informationPart of recurring concern: Unreliable recording of safeguarding information
  2. Failure to notify Police when a patient is missing or leaves the emergency department
  3. Delays in emergency department triage
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable emergency-department triage
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.9

  1. Action

    Disseminate Missing Persons policy guidance, flow charts and documentation to wards, emergency departments and clinical staff.

    Stated by UHSxStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 13 January 2025.
  2. Action

    Hold fortnightly multidisciplinary missing-patient meetings involving nursing, emergency, police, mental-health and security teams.

    Stated by UHSxStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 13 January 2025.
  3. Action

    Introduce daytime emergency-department front-door streaming by placing a nurse in reception for immediate assessment and patient redirection.

    Stated by UHSxStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 13 January 2025.

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

  1. Position

    Sussex Police decides whether to follow up patients referred after case-by-case risk assessment and liaison with mental health services.

    Stated by UHSxRedirects 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

Lack of sufficient recording, flow and sharing of information across agencies and teams

Wider context from the report

“Whilst I heard evidence that the UHS Foundation Trust has a Missing Person policy – Walkouts/absconding patients (approved 23 May 2024), in Mr Summerset’s case there was a lack of recorded and/or shared information across all the agencies and teams with whom he had contact, or to whom he was known, such that an accurate and fully reflective risk assessment was not achieved, exacerbated by delays in the triage process in the ED. Mr Summerset was not notified to Police as a missing person and nor were Police informed he had left the ED, despite them simultaneously raising a safeguarding risk via a Vulnerable Adult Single Combined Assessment of Risk Form. In sum, there was therefore a lack of information sufficiency, flow and sharing across the agencies whilst he was present in, and at and after the point he left, the ED, which might have enabled greater efforts to locate, contact and more urgently treat him. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable inter-agency information sharing for coordinated care; Unreliable interagency sharing of safeguarding risk information; Unreliable recording of safeguarding 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 notify Police when a patient is missing or leaves the emergency department

Wider context from the report

“Whilst I heard evidence that the UHS Foundation Trust has a Missing Person policy – Walkouts/absconding patients (approved 23 May 2024), in Mr Summerset’s case there was a lack of recorded and/or shared information across all the agencies and teams with whom he had contact, or to whom he was known, such that an accurate and fully reflective risk assessment was not achieved, exacerbated by delays in the triage process in the ED. Mr Summerset was not notified to Police as a missing person and nor were Police informed he had left the ED, despite them simultaneously raising a safeguarding risk via a Vulnerable Adult Single Combined Assessment of Risk Form. In sum, there was therefore a lack of information sufficiency, flow and sharing across the agencies whilst he was present in, and at and after the point he left, the ED, which might have enabled greater efforts to locate, contact and more urgently treat him. ”

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

Delays in emergency department triage

Wider context from the report

“Whilst I heard evidence that the UHS Foundation Trust has a Missing Person policy – Walkouts/absconding patients (approved 23 May 2024), in Mr Summerset’s case there was a lack of recorded and/or shared information across all the agencies and teams with whom he had contact, or to whom he was known, such that an accurate and fully reflective risk assessment was not achieved, exacerbated by delays in the triage process in the ED. Mr Summerset was not notified to Police as a missing person and nor were Police informed he had left the ED, despite them simultaneously raising a safeguarding risk via a Vulnerable Adult Single Combined Assessment of Risk Form. In sum, there was therefore a lack of information sufficiency, flow and sharing across the agencies whilst he was present in, and at and after the point he left, the ED, which might have enabled greater efforts to locate, contact and more urgently treat him. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable emergency-department triage.

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

Disseminate Missing Persons policy guidance, flow charts and documentation to wards, emergency departments and clinical staff.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The policy essential documentation and guidelines therein, were circulated to all wards and EDs before May 25th when phase 2 of RCRP was introduced across Sussex, and the main documents and flow charts to be used sent as separate, ready to hand information. These were further recirculated in Q2 (following slight update/ minor amendments to the policy early September, which included the system escalation responses) to ensure there was a renewed focus for clinical teams.”

Source location

Response from University Hospitals Sussex
Page 2 · response
Published 13 January 2025

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

Hold fortnightly multidisciplinary missing-patient meetings involving nursing, emergency, police, mental-health and security teams.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The Trust has commenced on the Royal Sussex County Hospital and Princess Royal Hospital sites a fortnightly meeting to discuss cases with senior nurse leads/ED, police, SPFT and security teams present. This is helping to inform learning and improve processes and communication between all system partners. Similar meetings will be set up for Worthing Hospital and St Richard’s Hospital sites to facilitate the same shared learning and improvements in processes. It is hoped these can commence in March 2025.”

Source location

Response from University Hospitals Sussex
Page 3 · response
Published 13 January 2025

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

Introduce daytime emergency-department front-door streaming by placing a nurse in reception for immediate assessment and patient redirection.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The ED at Worthing has also commenced a ‘streaming’ model at the front door during the day, i.e a nurse situated within the reception area to help with capacity and redirection of some patients away from ED and into Urgent treatment centre or Same day emergency care services. As well as providing immediate brief assessment by a nurse at point of booking in, this will reduce numbers waiting to be seen by the ED team, and both of these improvements should assist with prompt risk assessment of MH patients self-presenting, and also the time to first triage and MH risk assessment. Both issues for ED in this sad case.”

Source location

Response from University Hospitals Sussex
Page 4 · response
Published 13 January 2025

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 direct handover of police-conveyed patients to Trust staff.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Following the investigation report into Mr Summerset’s attendance and suicide in February 2024, I would firstly confirm that the two key actions in the action plan (support for triage at times of high demand and handover from police to Trust staff) have been addressed.”

Source location

Response from University Hospitals Sussex
Page 1 · response
Published 13 January 2025

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

Revise and implement the Trust-wide Missing Persons policy, including risk assessment, detention, communication, escalation and post-departure procedures.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The Trust has fully reviewed and revised the Missing Persons policy, with more information around the required processes in relation to patients who are at risk of absconding, and actions to be taken when patients do leave. This was done collaboratively across primarily the medical divisions and ED teams, but also with the other Divisions. There is detailed information around the legal principles and powers available to staff to detain and prevent patients from leaving (Mental Health Act and Mental Capacity Act) alongside more detailed information about the police response to missing persons, and criteria of those patients of critical concern who they will respond to. There are clear guidelines, flow charts and documentation to be used for the assessment of vulnerable patients, a process if concern are intending to leave and once have left.”

Source location

Response from University Hospitals Sussex
Page 2 · response
Published 13 January 2025

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 triage support during periods of high demand.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Following the investigation report into Mr Summerset’s attendance and suicide in February 2024, I would firstly confirm that the two key actions in the action plan (support for triage at times of high demand and handover from police to Trust staff) have been addressed.”

Source location

Response from University Hospitals Sussex
Page 1 · response
Published 13 January 2025

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 and update emergency-department triage, mental-health liaison, observation and communication documentation with partner clinicians.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The Divisions of Medicine have continued to work collaboratively with SPFT colleagues over the year reviewing ED documentation (reviewing assessments of both triage and Mental Health Liaison Team (MHLT), enhanced observation processes, and the communications between the EDs and the”

Source location

Response from University Hospitals Sussex
Page 2 · response
Published 13 January 2025

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

Send daily reports of police-referred missing patients to Trust and emergency-department nursing leaders for risk review, feedback and learning.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Since May 2024, UHSx have worked further with Sussex Police to review missing patients who have been referred to police for follow up post absconding. Daily reports are sent to the hospital nurse directors, medicine divisional directors of nursing, and ED matron/heads of nursing, in order to review the patients, to confirm if request for police follow up was appropriate in terms of risk of patient or not, and also to share any feedback and learning.”

Source location

Response from University Hospitals Sussex
Page 3 · response
Published 13 January 2025

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

Develop and recirculate quick-reference absconding guidance, flow charts and missing-person documentation for wards and emergency departments.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Post coroner’s inquest, the Divisional Director of Nursing for Medicine, Worthing, has further followed up with lead in SPFT for Worthing site, and having reviewed the guidelines produced for MHLT colleagues, has developed some similar bullet point guidelines for wards and EDs for quick easy reference, and is recirculating these across the Trust with the key flowcharts and missing person documentation from the policy. This will provide further quick reference laminated guidance at point of care to help staff at the time when faced by an absconding patient, to ensure correct processes are followed to promote the patient’s safeguarding to reduce potential harm after leaving the department. This can be provided as evidence should HM Coroner request this.”

Source location

Response from University Hospitals Sussex
Page 3 · response
Published 13 January 2025

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

Sussex Police decides whether to follow up patients referred after case-by-case risk assessment and liaison with mental health services.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Prior to May 25th when the RCRP missing persons became live across Sussex, the referrals to police for follow up were between 50 – 75% per month and post Phase 2 go-live, the EDs have reduced the referrals to police, in line with the referral criteria for only critical concern/high-risk patients to be referred to between 40 – 50% (1 month only). Prior to the policy change the ED had referred patients to the police considered medium to high risk, and this has now changed to only those of critical concern/high risk. This risk is assessed on a case-by-case basis prior to referral and after liaison with Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust (SPFT) as first line, to review any existing mental health history, prior to calling police. If there is any doubt in whether to refer or not to the police, they will refer, for police to decide whether they will follow up.”

Source location

Response from University Hospitals Sussex
Page 2 · response
Published 13 January 2025

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

    Continue cross-system collaboration and working groups with health, police and local-authority partners on missing-person and section 136 processes.

    Stated by UHSxStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 13 January 2025.

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 cross-system collaboration and working groups with health, police and local-authority partners on missing-person and section 136 processes.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The Divisional Directors of Nursing for both medicine divisions, together with the Managing Director for Urgent/planned care, have attended the system wide meetings led by the Sussex ICB, to represent the Trust with system partners, SPFT, Police, Local authority (AMHP service) and East Sussex Health Care NHS Trust (ESHT). These commenced early 2024 and have continued throughout last year and into 2025, with working groups still ongoing for both missing persons and s136 phases.”

Source location

Response from University Hospitals Sussex
Page 2 · response
Published 13 January 2025

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