PFD report

Derrick Frederick Tully · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 28 Mar 2025•Inner North London

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
7

Raised in this report

Recipients
3

Named on the report

Responses found
3

Of 3 recipients

Stated actions
16

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 raised7

  1. Failure to record significant post-fall injuries in care notes
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate control of falls risksPart of recurring concern: Unreliable documentation of falls and related clinical responsePart of recurring concern: Unreliable post-fall assessment and clinical response
  2. Failure to assess reablement suitability in light of cognitive impairment and unreliable self-reporting
    Part of recurring concern: Untimely or incomplete community care assessments
  3. Failure to provide emergency access to the flat for carers and emergency services
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable emergency access arrangements for responders
Responses linked to these concerns

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

Actions described in response An action is something a recipient says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to a concern raised.9

  1. Action

    Conduct an independent structured judgement review and discuss its findings at ICAT governance and safeguarding meetings.

    Stated by Whittington Health NHS TrustStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 31 March 2025.
  2. Action

    Conduct mental-capacity assessments for patients who do not engage with services and involve families where appropriate.

    Stated by Whittington Health NHS TrustStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 31 March 2025.
  3. Action

    Add assessment-proforma requirements to consult patients’ families where appropriate and document mental-capacity decisions when patients do not consent.

    Stated by Whittington Health NHS TrustStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 31 March 2025.

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.10

  1. Position

    The team had received and considered information about the patient’s unsafe home circumstances, neighbours and self-care difficulties.

    Stated by Whittington Health NHS TrustDisputes the concernThe respondent disagreed with part of the concern or the basis for it.

Source evidence

How this individual concern was interpreted

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

PFD Monitor interpretation

Failure to record significant post-fall injuries in care notes

Wider context from the report

“On 20 February Derrick suffered a fall. Severe bruising and swelling developed on his face over the following days but this was not recorded in his care notes by his carers and not escalated until his daughter raised concerns on 24 February. “No concerns” was written in Derrick’s care record and no consideration given to whether he needed to be reviewed by a doctor. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate control of falls risks; Unreliable documentation of falls and related clinical response; Unreliable post-fall assessment and clinical response.

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 assess reablement suitability in light of cognitive impairment and unreliable self-reporting

Wider context from the report

“On discharge from hospital on 3 February 2024 following a fall, Derrick was provided with a good package of care. On 23 February this changed to a reablement package of care. Derrick was not suitable for reablement because of his declining cognition and progressive dementia. The occupational therapist raised concerns that he was not suitable for reablement for these reasons and because there were no rehabilitation goals. There was an over-reliance on Derrick’s self-reporting which was inaccurate given his memory problems, and a focus on him doing more for himself. He began losing weight because he was not eating, and he was not able to cope with self-care. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Untimely or incomplete community care assessments.

Open source report

Source evidence

How this individual concern was interpreted

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

PFD Monitor interpretation

Failure to provide emergency access to the flat for carers and emergency services

Wider context from the report

“Derrick required carers twice a day. He was also given a pendant alarm for emergencies. However, no key safe was installed meaning that even in an emergency, neither carers nor emergency services could gain entry to his flat. This was raised repeatedly by his family, carers and other professionals. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable emergency access arrangements for responders.

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 account for cognitive, mental health and home-safety barriers when assessing engagement

Wider context from the report

“Following MDT meetings due to concerns over Derrick’s increasing deterioration and ability to cope with his own care needs, the Integrated Community Aging Team reviewed him on 6 March. They discharged him from the service on 12 March because he did not want to engage with their home assessment of him. Derrick was suffering from cognitive impairment as a result of previous strokes and newly diagnosed dementia. He also had a mental health history and was paranoid. This was compounded by problems he’d experienced with neighbours and cuckooing concerns meaning that at times, he didn’t feel safe at home. It does not appear that these were factored into his inability to engage with the team. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable hospital discharge processes; Untimely or incomplete community care assessments.

Open source report

Source evidence

How this individual concern was interpreted

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

PFD Monitor interpretation

Failure to award medical points despite evidence of unsuitable accommodation and health needs

Wider context from the report

“Derrick was provided with a wheeled walker to reduce the risk of falls. Although Derrick’s temporary accommodation was ground floor, there were steps down from the building to street level and he was thus unable to manoeuvre the walker out of the property. Despite a social care letter of support, outlining concerns that his current accommodation was unsuitable and detailing Derrick’s health problems, the housing options team did not award him any medical points. ”

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 escalate significant post-fall injuries for medical review

Wider context from the report

“On 20 February Derrick suffered a fall. Severe bruising and swelling developed on his face over the following days but this was not recorded in his care notes by his carers and not escalated until his daughter raised concerns on 24 February. “No concerns” was written in Derrick’s care record and no consideration given to whether he needed to be reviewed by a doctor. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to assess and respond promptly to significant signs of injury; Failure to reliably escalate requests for medical review; Failure to seek medical attention when a person's condition warrants it; Unreliable post-fall assessment and clinical response.

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

Inaccessible temporary accommodation for wheeled-walker use

Wider context from the report

“Derrick was provided with a wheeled walker to reduce the risk of falls. Although Derrick’s temporary accommodation was ground floor, there were steps down from the building to street level and he was thus unable to manoeuvre the walker out of the property. Despite a social care letter of support, outlining concerns that his current accommodation was unsuitable and detailing Derrick’s health problems, the housing options team did not award him any medical points. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

No recurring-concern membership is currently published.

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

Conduct an independent structured judgement review and discuss its findings at ICAT governance and safeguarding meetings.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The Lead Consultant for the Integrated Community Aging team (ICAT) has confirmed that families are usually involved as much as possible in assessments with the consent of patients in ICAT service. Where a patient does not have capacity to decline speaking with their next of kin, attempts are made to do so in their best interests. It is unclear why this did not happen in this case, and this will be explored in detail following an independent structured judgement review at the next ICAT governance meeting on May 21st, 2025. The minutes for those unable to attend will be disseminated by email and one to one discussions. This case will also be discussed at weekly Safeguarding drop ins on 6th May 2025.”

Source location

Response from Whittington Health NHS Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 31 March 2025

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Conduct mental-capacity assessments for patients who do not engage with services and involve families where appropriate.

Verbatim wording from the response

“• Mental capacity assessment will be conducted for all patients when they are not engaging with services as well as family involvement where appropriate.”

Source location

Response from Whittington Health NHS Trust
Page 3 · response
Published 31 March 2025

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Add assessment-proforma requirements to consult patients’ families where appropriate and document mental-capacity decisions when patients do not consent.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In terms of how such incidents will be addressed in future, the learning from this case will be taken to the governance, Clinical and Quality Lead and team meetings. In addition, details will be added to the assessment proforma around engagement with the next of kin to get collateral history and discuss concerns, if the patient consents to this. If the patient does not give consent, a mental capacity assessment will be conducted and documented around this decision and discussed at MDT with the lead clinician.”

Source location

Response from Whittington Health NHS Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 31 March 2025

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Update care-documentation guidance and training with structured prompts for detailed injury descriptions and recording the rationale for non-escalation after initial reporting.

Verbatim wording from the response

“5. Actions Taken and Proposed Further Action Daryel Care is committed to learning from this incident and has taken and proposes the following actions to mitigate the risk of future similar occurrences:”

Source location

Response from Daryel Care
Page 3 · response
Published 31 March 2025

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Deliver mandatory refresher training on falls, head-injury recognition, recording, and escalation protocols to all care staff.

Verbatim wording from the response

“5. Actions Taken and Proposed Further Action Daryel Care is committed to learning from this incident and has taken and proposes the following actions to mitigate the risk of future similar occurrences:”

Source location

Response from Daryel Care
Page 3 · response
Published 31 March 2025

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Enhance digital photographic injury-upload capability, obtaining explicit client consent in accordance with policy, to supplement written care-note descriptions.

Verbatim wording from the response

“5. Actions Taken and Proposed Further Action Daryel Care is committed to learning from this incident and has taken and proposes the following actions to mitigate the risk of future similar occurrences:”

Source location

Response from Daryel Care
Page 3 · response
Published 31 March 2025

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Review the Key Safe Policy, including factors for deciding whether to install a key safe.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Islington Council recognise the important role key safes can play in managing risk to individuals, as well the importance of resident consent, risk management and promoting independence and strength. In response to the PFD Notice Islington Council will inform the workforce through the Principal Social Worker the importance of considering access to people’s property in the event of risk, as well as the importance of contingency planning. In addition, Islington Council will undertake a review of its Key safe Policy which will include the factors to be considered when deciding to install.”

Source location

Response from Islington Council
Page 3 · response
Published 31 March 2025

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Revisit training on identifying cognitive abilities, capacity, risk, and risk management under the Mental Capacity Act.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In response to the coroner’s findings, Islington does support its workforce through training, audit and the support of the principal social worker with the skills to identify issues relating to residents’ cognitive abilities, their capability to identify risk and the management of that risk in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and its principles. Islington Council will revisit this training in the light of the coroner’s findings.”

Source location

Response from Islington Council
Page 4 · response
Published 31 March 2025

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Inform the workforce about considering property access risks and contingency planning, including the role of key safes.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Islington Council recognise the important role key safes can play in managing risk to individuals, as well the importance of resident consent, risk management and promoting independence and strength. In response to the PFD Notice Islington Council will inform the workforce through the Principal Social Worker the importance of considering access to people’s property in the event of risk, as well as the importance of contingency planning. In addition, Islington Council will undertake a review of its Key safe Policy which will include the factors to be considered when deciding to install.”

Source location

Response from Islington Council
Page 3 · response
Published 31 March 2025

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent position was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

The team had received and considered information about the patient’s unsafe home circumstances, neighbours and self-care difficulties.

Verbatim wording from the response

“DT also had a mental health history and was paranoid. This was compounded by problems he’d experienced with neighbours and cuckooing concerns meaning that at times, he didn’t feel safe at home. It does not appear that these were factored into his inability to engage with the team.”

Source location

Response from Whittington Health NHS Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 31 March 2025

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent position was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

ICAT discharged the patient because other community services addressed all identified problems and provided a safety net for ongoing follow-up.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In terms of the decision making around discharge, although Derrick’s refusal for ongoing assessment was a factor, the primary reason for discharge was that all the identified problems were being addressed by existing teams and ICAT could not add anything further to Derrick’s care. In addition, as he remained under Integrated Networks Coordinators (INC) and several other community services there was a safety net in place in terms of ongoing follow up.”

Source location

Response from Whittington Health NHS Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 31 March 2025

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent position was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Prior hospital assessment, existing MDT escalation, no acute red flags, and imminent care handover supported continued observation without separate immediate medical re-escalation.

Verbatim wording from the response

“e. Consideration of Medical Review The PFD report raises concern that "no consideration given to whether he needed to be reviewed by a doctor." Daryel Care staff were operating within a complex multi-agency framework where clinical oversight, particularly post-discharge and concerning medication, was understood to be led by the Whittington Health Rapid Response team. The decision-making process regarding further medical review by Daryel Care staff considered the following factors: Firstly, Mr Tully had been assessed and treated at the hospital A&E department immediately following his fall on 20 February and was discharged home. Additionally, Daryel Care had formally escalated the head injury to the MDT (including Rapid Response) on the evening of 20 February. Observations during visits on 21 and 22 February recorded pain (on the 21st) and a swollen eye (on the 22nd).”

Source location

Response from Daryel Care
Page 2 · response
Published 31 March 2025

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent position was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

The fall and developing injury were recorded in care notes, and the head injury was escalated promptly to the multi-disciplinary team.

Verbatim wording from the response

“a. Recording of the Fall Incident (20 February 2024) The assertion that the fall incident was "not recorded" is factually incorrect based on Daryel Care's existing records. The electronic care note entry for the visit commencing at 19:00 hrs on 20 February 2024, logged at 19:04 hours, explicitly documents the following: “The carer observed Mr Tully upon arrival with a fresh plaster wrap and wound dressing on his scalp. Mr Tully informed the carer he had sustained an injury from a fall. The carer”

Source location

Response from Daryel Care
Page 1 · response
Published 31 March 2025

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent position was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

No inappropriate “No concerns” entry attributable to staff was found in the official electronic care records, so its origin and context cannot be confirmed.

Verbatim wording from the response

“d. Reference to "No Concerns" Entry The PFD report states, ““No concerns” was written in Derrick’s care record". Daryel Care utilises the CM2000 electronic care monitoring and recording system for all care work visit notes. A review of all CM2000 electronic care notes logged by Daryel Care staff for Mr Tully between 20 February 2024 and the final visit on 22 February 2024 has been conducted. This comprehensive review has not located any entry made by a Daryel Care staff member within the CM2000 system during this period that contains the phrase "No concerns" or substantively similar wording used in an inappropriate context (i.e., as an overall assessment negating the known head injury). All located notes contain specific details pertinent to the care provided and observations made, including the entries regarding the head injury referenced above.”

Source location

Response from Daryel Care
Page 2 · response
Published 31 March 2025

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent position was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Clinical oversight, including decisions about post-discharge medical review, was understood to be led by the Rapid Response team within the multi-agency framework.

Verbatim wording from the response

“e. Consideration of Medical Review The PFD report raises concern that "no consideration given to whether he needed to be reviewed by a doctor." Daryel Care staff were operating within a complex multi-agency framework where clinical oversight, particularly post-discharge and concerning medication, was understood to be led by the Whittington Health Rapid Response team. The decision-making process regarding further medical review by Daryel Care staff considered the following factors: Firstly, Mr Tully had been assessed and treated at the hospital A&E department immediately following his fall on 20 February and was discharged home. Additionally, Daryel Care had formally escalated the head injury to the MDT (including Rapid Response) on the evening of 20 February. Observations during visits on 21 and 22 February recorded pain (on the 21st) and a swollen eye (on the 22nd).”

Source location

Response from Daryel Care
Page 2 · response
Published 31 March 2025

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent position was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Daryel Care reported the fall to Adult Social Care, while ambulance attendance and hospital treatment had already addressed the immediate response.

Verbatim wording from the response

“It is ASC’s understanding that Daryel Care was not requested to provide evidence to the coroner's court of their recording and reporting of the fall on the 20 February 2024. As part of ASC’s response to the PFD Notice, we have engaged Daryel Care who have provided their records. These evidence that on the 20 February 2024 at 19:12 ‘Derek sustained an injury on his face. He said he had an accident when he went out. The injury was plastered. I prompted his medication from the medication box, and he asked me to leave’.”

Source location

Response from Islington Council
Page 4 · response
Published 31 March 2025

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent position was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

The decision to provide Reablement was considered appropriate, lawful and consistent with practice because the resident could communicate his wishes and was previously independent.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The PFD Notice states that the Coroners Court has determined that Derrick was not suitable for reablement because of his declining cognition and progressive dementia.”

Source location

Response from Islington Council
Page 3 · response
Published 31 March 2025

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent position was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

The access assessment and telecare emergency contacts were considered sufficient contingencies instead of immediate keysafe installation.

Verbatim wording from the response

“ASC acknowledge that there was no keysafe in place, when Reablement support commenced. Mr Tully was assessed as being able to provide access to the property. This assessment would have been made in the context of Islington Council’s ASC practice model for promoting strengths-based practice and that Mr Tully had the mental capacity to make a decision about how he supported access to his property.”

Source location

Response from Islington Council
Page 3 · response
Published 31 March 2025

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent position was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Opening the medical evidence would not have resulted in earlier housing because the resident died within 15 days amid severe social-housing shortages.

Verbatim wording from the response

“If the letter received on 5th March 2024 had been opened/read on time and a medical assessment had been conducted, it would surely not have led to Mr Tully having been housed any sooner as he passed away within 15 days of receipt of the OT report. Regrettably, this is due to the severe shortage of social housing available in Islington.”

Source location

Response from Islington Council
Page 2 · response
Published 31 March 2025

Open published response

Other statements in published responses

These actions and other statements could not be clearly connected to one concern in this report.

Recipient-stated actions An action is something a recipient says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to a concern raised.7

  1. 1

    Share learning from the case at senior Trust governance meetings and disseminate meeting minutes and learning to staff unable to attend.

    Stated by Whittington Health NHS TrustStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 31 March 2025.
  2. 2

    Audit monthly compliance with completing the additional assessment information and report results to the governance meeting.

    Stated by Whittington Health NHS TrustStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 31 March 2025.
  3. 3

    Reinforce staff understanding of roles, responsibilities, and escalation pathways within multi-agency transitional-care frameworks through supervisions and staff and stakeholder meetings.

    Stated by Daryel CareStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 31 March 2025.
  4. 4

    Remind Housing Needs officers of correspondence deadlines, record-indexing, unreadable attachments, and timely referral of misdirected correspondence.

    Stated by London Borough of IslingtonStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 31 March 2025.
  5. 5

    Explore opportunities to improve health and social care collaboration and information sharing through the integrated front door and neighbourhood strategy.

    Stated by London Borough of IslingtonStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 31 March 2025.
  6. 6

    Share identified learning from the Regulation 28 report across the organisation.

    Stated by London Borough of IslingtonStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 31 March 2025.
  7. 7

    Require Housing Needs managers to conduct and record monthly sample file checks of correspondence handling and holding responses.

    Stated by London Borough of IslingtonStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 31 March 2025.

Recipient positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when they do not describe a specific action.2

  1. 1

    Safeguarding concerns were not taken forward because the resident had capacity, reported no direct incidents, and care needs were addressed through case management.

    Stated by London Borough of IslingtonNo action considered necessaryThe respondent said that no further action was needed.
  2. 2

    Rehabilitation is a health service, and section 22 of the Care Act prevents the local authority from providing it.

    Stated by London Borough of IslingtonOutside remitThe respondent said that this matter was outside its role or authority.

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

Share learning from the case at senior Trust governance meetings and disseminate meeting minutes and learning to staff unable to attend.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The Lead Consultant for the Integrated Community Aging team (ICAT) has confirmed that families are usually involved as much as possible in assessments with the consent of patients in ICAT service. Where a patient does not have capacity to decline speaking with their next of kin, attempts are made to do so in their best interests. It is unclear why this did not happen in this case, and this will be explored in detail following an independent structured judgement review at the next ICAT governance meeting on May 21st, 2025. The minutes for those unable to attend will be disseminated by email and one to one discussions. This case will also be discussed at weekly Safeguarding drop ins on 6th May 2025.”

Source location

Response from Whittington Health NHS Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 31 March 2025

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Audit monthly compliance with completing the additional assessment information and report results to the governance meeting.

Verbatim wording from the response

“• Compliance with the additional information completion will be audited monthly and reported back to the governance meeting.”

Source location

Response from Whittington Health NHS Trust
Page 3 · response
Published 31 March 2025

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Reinforce staff understanding of roles, responsibilities, and escalation pathways within multi-agency transitional-care frameworks through supervisions and staff and stakeholder meetings.

Verbatim wording from the response

“5. Actions Taken and Proposed Further Action Daryel Care is committed to learning from this incident and has taken and proposes the following actions to mitigate the risk of future similar occurrences:”

Source location

Response from Daryel Care
Page 3 · response
Published 31 March 2025

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Remind Housing Needs officers of correspondence deadlines, record-indexing, unreadable attachments, and timely referral of misdirected correspondence.

Verbatim wording from the response

“On 16 May 2025, Housing Needs Managers were asked to remind all officers, no later than by 27 June 2025, of the following:”

Source location

Response from Islington Council
Page 2 · response
Published 31 March 2025

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Explore opportunities to improve health and social care collaboration and information sharing through the integrated front door and neighbourhood strategy.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Adult Social Care recognise the importance of interagency working and sharing information in relation to people being supported in the community. ASC work closely with Whittington Health and will explore opportunities to improve these working relationships and information sharing through its integrated front door and integrated neighbourhood strategy. These programmes of work seek to consider people’s referrals and needs more holistically, with health and social care staff working more collaboratively.”

Source location

Response from Islington Council
Page 7 · response
Published 31 March 2025

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Share identified learning from the Regulation 28 report across the organisation.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Islington Adult Social Care and Housing Department have considered the Section Regulation 28: Prevention of Future Deaths report and have identified several areas of learning that will be shared across the organisation. Should the Coroners Court wish to discuss any element of the response, then please contact Islington Council at the address above. Yours sincerely,”

Source location

Response from Islington Council
Page 7 · response
Published 31 March 2025

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Require Housing Needs managers to conduct and record monthly sample file checks of correspondence handling and holding responses.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In addition to the guidance above, all Housing Needs Managers were also reminded on 16 May 2025 of the following: 1/ Housing Needs managers must carry out monthly file checks on a sample of cases that includes noting whether correspondence is responded to within the Council’s corporate targets and if not, whether a holding response has been sent to the sender. 2/ All file checks should be recorded via the case audit logs appropriate for their team.”

Source location

Response from Islington Council
Page 2 · response
Published 31 March 2025

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent position was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Safeguarding concerns were not taken forward because the resident had capacity, reported no direct incidents, and care needs were addressed through case management.

Verbatim wording from the response

“05/02/2025 - District Nursing – Whittington Health - The referral considers concerns about the noise from neighbours and the neighbour's property being a drugs den, impacting on Mr Tully’s ability to sleep. 08/02/2025 - Whittington Hospital Staff - The referral considers concerns about Mr Tully’s ability to care for himself and the risk of falls. It does note the same concerns about his neighbours as highlighted on the 05/02/2025. 26/02/2025 - Whittington Hospital Staff - The referral considers concerns about Mr Tully’s ability to care for himself and the risks this poses to his well-being. The referral notes that Mr Tully is scared around other residents in the hostel, but no incidents had occurred. The Hospital at this time offered to admit Mr Tully however the referral suggests the family declined.”

Source location

Response from Islington Council
Page 6 · response
Published 31 March 2025

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent position was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Rehabilitation is a health service, and section 22 of the Care Act prevents the local authority from providing it.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Adult Social Care records state that the Community Health OT from REACH (Whittington Health NHS Trust) who advised the ASC Single Point of Access Physio on the 28 Feb 2024 that the resident ‘is likely an unsuitable candidate for rehabilitation due to his cognition’. Rehabilitation is a different service offer to Reablement, with Rehabilitation considered a health service focussed on periodic clinical intervention to restore function, opposed to Reablement which is care led focussing on improving skills in activities of daily living. Section 22 of the Care Act 2014 prevents local authorities providing health services to and that end Rehabilitation.”

Source location

Response from Islington Council
Page 4 · response
Published 31 March 2025

Open published response
Back to top

Information checked against the published report and official responses · Data reviewed 7 Sep 2026 · About data quality and limitations

Official responses located
3/3

Data last updated 7 September 2026