PFD report

Nigel Byron Abbott · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 22 Oct 2019•Birmingham and Solihull

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
10

Raised in this report

Recipients
6

Named on the report

Responses found
4

Of 6 recipients

Stated actions
22

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 raised10

  1. Inadequacy of the Home Treatment Standard Operational Procedure for initially assessed and detainable patients awaiting a bed in the community
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to provide safe interim mental health care while assessment, detention or inpatient placement is pendingPart of recurring concern: Unreliable community Home Treatment Team care pathways
  2. Failure to learn and correct identified unsafe beliefs about section 135 warrants
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable Section 135 mental health warrant procedures
  3. Mental health professionals operating caseloads well in excess of recommended levels
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

    Recruit additional Home Treatment Team doctors, psychologists, administrators, family-support staff and nurses to expand capacity and reduce caseloads.

    Stated by Birmingham City Council and Birmingham and Solihull Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust and NHS Birmingham and Solihull Integrated Care Board and West Midlands PoliceStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 18 October 2019.
  2. Action

    Develop joint standards and policies across agencies.

    Stated by Birmingham City Council and Birmingham and Solihull Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust and NHS Birmingham and Solihull Integrated Care Board and West Midlands PoliceStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 18 October 2019.
  3. Action

    Implement local arrangements delegating access management for Section 140 emergency beds.

    Stated by Birmingham City Council and Birmingham and Solihull Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust and NHS Birmingham and Solihull Integrated Care Board and West Midlands PoliceStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 18 October 2019.

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.3

  1. Position

    Existing policies, clinical discretion and monitoring are considered sufficient safeguards for the exceptional use of Mental Health Act Section 4.

    Stated by Birmingham City Council and Birmingham and Solihull Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust and NHS Birmingham and Solihull Integrated Care Board and West Midlands PoliceExisting arrangements considered sufficientThe respondent said that existing arrangements were sufficient, so no further action was needed.

Source evidence

How this individual concern was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. Response links show a clear evidence connection; they do not assign responsibility.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Inadequacy of the Home Treatment Standard Operational Procedure for initially assessed and detainable patients awaiting a bed in the community

Wider context from the report

“Summary of Concerns In summary, the evidence raised five generic on-going matters of concern. The consequence is that acutely unwell people who need to be detained, because of the risk they pose to themselves and others, will remain unnecessarily free in public when in fact the agencies have the mechanism to detain them. The five generic on-going matters of concern: (1) The agencies involved in this area are not working together effectively and there is a misunderstanding around the Joint Memorandum of Understanding for Mental Health Professional Requesting Police Assistance with Mental Health Act Assessments. (2) There continues to be a chronic shortage of resources within the mental health services in Birmingham and Solihull. In particular, mental health professionals are operating caseloads well in excess of recommended levels and there is a chronic shortage of psychiatric beds. (3) Birmingham and Solihull CCG have not provided section 140 beds for BSMHFT. (4) Whilst section 4 is available to be used, it is not used. (5) The Home Treatment Standard Operational Procedure is inadequate to safeguard patients in the community who have been initially assessed and deemed detainable but are waiting in the community for a bed. This procedure is inconsistent with the corresponding safeguards for fully assessed and detained patients waiting in the community for a bed. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to provide safe interim mental health care while assessment, detention or inpatient placement is pending; 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

Failure to learn and correct identified unsafe beliefs about section 135 warrants

Wider context from the report

“It appears on the current evidence that there is a misunderstanding between the agencies as to how section 135 Mental Health Act 1983 can work in an urgent situation. This includes both whether or not WMP need 24 hours’ notice and whether or not a bed first needs to be available. All agencies need to urgently review the ‘Joint Memorandum of Understanding For Mental Health Professionals Requesting Police Assistance With Mental health Act Assessments and s135(1) & (2) Warrants, June 2018’ and their own practices both individually and jointly to ensure that all staff working in this area understand what is achievable and how. The context for this report is: (1) The evidence from WMP is that they do not require 24 hours’ notice to execute a section 135 warrant, whereas the AMHPs (BCC) are of the view there was no point in applying for a section 135 warrant because WMP need 24 hours’ notice. (2) BSMHFT have stated that BCC refused to co-operate with their Root Cause Analysis process, reviewing what lessons could be learnt from the incident. (3) I was only made aware that BCC had conducted an Internal Management Review Report - that acknowledged AMHPs were fixed on the operational difficulties of applying for the warrant out of hours and police availability as they required 24 hours’ notice – by a witness on day 1 of the inquest. BCC had not volunteered this report existed. (4) The BCC Internal Management Review Report – which is designed to be the ‘organisational learning process’ - confirms that BCC has not learnt lessons from the incident effectively. In the action plan there is no mention of the incorrect belief amongst AMHPs, that WMP require 24 hours’ notice, having been corrected. My on-going concern is that the agencies involved in this area are not working together effectively. The consequence is that acutely unwell people who need to be detained, because of the risk they pose to themselves and others, will remain unnecessarily free in public when in fact the agencies have the mechanism to detain them. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable Section 135 mental health warrant 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

Mental health professionals operating caseloads well in excess of recommended levels

Wider context from the report

“Summary of Concerns In summary, the evidence raised five generic on-going matters of concern. The consequence is that acutely unwell people who need to be detained, because of the risk they pose to themselves and others, will remain unnecessarily free in public when in fact the agencies have the mechanism to detain them. The five generic on-going matters of concern: (1) The agencies involved in this area are not working together effectively and there is a misunderstanding around the Joint Memorandum of Understanding for Mental Health Professional Requesting Police Assistance with Mental Health Act Assessments. (2) There continues to be a chronic shortage of resources within the mental health services in Birmingham and Solihull. In particular, mental health professionals are operating caseloads well in excess of recommended levels and there is a chronic shortage of psychiatric beds. (3) Birmingham and Solihull CCG have not provided section 140 beds for BSMHFT. (4) Whilst section 4 is available to be used, it is not used. (5) The Home Treatment Standard Operational Procedure is inadequate to safeguard patients in the community who have been initially assessed and deemed detainable but are waiting in the community for a bed. This procedure is inconsistent with the corresponding safeguards for fully assessed and detained patients waiting in the community for a bed. ”

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 agencies to work together effectively

Wider context from the report

“Summary of Concerns In summary, the evidence raised five generic on-going matters of concern. The consequence is that acutely unwell people who need to be detained, because of the risk they pose to themselves and others, will remain unnecessarily free in public when in fact the agencies have the mechanism to detain them. The five generic on-going matters of concern: (1) The agencies involved in this area are not working together effectively and there is a misunderstanding around the Joint Memorandum of Understanding for Mental Health Professional Requesting Police Assistance with Mental Health Act Assessments. (2) There continues to be a chronic shortage of resources within the mental health services in Birmingham and Solihull. In particular, mental health professionals are operating caseloads well in excess of recommended levels and there is a chronic shortage of psychiatric beds. (3) Birmingham and Solihull CCG have not provided section 140 beds for BSMHFT. (4) Whilst section 4 is available to be used, it is not used. (5) The Home Treatment Standard Operational Procedure is inadequate to safeguard patients in the community who have been initially assessed and deemed detainable but are waiting in the community for a bed. This procedure is inconsistent with the corresponding safeguards for fully assessed and detained patients waiting in the community for a bed. ”

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 use section 4 for urgent cases

Wider context from the report

“Summary of Concerns In summary, the evidence raised five generic on-going matters of concern. The consequence is that acutely unwell people who need to be detained, because of the risk they pose to themselves and others, will remain unnecessarily free in public when in fact the agencies have the mechanism to detain them. The five generic on-going matters of concern: (1) The agencies involved in this area are not working together effectively and there is a misunderstanding around the Joint Memorandum of Understanding for Mental Health Professional Requesting Police Assistance with Mental Health Act Assessments. (2) There continues to be a chronic shortage of resources within the mental health services in Birmingham and Solihull. In particular, mental health professionals are operating caseloads well in excess of recommended levels and there is a chronic shortage of psychiatric beds. (3) Birmingham and Solihull CCG have not provided section 140 beds for BSMHFT. (4) Whilst section 4 is available to be used, it is not used. (5) The Home Treatment Standard Operational Procedure is inadequate to safeguard patients in the community who have been initially assessed and deemed detainable but are waiting in the community for a bed. This procedure is inconsistent with the corresponding safeguards for fully assessed and detained patients waiting in the community for a bed. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to provide clinically indicated psychiatric admission.

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 section 140 beds

Wider context from the report

“Summary of Concerns In summary, the evidence raised five generic on-going matters of concern. The consequence is that acutely unwell people who need to be detained, because of the risk they pose to themselves and others, will remain unnecessarily free in public when in fact the agencies have the mechanism to detain them. The five generic on-going matters of concern: (1) The agencies involved in this area are not working together effectively and there is a misunderstanding around the Joint Memorandum of Understanding for Mental Health Professional Requesting Police Assistance with Mental Health Act Assessments. (2) There continues to be a chronic shortage of resources within the mental health services in Birmingham and Solihull. In particular, mental health professionals are operating caseloads well in excess of recommended levels and there is a chronic shortage of psychiatric beds. (3) Birmingham and Solihull CCG have not provided section 140 beds for BSMHFT. (4) Whilst section 4 is available to be used, it is not used. (5) The Home Treatment Standard Operational Procedure is inadequate to safeguard patients in the community who have been initially assessed and deemed detainable but are waiting in the community for a bed. This procedure is inconsistent with the corresponding safeguards for fully assessed and detained patients waiting in the community for a bed. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Insufficient psychiatric inpatient bed capacity.

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

Misunderstanding of the Joint Memorandum of Understanding for Mental Health Professional Requesting Police Assistance with Mental Health Act Assessments

Wider context from the report

“Summary of Concerns In summary, the evidence raised five generic on-going matters of concern. The consequence is that acutely unwell people who need to be detained, because of the risk they pose to themselves and others, will remain unnecessarily free in public when in fact the agencies have the mechanism to detain them. The five generic on-going matters of concern: (1) The agencies involved in this area are not working together effectively and there is a misunderstanding around the Joint Memorandum of Understanding for Mental Health Professional Requesting Police Assistance with Mental Health Act Assessments. (2) There continues to be a chronic shortage of resources within the mental health services in Birmingham and Solihull. In particular, mental health professionals are operating caseloads well in excess of recommended levels and there is a chronic shortage of psychiatric beds. (3) Birmingham and Solihull CCG have not provided section 140 beds for BSMHFT. (4) Whilst section 4 is available to be used, it is not used. (5) The Home Treatment Standard Operational Procedure is inadequate to safeguard patients in the community who have been initially assessed and deemed detainable but are waiting in the community for a bed. This procedure is inconsistent with the corresponding safeguards for fully assessed and detained patients waiting in the community for a bed. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unclear inter-service roles and responsibilities for mental health assessment and liaison; Unclear police assistance arrangements for 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

Chronic shortage of psychiatric beds

Wider context from the report

“Summary of Concerns In summary, the evidence raised five generic on-going matters of concern. The consequence is that acutely unwell people who need to be detained, because of the risk they pose to themselves and others, will remain unnecessarily free in public when in fact the agencies have the mechanism to detain them. The five generic on-going matters of concern: (1) The agencies involved in this area are not working together effectively and there is a misunderstanding around the Joint Memorandum of Understanding for Mental Health Professional Requesting Police Assistance with Mental Health Act Assessments. (2) There continues to be a chronic shortage of resources within the mental health services in Birmingham and Solihull. In particular, mental health professionals are operating caseloads well in excess of recommended levels and there is a chronic shortage of psychiatric beds. (3) Birmingham and Solihull CCG have not provided section 140 beds for BSMHFT. (4) Whilst section 4 is available to be used, it is not used. (5) The Home Treatment Standard Operational Procedure is inadequate to safeguard patients in the community who have been initially assessed and deemed detainable but are waiting in the community for a bed. This procedure is inconsistent with the corresponding safeguards for fully assessed and detained patients waiting in the community for a bed. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Insufficient psychiatric inpatient bed capacity.

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 agencies to work together effectively on mental health detention processes

Wider context from the report

“It appears on the current evidence that there is a misunderstanding between the agencies as to how section 135 Mental Health Act 1983 can work in an urgent situation. This includes both whether or not WMP need 24 hours’ notice and whether or not a bed first needs to be available. All agencies need to urgently review the ‘Joint Memorandum of Understanding For Mental Health Professionals Requesting Police Assistance With Mental health Act Assessments and s135(1) & (2) Warrants, June 2018’ and their own practices both individually and jointly to ensure that all staff working in this area understand what is achievable and how. The context for this report is: (1) The evidence from WMP is that they do not require 24 hours’ notice to execute a section 135 warrant, whereas the AMHPs (BCC) are of the view there was no point in applying for a section 135 warrant because WMP need 24 hours’ notice. (2) BSMHFT have stated that BCC refused to co-operate with their Root Cause Analysis process, reviewing what lessons could be learnt from the incident. (3) I was only made aware that BCC had conducted an Internal Management Review Report - that acknowledged AMHPs were fixed on the operational difficulties of applying for the warrant out of hours and police availability as they required 24 hours’ notice – by a witness on day 1 of the inquest. BCC had not volunteered this report existed. (4) The BCC Internal Management Review Report – which is designed to be the ‘organisational learning process’ - confirms that BCC has not learnt lessons from the incident effectively. In the action plan there is no mention of the incorrect belief amongst AMHPs, that WMP require 24 hours’ notice, having been corrected. My on-going concern is that the agencies involved in this area are not working together effectively. The consequence is that acutely unwell people who need to be detained, because of the risk they pose to themselves and others, will remain unnecessarily free in public when in fact the agencies have the mechanism to detain them. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable coordination of mental health crisis responses.

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

Misunderstanding between agencies about urgent section 135 warrant requirements

Wider context from the report

“It appears on the current evidence that there is a misunderstanding between the agencies as to how section 135 Mental Health Act 1983 can work in an urgent situation. This includes both whether or not WMP need 24 hours’ notice and whether or not a bed first needs to be available. All agencies need to urgently review the ‘Joint Memorandum of Understanding For Mental Health Professionals Requesting Police Assistance With Mental health Act Assessments and s135(1) & (2) Warrants, June 2018’ and their own practices both individually and jointly to ensure that all staff working in this area understand what is achievable and how. The context for this report is: (1) The evidence from WMP is that they do not require 24 hours’ notice to execute a section 135 warrant, whereas the AMHPs (BCC) are of the view there was no point in applying for a section 135 warrant because WMP need 24 hours’ notice. (2) BSMHFT have stated that BCC refused to co-operate with their Root Cause Analysis process, reviewing what lessons could be learnt from the incident. (3) I was only made aware that BCC had conducted an Internal Management Review Report - that acknowledged AMHPs were fixed on the operational difficulties of applying for the warrant out of hours and police availability as they required 24 hours’ notice – by a witness on day 1 of the inquest. BCC had not volunteered this report existed. (4) The BCC Internal Management Review Report – which is designed to be the ‘organisational learning process’ - confirms that BCC has not learnt lessons from the incident effectively. In the action plan there is no mention of the incorrect belief amongst AMHPs, that WMP require 24 hours’ notice, having been corrected. My on-going concern is that the agencies involved in this area are not working together effectively. The consequence is that acutely unwell people who need to be detained, because of the risk they pose to themselves and others, will remain unnecessarily free in public when in fact the agencies have the mechanism to detain them. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable Section 135 mental health warrant procedures; Unreliable alignment between police guidance and legal powers for safety-critical interventions.

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

Recruit additional Home Treatment Team doctors, psychologists, administrators, family-support staff and nurses to expand capacity and reduce caseloads.

Verbatim wording from the response

“11.1 BSMHFT have recognised the need for additional investment in the Home Treatment Team service and have committed in excess of £1m to create additional teams with smaller caseloads.”

Source location

2019-0284-Response-by-Birmingham-and-Solihull-CCG
Page 5 · response
Published 18 October 2019

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 joint standards and policies across agencies.

Verbatim wording from the response

“3.5 The group is currently overseeing five main work streams in response to the Coroner’s recommendations, which are:”

Source location

2019-0284-Response-by-Birmingham-and-Solihull-CCG
Page 2 · response
Published 18 October 2019

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 local arrangements delegating access management for Section 140 emergency beds.

Verbatim wording from the response

“13.1 The CCG recognises the responsibility to provide emergency beds pursuant to Section 140 of the Mental Health Act.”

Source location

2019-0284-Response-by-Birmingham-and-Solihull-CCG
Page 6 · response
Published 18 October 2019

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

Obtain formal multi-agency approval for the revised police-assistance memorandum.

Verbatim wording from the response

“5.1 A new Memorandum of Understanding has been developed and agreed by all of the relevant agencies, WMP, BCC, BSMHFT and BWCH. This memorandum has been developed and will receive formal approval at the multi-agency working group on 22nd January 2020.”

Source location

2019-0284-Response-by-Birmingham-and-Solihull-CCG
Page 2 · response
Published 18 October 2019

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 electronic action cards setting out staff processes and inter-agency interactions.

Verbatim wording from the response

“3.5 The group is currently overseeing five main work streams in response to the Coroner’s recommendations, which are:”

Source location

2019-0284-Response-by-Birmingham-and-Solihull-CCG
Page 2 · response
Published 18 October 2019

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 internal care pathways to maximise capacity in teams meeting patient demand.

Verbatim wording from the response

“10 Improving Flow Internally at BSMHFT”

Source location

2019-0284-Response-by-Birmingham-and-Solihull-CCG
Page 4 · response
Published 18 October 2019

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

Monitor Home Treatment Team caseloads daily.

Verbatim wording from the response

“11.3 Since 1st August 2019 BSMHFT have been monitoring daily caseloads for each of the Home Treatment Teams and the actions set out above have led to demonstrable reduction in the average caseload of the teams.”

Source location

2019-0284-Response-by-Birmingham-and-Solihull-CCG
Page 5 · response
Published 18 October 2019

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, approve and cascade the Home Treatment Team operational procedure to align safeguards with the Bed Management Policy.

Verbatim wording from the response

“15 The Home Treatment Standard Operational Procedure is inadequate to safeguard patients in the community who have been initially assessed and deemed detainable but are waiting in the community for a bed. This procedure is inconsistent with the corresponding safeguards for fully assessed and detained patients waiting in the community for a bed.”

Source location

2019-0284-Response-by-Birmingham-and-Solihull-CCG
Page 7 · response
Published 18 October 2019

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

Present the revised memorandum to frontline staff and deliver engagement, support and scenario testing.

Verbatim wording from the response

“5.3 The new memorandum provides clarity for front line staff working in pressured situations, is clear on the roles and responsibilities of the agencies involved and seeks to remove the ambiguity relating to the incorrect perception that WMP require 24 hours’ notice when providing police support. This approach has been communicated to staff in advance of the final sign off of the full document.”

Source location

2019-0284-Response-by-Birmingham-and-Solihull-CCG
Page 3 · response
Published 18 October 2019

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

Establish a new urgent care centre integrating urgent mental health assessment, place-of-safety, psychiatric decision and bed-management functions.

Verbatim wording from the response

“7 New Urgent Care Centre- expected completion autumn 2020”

Source location

2019-0284-Response-by-Birmingham-and-Solihull-CCG
Page 4 · response
Published 18 October 2019

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

Operate multi-agency call-in and prioritisation for Section 135 requests.

Verbatim wording from the response

“3.6 Clarity has been introduced in relation to the use of sections 135 and 136 of the Mental Health Act. Section 135 requests are now subject to multi agency ‘call in’ and prioritisation at 10am and 7pm. This process has only recently been introduced, and it is recognised that a more robust escalation process is needed to determine priority cases.”

Source location

2019-0284-Response-by-Birmingham-and-Solihull-CCG
Page 2 · response
Published 18 October 2019

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

Determine management arrangements for Section 136 cases.

Verbatim wording from the response

“3.7 In relation to Section 136 matters, the agencies are working to determine the management of these cases. This is likely to comprise a criterion for cases to be identified for urgent admission, with non-urgent cases being managed with positive risk processes and diversion to least restrictive options wherever possible.”

Source location

2019-0284-Response-by-Birmingham-and-Solihull-CCG
Page 2 · response
Published 18 October 2019

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

Pool resources to provide a crisis house as an alternative to psychiatric inpatient admission.

Verbatim wording from the response

“8 Crisis House- expected completion spring 2020”

Source location

2019-0284-Response-by-Birmingham-and-Solihull-CCG
Page 4 · response
Published 18 October 2019

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

Pilot the Red to Green initiative to improve inpatient flow and reduce length of stay.

Verbatim wording from the response

“10.1 BSMHFT have appointed independent experts to help them review their current internal pathways of care, with the aim of ensuring that they have the maximum capacity possible in the right teams to meet patient demand. This work is ongoing. They are also piloting an evidence based national initiative called ‘Red to Green’ aimed at improving flow and reducing length of stay within adult acute inpatient units, by ensuring pre-discharge planning and touch point reviews for all patients. This approach has already demonstrated success in partnerships with other providers.”

Source location

2019-0284-Response-by-Birmingham-and-Solihull-CCG
Page 4 · response
Published 18 October 2019

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 a crisis pathway to increase capacity in secondary mental health crisis services.

Verbatim wording from the response

“6.9 A further £1.7m is being spent on the development of a crisis pathway to increase the capacity in secondary mental health crisis services.”

Source location

2019-0284-Response-by-Birmingham-and-Solihull-CCG
Page 4 · response
Published 18 October 2019

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 cross-agency culture and workforce arrangements.

Verbatim wording from the response

“3.5 The group is currently overseeing five main work streams in response to the Coroner’s recommendations, which are:”

Source location

2019-0284-Response-by-Birmingham-and-Solihull-CCG
Page 2 · response
Published 18 October 2019

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

Existing policies, clinical discretion and monitoring are considered sufficient safeguards for the exceptional use of Mental Health Act Section 4.

Verbatim wording from the response

“14 Whilst section 4 is available to be used, it is not used.”

Source location

2019-0284-Response-by-Birmingham-and-Solihull-CCG
Page 6 · response
Published 18 October 2019

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

Delegated local arrangements provide flexible access to emergency beds and are considered to address Section 140 provision adequately.

Verbatim wording from the response

“13.4 The difficulties in implementing the Code of Practice was reviewed by Care Quality Commission in their report issued in June 2019, which recommended that “local leadership teams work together to discuss the way this [Section 140 provision] is working for patients and how to improve any problems with local implementation”.”

Source location

2019-0284-Response-by-Birmingham-and-Solihull-CCG
Page 6 · response
Published 18 October 2019

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

Management of access to emergency Section 140 beds is delegated to BSMHFT and BWCT under local arrangements.

Verbatim wording from the response

“13.1 The CCG recognises the responsibility to provide emergency beds pursuant to Section 140 of the Mental Health Act.”

Source location

2019-0284-Response-by-Birmingham-and-Solihull-CCG
Page 6 · response
Published 18 October 2019

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.6

  1. 1

    Establish a collective process for investigating serious incidents.

    Stated by Birmingham City Council and Birmingham and Solihull Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust and NHS Birmingham and Solihull Integrated Care Board and West Midlands PoliceStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 18 October 2019.
  2. 2

    Deliver a workshop to embed awareness of new processes.

    Stated by Birmingham City Council and Birmingham and Solihull Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust and NHS Birmingham and Solihull Integrated Care Board and West Midlands PoliceStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 18 October 2019.
  3. 3

    Maintain three senior out-of-hours clinical coordinator posts providing leadership, assessment support and clinical supervision.

    Stated by Birmingham City Council and Birmingham and Solihull Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust and NHS Birmingham and Solihull Integrated Care Board and West Midlands PoliceStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 18 October 2019.
  4. 4

    Increase psychiatric liaison staffing across hospitals with emergency departments.

    Stated by Birmingham City Council and Birmingham and Solihull Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust and NHS Birmingham and Solihull Integrated Care Board and West Midlands PoliceStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 18 October 2019.
  5. 5

    Develop and complete a memorandum of understanding for joint investigations of avoidable deaths.

    Stated by Birmingham City Council and Birmingham and Solihull Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust and NHS Birmingham and Solihull Integrated Care Board and West Midlands PoliceStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 18 October 2019.
  6. 6

    Maintain four additional senior Home Treatment Team managers in post.

    Stated by Birmingham City Council and Birmingham and Solihull Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust and NHS Birmingham and Solihull Integrated Care Board and West Midlands PoliceStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 18 October 2019.

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

Establish a collective process for investigating serious incidents.

Verbatim wording from the response

“3.5 The group is currently overseeing five main work streams in response to the Coroner’s recommendations, which are:”

Source location

2019-0284-Response-by-Birmingham-and-Solihull-CCG
Page 2 · response
Published 18 October 2019

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

Deliver a workshop to embed awareness of new processes.

Verbatim wording from the response

“3.5 The group is currently overseeing five main work streams in response to the Coroner’s recommendations, which are:”

Source location

2019-0284-Response-by-Birmingham-and-Solihull-CCG
Page 2 · response
Published 18 October 2019

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

Maintain three senior out-of-hours clinical coordinator posts providing leadership, assessment support and clinical supervision.

Verbatim wording from the response

“• Three senior out of hours’ clinical coordinator posts- these posts will provide clinical leadership and expertise out of hours to Home Treatment Team staff. They will support senior clinician led assessments in line with protocol which will inform a quicker response out of hours for patients and relatives. The coordinators will also provide senior advice and support for complex crisis calls and will support supervision and monitoring of clinical practice out of hours. All positions have been filled and staff are now in their roles”

Source location

2019-0284-Response-by-Birmingham-and-Solihull-CCG
Page 5 · response
Published 18 October 2019

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

Increase psychiatric liaison staffing across hospitals with emergency departments.

Verbatim wording from the response

“6.4 The system is committed to establishing and maintaining a mental health system which facilitates timely access to inpatient care for those who need it, whilst ensuring that community-based provision is adequately resourced to support recovery in the most appropriate environment. This is being addressed through the STP and the CCG Mental Health Programme Delivery Board. The ambition of the STP is to achieve sustainability, through a strong focus on prevention and recovery (ref 11.2).”

Source location

2019-0284-Response-by-Birmingham-and-Solihull-CCG
Page 3 · response
Published 18 October 2019

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 complete a memorandum of understanding for joint investigations of avoidable deaths.

Verbatim wording from the response

“3.1 In response to this serious incident the agencies listed, along with Birmingham Women’s and Children’s NHS Foundation Trust (BWCT), who provide mental health services to under 25s through Forward Thinking Birmingham (FTB), have formed a multi-agency working group to firstly respond to the issues that have been identified by this event, but also to ensure work in the future to ensure that multi-agency working is integrated into current learning and future improvement.”

Source location

2019-0284-Response-by-Birmingham-and-Solihull-CCG
Page 2 · response
Published 18 October 2019

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

Maintain four additional senior Home Treatment Team managers in post.

Verbatim wording from the response

“• Four Senior Team Managers have now been recruited and have started in their roles”

Source location

2019-0284-Response-by-Birmingham-and-Solihull-CCG
Page 5 · response
Published 18 October 2019

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
4/6

Data last updated 7 September 2026