PFD report

Lee Joseph Rigby · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 14 Jan 2016•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
4

Raised in this report

Recipients
1

Named on the report

Responses found
0

Of 1 recipient

Stated actions
0

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 raised4

  1. Failure of staff training to establish clear understanding of resident-observation risks
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate staff competence in care planning
  2. Failure of procedures to address risks identified in care plans and management guidelines
  3. Failure of support staff to maintain required visual observation of residents
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to reliably supervise and monitor residents in care accommodation
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

Failure of staff training to establish clear understanding of resident-observation risks

Wider context from the report

“During the Inquest evidence was heard that 1. During the Inquest evidence was heard that i. The support workers do not have keys to the premises at ████████ so that in circumstances where there was only one support worker in the premises that support worker would have to answer the door to allow another support worker entry to the premises. In those circumstances a resident requiring visual monitoring or observation would be left alone and unobserved. Evidence was heard during the course of the Inquest that one of the two support workers could leave the premises during the course of the day so that access to the premises would be required by a support worker either at the commencement of her shift or whenever the support worker left the premises at times when there would only be one support worker in the premises. It was accepted that if every support worker had a key to the premises the sole support worker in the premises would not have to be disturbed to answer the door and a resident, like Mr Rigby, who would not be left unattended at meal times, when Mr Rigby had to be observed at all times, and at any other times whenever he was eating and drinking. ii. Evidence was heard from the support staff that they did not fully understand that monitoring and observing Mr Rigby at all times when he was eating and drinking meant that they should visually observe him at those times. Evidence was also given by members of the support staff that if the telephone rang and there was a need to discuss a resident or something of a private and confidential nature a support worker, who may be the only support worker in the premises at the time, would go into another room to talk in a private and confidential manner, leaving a resident alone and unobserved during the course of the telephone conversation. The support staff did not understand the significance of the words used in the Health Action Plan and Management Guidelines that Mr Rigby should be observed at all times whilst he was eating and drinking and they did not fully understand the significance of observing him in relation to the risks identified in the Plan and Guidelines. iii. The internal training and procedures provided by United Response to the support staff and the procedures in place to address the risks identified by the Health Action Plan and Management Guidelines did not address the risks identified by the Plan and the Guidelines, particularly in relation to a clear understanding by the support staff with regard to observing a resident. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate staff competence in care planning.

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 procedures to address risks identified in care plans and management guidelines

Wider context from the report

“During the Inquest evidence was heard that 1. During the Inquest evidence was heard that i. The support workers do not have keys to the premises at ████████ so that in circumstances where there was only one support worker in the premises that support worker would have to answer the door to allow another support worker entry to the premises. In those circumstances a resident requiring visual monitoring or observation would be left alone and unobserved. Evidence was heard during the course of the Inquest that one of the two support workers could leave the premises during the course of the day so that access to the premises would be required by a support worker either at the commencement of her shift or whenever the support worker left the premises at times when there would only be one support worker in the premises. It was accepted that if every support worker had a key to the premises the sole support worker in the premises would not have to be disturbed to answer the door and a resident, like Mr Rigby, who would not be left unattended at meal times, when Mr Rigby had to be observed at all times, and at any other times whenever he was eating and drinking. ii. Evidence was heard from the support staff that they did not fully understand that monitoring and observing Mr Rigby at all times when he was eating and drinking meant that they should visually observe him at those times. Evidence was also given by members of the support staff that if the telephone rang and there was a need to discuss a resident or something of a private and confidential nature a support worker, who may be the only support worker in the premises at the time, would go into another room to talk in a private and confidential manner, leaving a resident alone and unobserved during the course of the telephone conversation. The support staff did not understand the significance of the words used in the Health Action Plan and Management Guidelines that Mr Rigby should be observed at all times whilst he was eating and drinking and they did not fully understand the significance of observing him in relation to the risks identified in the Plan and Guidelines. iii. The internal training and procedures provided by United Response to the support staff and the procedures in place to address the risks identified by the Health Action Plan and Management Guidelines did not address the risks identified by the Plan and the Guidelines, particularly in relation to a clear understanding by the support staff with regard to observing a resident. ”

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 support staff to maintain required visual observation of residents

Wider context from the report

“During the Inquest evidence was heard that 1. During the Inquest evidence was heard that i. The support workers do not have keys to the premises at ████████ so that in circumstances where there was only one support worker in the premises that support worker would have to answer the door to allow another support worker entry to the premises. In those circumstances a resident requiring visual monitoring or observation would be left alone and unobserved. Evidence was heard during the course of the Inquest that one of the two support workers could leave the premises during the course of the day so that access to the premises would be required by a support worker either at the commencement of her shift or whenever the support worker left the premises at times when there would only be one support worker in the premises. It was accepted that if every support worker had a key to the premises the sole support worker in the premises would not have to be disturbed to answer the door and a resident, like Mr Rigby, who would not be left unattended at meal times, when Mr Rigby had to be observed at all times, and at any other times whenever he was eating and drinking. ii. Evidence was heard from the support staff that they did not fully understand that monitoring and observing Mr Rigby at all times when he was eating and drinking meant that they should visually observe him at those times. Evidence was also given by members of the support staff that if the telephone rang and there was a need to discuss a resident or something of a private and confidential nature a support worker, who may be the only support worker in the premises at the time, would go into another room to talk in a private and confidential manner, leaving a resident alone and unobserved during the course of the telephone conversation. The support staff did not understand the significance of the words used in the Health Action Plan and Management Guidelines that Mr Rigby should be observed at all times whilst he was eating and drinking and they did not fully understand the significance of observing him in relation to the risks identified in the Plan and Guidelines. iii. The internal training and procedures provided by United Response to the support staff and the procedures in place to address the risks identified by the Health Action Plan and Management Guidelines did not address the risks identified by the Plan and the Guidelines, particularly in relation to a clear understanding by the support staff with regard to observing a resident. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to reliably supervise and monitor residents in care accommodation.

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 keys for support workers requiring access to premises

Wider context from the report

“During the Inquest evidence was heard that 1. During the Inquest evidence was heard that i. The support workers do not have keys to the premises at ████████ so that in circumstances where there was only one support worker in the premises that support worker would have to answer the door to allow another support worker entry to the premises. In those circumstances a resident requiring visual monitoring or observation would be left alone and unobserved. Evidence was heard during the course of the Inquest that one of the two support workers could leave the premises during the course of the day so that access to the premises would be required by a support worker either at the commencement of her shift or whenever the support worker left the premises at times when there would only be one support worker in the premises. It was accepted that if every support worker had a key to the premises the sole support worker in the premises would not have to be disturbed to answer the door and a resident, like Mr Rigby, who would not be left unattended at meal times, when Mr Rigby had to be observed at all times, and at any other times whenever he was eating and drinking. ii. Evidence was heard from the support staff that they did not fully understand that monitoring and observing Mr Rigby at all times when he was eating and drinking meant that they should visually observe him at those times. Evidence was also given by members of the support staff that if the telephone rang and there was a need to discuss a resident or something of a private and confidential nature a support worker, who may be the only support worker in the premises at the time, would go into another room to talk in a private and confidential manner, leaving a resident alone and unobserved during the course of the telephone conversation. The support staff did not understand the significance of the words used in the Health Action Plan and Management Guidelines that Mr Rigby should be observed at all times whilst he was eating and drinking and they did not fully understand the significance of observing him in relation to the risks identified in the Plan and Guidelines. iii. The internal training and procedures provided by United Response to the support staff and the procedures in place to address the risks identified by the Health Action Plan and Management Guidelines did not address the risks identified by the Plan and the Guidelines, particularly in relation to a clear understanding by the support staff with regard to observing a resident. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

No recurring-concern membership is currently published.

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
0/1

Data last updated 7 September 2026

No official response is included in the current published snapshot.