PFD report

Ellen Ocean WOOLNOUGH · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 28 Mar 2024•Suffolk

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
13

Raised in this report

Recipients
2

Named on the report

Responses found
2

Of 2 recipients

Stated actions
11

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 raised13

  1. Inadequate risk assessment in response to urgent referrals
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate mental health risk assessmentPart of recurring concern: Unreliable urgent mental health referral and assessment pathways
  2. Unavailability of a handover document between shifts for urgent referral downgrading
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable shift handover processes
  3. Inadequate decision making when downgrading urgent referrals
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable referral urgency categorisation and prioritisation
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

    Embed the updated handover document in East CRHTT practice.

    Stated by Norfolk and Suffolk NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 15 April 2024.
  2. Action

    Update the Clinical Risk Assessment and Management Policy through governance, publish it, and progress its implementation plan.

    Stated by Norfolk and Suffolk NHS Foundation TrustStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 15 April 2024.
  3. Action

    Extend call-recording capability across designated crisis-pathway phone lines, including the identified CRHTT area.

    Stated by Norfolk and Suffolk NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 15 April 2024.

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

  1. Position

    Norfolk and Suffolk NHS Foundation Trust is responsible for addressing the care concerns and providing details of PSIRF implementation.

    Stated by NHS EnglandRedirects 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

Inadequate risk assessment in response to urgent referrals

Wider context from the report

“2. The adequacy of NSFT’s Crisis Rehabilitation Home Treatment Team (CRHTT) response to an urgent referral, in particular; risk assessment, safety planning and decision making concerning the downgrading of referrals. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate mental health risk assessment; Unreliable urgent mental health referral and assessment 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

Unavailability of a handover document between shifts for urgent referral downgrading

Wider context from the report

“ii. Whilst the downgrade policy concerning urgent referrals has been tightened up, key parts of the process, such as the handover document between shifts, is still to be introduced. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable shift handover 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

Inadequate decision making when downgrading urgent referrals

Wider context from the report

“2. The adequacy of NSFT’s Crisis Rehabilitation Home Treatment Team (CRHTT) response to an urgent referral, in particular; risk assessment, safety planning and decision making concerning the downgrading of referrals. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable referral urgency categorisation and prioritisation.

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 introduce a screening tool for determining PSIRF implementation

Wider context from the report

“iv. Changes to the way the Trust investigates incidents such as Ellie’s, including the use of a screening tool to determine how the PSIRF process is implemented, the requirement to retain recordings of calls and which statements are to be taken to inform serious patient incident investigations, are still to be introduced by the Trust. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to implement the Patient Safety Incident Response Framework.

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

Incomplete and ineffective rollout of STORM training to staff

Wider context from the report

“i. STORM training continues to be rolled out, although the evidence from a number of witnesses questioned the effectiveness of the rollout in reaching all staff. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable operation of the STORM emergency incident-management system.

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

Inadequate PSIRF processes for addressing serious patient incidents

Wider context from the report

“3. Adequacy of the NHS England Patient Safety Incident Response Framework (PSIRF) to address serious incidents concerning patients and the implementation of this framework by NSFT. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable formal safety-incident management 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 define which statements are to be taken for serious patient incident investigations

Wider context from the report

“iv. Changes to the way the Trust investigates incidents such as Ellie’s, including the use of a screening tool to determine how the PSIRF process is implemented, the requirement to retain recordings of calls and which statements are to be taken to inform serious patient incident investigations, are still to be introduced by the Trust. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate safety incident investigations; Unreliable formal safety-incident management 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 retain recordings of calls for serious patient incident investigations

Wider context from the report

“iv. Changes to the way the Trust investigates incidents such as Ellie’s, including the use of a screening tool to determine how the PSIRF process is implemented, the requirement to retain recordings of calls and which statements are to be taken to inform serious patient incident investigations, are still to be introduced by the Trust. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to preserve clinical evidence and data after serious clinical events; Inadequate safety incident investigations; Unreliable formal safety-incident management processes; Unreliable recording and preservation of safety-relevant telephone calls.

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 implement the SOP for downgrading urgent referrals

Wider context from the report

“iii. The Trust SOP addressing the downgrading of urgent referrals, which I was told was revised in 2023, has not been provided to the Court and has not been implemented by the Trust. ”

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 by NSFT to implement the Patient Safety Incident Response Framework

Wider context from the report

“3. Adequacy of the NHS England Patient Safety Incident Response Framework (PSIRF) to address serious incidents concerning patients and the implementation of this framework by NSFT. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to implement the Patient Safety Incident Response Framework.

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 adequate discharge decisions after failed engagement with mental health services

Wider context from the report

“1. The adequacy of Norfolk and Suffolk NHS Foundation Trust’s (NSFT) Integrated Delivery Team (IDT) decision making concerning the discharge of a patient from mental health services in circumstances where a failed engagement has occurred. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unsafe discharge, closure or withdrawal of mental health services.

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 preserve recordings of calls between patients and the crisis call handler

Wider context from the report

“v. The failure by NSFT to preserve important evidence, in the form of recordings of calls between Ellie and the NSFT crisis call handler, at a time when it was not on notice that this evidence would be important and relevant for the conduct of the Inquest, remains a concern. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable recording and preservation of safety-relevant telephone calls.

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

Inadequate safety planning in response to urgent referrals

Wider context from the report

“2. The adequacy of NSFT’s Crisis Rehabilitation Home Treatment Team (CRHTT) response to an urgent referral, in particular; risk assessment, safety planning and decision making concerning the downgrading of referrals. ”

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

Embed the updated handover document in East CRHTT practice.

Verbatim wording from the response

“2. Whilst the downgrade policy concerning urgent referrals has been tightened up, key parts of the process, such as the handover document between shifts, is still to be introduced.”

Source location

Response from Norfolk and Suffolk NHS Foundation Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 15 April 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

Update the Clinical Risk Assessment and Management Policy through governance, publish it, and progress its implementation plan.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The Trust has recently been reviewing and updating their Clinical Risk Assessment and Management Policy. This Policy is currently progressing through Trust internal governance processes and is due to be published end of June 2024, with a Policy implementation plan to be progressed during July/August 2024. This will provide additional support to staff clinical risk assessment practice.”

Source location

Response from Norfolk and Suffolk NHS Foundation Trust
Page 1 · response
Published 15 April 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

Extend call-recording capability across designated crisis-pathway phone lines, including the identified CRHTT area.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Recognising that we have an extensive network of phone lines, we have also taken steps to secure assurance that the phone lines that we need recording, across the crisis pathways, are appropriately enabled. Through a detailed scoping exercise, we identified the need to extend our current recording facility in one of our CRHTT areas. This went live on 15th May 2024. All phone lines which have been designated as requiring recording facility have now been enabled.”

Source location

Response from Norfolk and Suffolk NHS Foundation Trust
Page 3 · response
Published 15 April 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 the updated Trust-wide CRHTT SOP and Clinical Harm Review SOP requirements for discussing urgent-referral regrading with another clinician.

Verbatim wording from the response

“3. The Trust Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) addressing the downgrading of urgent referrals, which I was told was revised in 2023, has not been provided to the Court and has not been implemented by the Trust.”

Source location

Response from Norfolk and Suffolk NHS Foundation Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 15 April 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

Revise the patient-safety screening form to prompt retrieval and preservation of available patient-call recordings for investigations and inquests.

Verbatim wording from the response

“4. Changes to the way the Trust investigates incidents such as Ellen’s, including the use of a screening tool to determine how the PSIRF process is implemented, the requirement to retain recordings of calls and which statements are to be taken to inform serious patient incident investigations, are still to be introduced by the Trust, and”

Source location

Response from Norfolk and Suffolk NHS Foundation Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 15 April 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

Audit handover-document use monthly and report findings through local and Trust quality-assurance structures.

Verbatim wording from the response

“To secure assurance that we are adhering to required practice when a referral is being considered for regrade, we have commenced an audit of the hand over document. An audit commenced week commencing 13.05.24. This audit will continue on a monthly cycle for assurance and improvement purposes.”

Source location

Response from Norfolk and Suffolk NHS Foundation Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 15 April 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

Review and refresh the Education Strategy, including the STORM training offer and any further Trust-wide rollout.

Verbatim wording from the response

“1. STORM© training continues to be rolled out, although the evidence from a number of witnesses questioned the effectiveness of the rollout in reaching all staff.”

Source location

Response from Norfolk and Suffolk NHS Foundation Trust
Page 1 · response
Published 15 April 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

Evaluate compliance with two-clinician referral regrading through management monitoring and a Patient Safety and Quality Team audit, with results reported through quality-assurance structures.

Verbatim wording from the response

“We will evaluate compliance against this standard through local management monitoring with additional second level assurance provided through an audit that will be completed by the Patient Safety and Quality Team by mid-July 2024. This will enable us to provide assurance that all decisions to regrade a referral are being made by two clinicians in line with Trust standard.”

Source location

Response from Norfolk and Suffolk NHS Foundation Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 15 April 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

Establish consistent, information-governance-compliant retrieval of relevant patient-call recordings by the Patient Safety team.

Verbatim wording from the response

“this screening form, to prompt the clinical team that are providing an initial description of the events that have occurred, to consider whether any patient calls are available for retrieval, so that they can be secured for investigation and inquest purposes. We have strong processes in place to ensure that the retrieval of these calls is undertaken in a consistent and IG compliant manner by members of the Patient Safety team.”

Source location

Response from Norfolk and Suffolk NHS Foundation Trust
Page 3 · response
Published 15 April 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

Norfolk and Suffolk NHS Foundation Trust is responsible for addressing the care concerns and providing details of PSIRF implementation.

Verbatim wording from the response

“I note that your Report has also been addressed to Norfolk and Suffolk NHS Foundation Trust who are the appropriate organisation to answer the majority of the concerns raised in your Report. NHS England has engaged with the Trust on the issues raised in your Report about Ellen’s care and have been sighted on the action plan and statement submitted to you at inquest. We note from the Trust that their actions include:”

Source location

2024-0184 - Response from NHS England
Page 1 · response
Published 15 April 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.2

  1. 1

    Discuss all received Prevention of Future Deaths reports through the Regulation 28 Working Group.

    Stated by NHS EnglandStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 15 April 2024.
  2. 2

    Share learning and insights from preventable deaths across the NHS nationally and regionally.

    Stated by NHS EnglandStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 15 April 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

Discuss all received Prevention of Future Deaths reports through the Regulation 28 Working Group.

Verbatim wording from the response

“I would also like to provide further assurances on national NHS England work taking place around the Reports to Prevent Future Deaths. All reports received are discussed by the Regulation 28 Working Group, comprising Regional Medical Directors, and other clinical and quality colleagues from across the regions. This ensures that key learnings and insights around preventable deaths are shared across the NHS at both a national and regional level and helps us pay close attention to any emerging trends that may require further review and action.”

Source location

2024-0184 - Response from NHS England
Page 2 · response
Published 15 April 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

Share learning and insights from preventable deaths across the NHS nationally and regionally.

Verbatim wording from the response

“I would also like to provide further assurances on national NHS England work taking place around the Reports to Prevent Future Deaths. All reports received are discussed by the Regulation 28 Working Group, comprising Regional Medical Directors, and other clinical and quality colleagues from across the regions. This ensures that key learnings and insights around preventable deaths are shared across the NHS at both a national and regional level and helps us pay close attention to any emerging trends that may require further review and action.”

Source location

2024-0184 - Response from NHS England
Page 2 · response
Published 15 April 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
2/2

Data last updated 7 September 2026