PFD report

Mr David Thompson · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 12 Aug 2024•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
14

Raised in this report

Recipients
3

Named on the report

Responses found
3

Of 3 recipients

Stated actions
25

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 raised14

  1. Failure to identify absence of NHS community services when formulating the ongoing plan
  2. Failure to open the four standard care plans during inpatient stay
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable care-planning processes
  3. Failure to commence and complete a safety plan during admission and before discharge
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to reliably complete My Safety PlansPart of recurring concern: Unreliable hospital discharge processes
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.16

  1. Action

    Provide five Band 7 Out of Area Practitioners to monitor private out-of-area placements, coordinate providers and support discharge planning.

    Stated by Pennine Care NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 12 August 2024.
  2. Action

    Liaise with Medical Directors of Priory, Elysium and Cygnet to address communication failures collaboratively.

    Stated by Pennine Care NHS Foundation TrustStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 12 August 2024.
  3. Action

    Send all doctors formal guidance on sharing correspondence when patients receive NHS and private-provider care.

    Stated by Pennine Care NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 12 August 2024.

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.8

  1. Position

    The doctor who sees the patient, rather than the GP, is responsible for sharing clinic correspondence with other care providers.

    Stated by Pennine Care NHS Foundation TrustRedirects 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

Failure to identify absence of NHS community services when formulating the ongoing plan

Wider context from the report

“2. At the time of his appointment in January 2024 Mr Thompson was not under any NHS community services such as the home based treatment team. This was not recognised or known when formulating his ongoing plan. ”

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 open the four standard care plans during inpatient stay

Wider context from the report

“6. There was no evidence that the four standard care plans had been opened during Mr Thompsons inpatient stay. ”

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 commence and complete a safety plan during admission and before discharge

Wider context from the report

“1. The Incident Review of his admission to the Priory Dorking indicated that there was no My Safety Plan commenced on admission or complete prior to his discharge. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to reliably complete My Safety Plans; Unreliable hospital discharge 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 engage the local Home Based Treatment Team before discharge

Wider context from the report

“2. There was no engagement prior to discharge with the local Home Based Treatment Team. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable community Home Treatment Team care pathways.

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 ability to access relevant parts of medical records

Wider context from the report

“1. On the outpatient appointment in January 2024 the fact that Mr Thompson had been an inpatient in the Priory in Dorking following his discharge from the Priory Altrincham was not known. There was a lack of awareness as to how to access certain parts of the medical records which would have shown this information. Mr Thompson did not volunteer this information so there was no discussion with him as to why he had relapsed so quickly. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable access to relevant clinical records for safe 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 consultant-to-consultant communication across NHS and private care

Wider context from the report

“1. There was a complete absence of any Consultant – Consultant discussions or communication, given this patient was receiving care from both the NHS and privately. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable multi-agency communication procedures.

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 investigate nursing staff and determine whether care failures reflect individual or system failure

Wider context from the report

“7. When conducting the internal review no members of the nursing staff were spoken to to consider why the matters highlighted above had not been carried out. There was therefore a lack of understanding as to whether this was an individual failing or error or a cultural / system failure. Nor was consideration given to whether any individuals should be reported to their regulatory body. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate safety incident investigations.

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 consult treating consultants across Priory locations

Wider context from the report

“3. There was no consultation with the Consultants who had treated Mr Thompson at the Priory in Altrincham only a few weeks earlier. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable communication of patient-care information between clinical staff.

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 make a 48-hour post-discharge follow-up call

Wider context from the report

“4. There was no 48 hour follow up call to Mr Thompson following his discharge, as per Priory Policy. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to provide timely and adequate follow-up after discharge; Failure to reliably telephone patients when follow-up or assessment requires it.

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 consider regulatory referral of individuals

Wider context from the report

“7. When conducting the internal review no members of the nursing staff were spoken to to consider why the matters highlighted above had not been carried out. There was therefore a lack of understanding as to whether this was an individual failing or error or a cultural / system failure. Nor was consideration given to whether any individuals should be reported to their regulatory body. ”

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 undertake an internal review for learning from the admission

Wider context from the report

“3. No internal review was undertaken of Mr Thompsons admission within the Priory Altrincham to consider whether there was any learning ”

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 discuss the reasons for rapid relapse with the patient

Wider context from the report

“1. On the outpatient appointment in January 2024 the fact that Mr Thompson had been an inpatient in the Priory in Dorking following his discharge from the Priory Altrincham was not known. There was a lack of awareness as to how to access certain parts of the medical records which would have shown this information. Mr Thompson did not volunteer this information so there was no discussion with him as to why he had relapsed so quickly. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate assessment of causes and risks of mental health relapse.

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 provide crisis information at discharge

Wider context from the report

“5. A discharge clinical entry and discharge risk assessment was not completed and there was no evidence of crisis information having been provided. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable hospital discharge documentation.

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 the discharge clinical entry and risk assessment

Wider context from the report

“5. A discharge clinical entry and discharge risk assessment was not completed and there was no evidence of crisis information having been provided. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Incomplete, inaccurate or unavailable clinical and care records; Unreliable hospital discharge 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

Provide five Band 7 Out of Area Practitioners to monitor private out-of-area placements, coordinate providers and support discharge planning.

Verbatim wording from the response

“To ensure the quality and consistency of the care of Pennine Care patients who are placed in an out of area private bed, an Out of Area Practitioner is responsible for monitoring the inpatient stay, linking in with the relevant providers and inpatient operational leads to ensure all patients receive support and discharge planning as required. The Out of Area Practitioner is a senior mental health practitioner (Band 7) who sits within the Patient Flow Team. They act as a case manager for that patient including attending ward rounds, keeping key professionals (including all Consultants) updated and involvement in repatriation and discharge planning. There are five of these practitioners within the organisation and each practitioner covers one of the five boroughs in which services are commissioned.”

Source location

Response from Pennine Care NHS
Page 3 · response
Published 12 August 2024

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

Liaise with Medical Directors of Priory, Elysium and Cygnet to address communication failures collaboratively.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The organisation’s Medical Director will also liaise with the Medical Directors of all the private providers that Pennine Care patients are known to be placed. Contact will be made with the Priory, Elysium and Cygnet to raise the profile of this identified issue and to work collaboratively to ensure that this issue does not occur again.”

Source location

Response from Pennine Care NHS
Page 2 · response
Published 12 August 2024

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 all doctors formal guidance on sharing correspondence when patients receive NHS and private-provider care.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In order to provide assurance that Pennine Care NHS Foundation Trust’s doctors are also adhering to this guidance formal communication has been sent to all doctors within the organisation from our Medical Director reminding them of this guidance and the GMC’s stipulation that all doctors must follow this. It also highlights this case and asks the doctors to take particular care if a patient is receiving treatment from both an NHS and private provider and that the private provider will also be copied into any correspondence.”

Source location

Response from Pennine Care NHS
Page 2 · response
Published 12 August 2024

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 sending-provider oversight of out-of-area patients, including ward-round attendance, appropriate visits, and engagement in discharge and care planning.

Verbatim wording from the response

“GM ICB expect the NHS “sending” provider to oversee the individual care relating to any patient who is admitted as an Out of Area placement in line with National Host commissioner guidance. This includes attendance at ward rounds, face to face visits where appropriate and full engagement in discharge and care planning. The processes as described above have been implemented since December 2023 and have provided a much tighter grip and control and increased level of oversight of each individual patient.”

Source location

Response from Greater Manchester NHS
Page 2 · response
Published 12 August 2024

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

Define consistent practical care-coordination oversight actions for acute placements, rehabilitation beds, non-contracted beds and trust beds across the system.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Greater Manchester is working on ensuring these processes are consistent across the system and”

Source location

Response from Greater Manchester NHS
Page 2 · response
Published 12 August 2024

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

Remind staff to complete discharge clinical entries, risk assessments, checklists and crisis-information provision in accordance with policy.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Priory Hospital Dorking are to evidence safe discharge planning in accordance with Priory policy H02 Admission, Transfer and Discharge - to include completion of a clinical entry, updated risk assessment on discharge and issue all patients with a crisis card with”

Source location

Response from Priory Group
Page 9 · response
Published 12 August 2024

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

Add an admission-template field prompting clinicians to identify current NHS or private service involvement.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Priory expect that when a consultant psychiatrist or doctor is gathering background psychiatric information from a patient at the point of their first assessment, professional curiosity should guide the conversation to ascertain whether the patient is currently receiving care or treatment from any other care provider (NHS or private services). Despite recognising this, patients may not wish to disclose the facts of previous or current episodes of treatment for a number of reasons. This is their right.”

Source location

Response from Priory Group
Page 3 · response
Published 12 August 2024

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

Remind staff to maintain four core care plans and review completion through daily dashboard checks and audits.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Issue a reminder to all staff regarding the expectation that all patients have the four core care plans in place throughout the hospital admission.”

Source location

Response from Priory Group
Page 11 · response
Published 12 August 2024

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

Conduct separate service-level Team Incident Reviews involving staff involved in care and consolidate findings at a senior-manager joint meeting for cross-service learning.

Verbatim wording from the response

“It was recognised that Mr Thompson had been a recent patient at both Priory Hospital Altrincham and Priory Hospital Dorking and hence why it was considered at the time that inviting representatives from both services to attend a joint TIR was good practice. On reflection, we conclude that we should have hosted a separate TIR at each service, inviting those involved in the care and treatment of the patient (to include nursing colleagues), and thereafter brought together the key findings at a joint meeting attended by the senior managers, to identify any areas for cross service learning. This learning point has since been reiterated to Priory’s Director of Quality and our regional Associate Directors of Nursing and Quality who are responsible for the commissioning and quality review of TIR’s.”

Source location

Response from Priory Group
Page 2 · response
Published 12 August 2024

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

Circulate a reminder explaining how to access patients’ entire CareNotes records.

Verbatim wording from the response

“This concern was addressed in the action plan that was imbedded within the TIR report and this was shared with the court ahead of the inquest. For this reason, we did not expect this to be a matter of concern listed in the Regulation 28 report. To summarise, when any user opens a patient’s record on CareNotes (Priory’s electronic patient records platform), the system defaults to show only active documents. This is intended to ensure only records relevant to the current episode of care are present. To view records relating to any previous episodes of care, an ‘Entire Record’ tab is to be selected. A reminder of the presence of this function has since been circulated to all Priory colleagues and a prompt to select ‘entire record’ will be added to the admission checklist.”

Source location

Response from Priory Group
Page 3 · response
Published 12 August 2024

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

Remind staff to confirm and document Community Mental Health Team engagement and follow-up arrangements before discharge.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Issue a reminder to all staff regarding the expectation that referrals to a patient’s community team are to be clearly confirmed and documented on CareNotes prior to a patient’s discharge.”

Source location

Response from Priory Group
Page 7 · response
Published 12 August 2024

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

Disseminate guidance on identifying and liaising with external care providers through network meetings, circulated minutes and a learning cascade.

Verbatim wording from the response

“To ensure this learning point is reiterated to all consultants across Priory, the importance of identification and liaison (where appropriate) with external organisations involved in the care and treatment of a patient was raised at:”

Source location

Response from Priory Group
Page 4 · response
Published 12 August 2024

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

Remind staff to complete required My Safety Plans and monitor compliance through daily dashboard reviews and audits.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Issue a reminder to all staff the requirement to complete a My Safety Plan, and to outline the circumstances when a My Safety Plan is required.”

Source location

Response from Priory Group
Page 6 · response
Published 12 August 2024

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

Remind clinicians to obtain and consider patients’ background history and involvement of other services at admission.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Issue a reminder to all staff regarding the expectation that a patient’s background history is gained and understood at the point of admission.”

Source location

Response from Priory Group
Page 8 · response
Published 12 August 2024

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

Add a prompt to select the CareNotes ‘Entire Record’ tab to the admission checklist.

Verbatim wording from the response

“This concern was addressed in the action plan that was imbedded within the TIR report and this was shared with the court ahead of the inquest. For this reason, we did not expect this to be a matter of concern listed in the Regulation 28 report. To summarise, when any user opens a patient’s record on CareNotes (Priory’s electronic patient records platform), the system defaults to show only active documents. This is intended to ensure only records relevant to the current episode of care are present. To view records relating to any previous episodes of care, an ‘Entire Record’ tab is to be selected. A reminder of the presence of this function has since been circulated to all Priory colleagues and a prompt to select ‘entire record’ will be added to the admission checklist.”

Source location

Response from Priory Group
Page 3 · response
Published 12 August 2024

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 crisis cards at discharge by ordering replacement stock and using written or telephone-stored crisis numbers while awaiting delivery.

Verbatim wording from the response

“contact details of services they can contact in a crisis.”

Source location

Response from Priory Group
Page 10 · response
Published 12 August 2024

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 doctor who sees the patient, rather than the GP, is responsible for sharing clinic correspondence with other care providers.

Verbatim wording from the response

“It was ████████’s evidence that the clinic letter was shared with David’s GP and he expected the GP to then share this information with all other care providers. This is not the responsibility of the GP but the responsibility of the doctor who has seen the patient. This evidence was factually incorrect and it is the view of the organisation’s Medical Director, ████████, that this is in breach of the GMC’s Good Medical Practice, which all doctors must follow.”

Source location

Response from Pennine Care NHS
Page 2 · response
Published 12 August 2024

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 organisation disputes that Consultant-to-Consultant communication failed through its omission, stating it was unaware of the private outpatient appointment.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The organisation was not aware that David attended an outpatient appointment with ████████ at the Priory Hospital, Altrincham and therefore the opportunity for Consultant to Consultant communication to take place did not happen. The organisation’s expectation is for ████████ to copy the organisation into David’s clinic letter as per the section of ‘Contributing to continuity of care’ within the General Medical Council’s (GMC) ‘Good Medical Practice.’ The guidance states:”

Source location

Response from Pennine Care NHS
Page 1 · response
Published 12 August 2024

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 NHS sending provider is responsible for overseeing individual care, including engagement in communication, discharge and care planning for out-of-area patients.

Verbatim wording from the response

“GM ICB expect the NHS “sending” provider to oversee the individual care relating to any patient who is admitted as an Out of Area placement in line with National Host commissioner guidance. This includes attendance at ward rounds, face to face visits where appropriate and full engagement in discharge and care planning. The processes as described above have been implemented since December 2023 and have provided a much tighter grip and control and increased level of oversight of each individual patient.”

Source location

Response from Greater Manchester NHS
Page 2 · response
Published 12 August 2024

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

Contact with external care organisations depends on the information available and the patient's consent.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Upon receipt of details about any external services involved in a patient’s care, it may be appropriate to make contact with these organisations but this will be dependent on the detail of the information made available and whether the patient consents to such contact being made.”

Source location

Response from Priory Group
Page 4 · response
Published 12 August 2024

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

Sharing correspondence with the patient's GP is considered sufficient because the GP remains the central coordinator and other services can request information through it.

Verbatim wording from the response

“It is important to mention that whilst Priory have made advances to the systems and process in place to gather these details and encourage our multi-disciplinary teams to facilitate such contact (with patient consent), all correspondence relating to a patient’s admission, discharge and outpatient care is shared with a patient’s GP (with patient consent). The patient’s GP remains the central coordinator of a patient’s care. Other care services involved in a patient’s care and treatment can request access to this information via the GP. Should an external service (whether private or NHS) seek additional detail to the information held by the GP, Priory clinicians will make themselves available, at short notice if required, to engage in discussions about a patient’s care and treatment.”

Source location

Response from Priory Group
Page 4 · response
Published 12 August 2024

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 individual referral to a regulatory body was considered necessary in this instance under the Just Culture approach.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Matter of concern 7 - limitations of internal review”

Source location

Response from Priory Group
Page 2 · response
Published 12 August 2024

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

A 48-hour follow-up call is not required where a confirmed NHS community appointment exists within 72 hours of discharge.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Matter of concern 4 - 48 hour follow up call”

Source location

Response from Priory Group
Page 2 · response
Published 12 August 2024

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

A review of the Altrincham admission was undertaken and concluded that inpatient care was adequate and discharge was appropriate.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Matter of concern 3 - internal review following incident”

Source location

Response from Priory Group
Page 3 · response
Published 12 August 2024

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.9

  1. 1

    Maintain an Out of Area Placement Standard Operating Procedure defining organisational and practitioner responsibilities for private out-of-area beds.

    Stated by Pennine Care NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 12 August 2024.
  2. 2

    Implement a quality oversight framework that categorises out-of-area providers and supports admission decisions using distance, quality and commissioner assurance information.

    Stated by NHS Greater Manchester Integrated Care BoardStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 12 August 2024.
  3. 3

    Take the Prevention of Future Deaths report to the Mental Health Clinical Effectiveness Group for discussion and shared learning.

    Stated by NHS Greater Manchester Integrated Care BoardStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 12 August 2024.
  4. 4

    Implement a Greater Manchester repatriation framework and escalate placements at stop-listed providers for additional monitoring and priority repatriation.

    Stated by NHS Greater Manchester Integrated Care BoardStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 12 August 2024.
  5. 5

    Implement a system-wide MaDE process with locality and Greater Manchester escalation meetings to oversee out-of-area placement discharge and repatriation barriers.

    Stated by NHS Greater Manchester Integrated Care BoardStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 12 August 2024.
  6. 6

    Add a question about other service involvement to the outpatient referral form and share responses with allocated consultants.

    Stated by Priory GroupStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 12 August 2024.
  7. 7

    Remind administration staff to upload all referral information to CareNotes within 72 hours of admission.

    Stated by Priory GroupStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 12 August 2024.
  8. 8

    Remind staff to involve families and carers in discharge planning, including inviting them to multidisciplinary meetings with consent.

    Stated by Priory GroupStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 12 August 2024.
  9. 9

    Remind staff to complete detailed, high-quality multidisciplinary team documentation, including discharge planning.

    Stated by Priory GroupStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 12 August 2024.

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

Maintain an Out of Area Placement Standard Operating Procedure defining organisational and practitioner responsibilities for private out-of-area beds.

Verbatim wording from the response

“This is to ensure that each practitioner has the capacity to be able to fulfil this case manager role and to allow cross cover arrangements to take place during period of absence such as annual leave. This process is outlined within the ‘Out of Area Placement’ Standard Operating Procedure detailing the role and responsibilities of the organisation in relation to this type of bed placement and the organisation’s expectations of the Out of Area Practitioner.”

Source location

Response from Pennine Care NHS
Page 3 · response
Published 12 August 2024

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 a quality oversight framework that categorises out-of-area providers and supports admission decisions using distance, quality and commissioner assurance information.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In addition, a process to monitor the quality, experience and care oversight of each patient has been implemented. A system wide task and finish group oversees the framework in which OAPs “receiving” providers are assigned to a category based on their distance from Greater Manchester and their Quality profile ( which includes CQC rating, local intelligence, and information from the host commissioner). The list is used at the point of admission to support decision making and ensures that when an out of area placement is necessary patients are admitted to the available providers closest to home and there is an adequate level of assurance relating to the provider .This oversight framework is designed in line with both the NHS England Host commissioner guidance and the National Quality Oversight Framework.”

Source location

Response from Greater Manchester NHS
Page 2 · response
Published 12 August 2024

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

Take the Prevention of Future Deaths report to the Mental Health Clinical Effectiveness Group for discussion and shared learning.

Verbatim wording from the response

“We will also take this report to the Mental Health Clinical Effectiveness Group for discussion and shared learning.”

Source location

Response from Greater Manchester NHS
Page 3 · response
Published 12 August 2024

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 a Greater Manchester repatriation framework and escalate placements at stop-listed providers for additional monitoring and priority repatriation.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In the unusual and unfortunate event that a patient is admitted to a provider on the “stop” this is escalated into the ICB for additional monitoring and priority repatriation, a co-designed GM repatriation framework which is applied by both GM MH providers is also in place which ensures consistency. Since implementing the oversight framework in April we can see a significant decrease in the amount of patients who are admitted to providers furthest away from home and where we have the best oversight. There were over 30 patients in April admitted to our “stop” providers and as at 1st Oct 2024 there were 3 patients.”

Source location

Response from Greater Manchester NHS
Page 2 · response
Published 12 August 2024

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 a system-wide MaDE process with locality and Greater Manchester escalation meetings to oversee out-of-area placement discharge and repatriation barriers.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Greater Manchester has implemented a system wide, standardised, patient centred MaDE (Multi agency discharge event) process for oversight of OAPs. The primary objectives are to pinpoint and document any barriers in a systematic approach to discharge (for Clinically Ready For Discharge”

Source location

Response from Greater Manchester NHS
Page 1 · response
Published 12 August 2024

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

Add a question about other service involvement to the outpatient referral form and share responses with allocated consultants.

Verbatim wording from the response

“To ensure a similar question is asked at the first point of contact for Priory outpatients, a question has now been added to the referral form in use by Priory’s central customer service contact centre, ‘Are you under the care of any other service?’. This information gathered at first contact is shared with the allocated consultant for their review and to aid discussion during the first outpatient assessment.”

Source location

Response from Priory Group
Page 3 · response
Published 12 August 2024

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

Remind administration staff to upload all referral information to CareNotes within 72 hours of admission.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Implementation actions: Issue a reminder to all administration staff of the Priory requirement to ensure all referral information is uploaded to CareNotes.”

Source location

Response from Priory Group
Page 14 · response
Published 12 August 2024

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

Remind staff to involve families and carers in discharge planning, including inviting them to multidisciplinary meetings with consent.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Implementation actions: Issue a reminder to all staff regarding the expectations about involving a patient’s family/carer in discharge planning (with patient consent).”

Source location

Response from Priory Group
Page 13 · response
Published 12 August 2024

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

Remind staff to complete detailed, high-quality multidisciplinary team documentation, including discharge planning.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Issue a reminder to all staff regarding the expectations about the quality and completeness of Multi-Disciplinary Team (MDT) documentation, to include the requirement to complete:”

Source location

Response from Priory Group
Page 12 · response
Published 12 August 2024

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
3/3

Data last updated 7 September 2026