PFD report

Rebecca Jessie Mclellan (known as Becca) · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 18 May 2026•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
3

Raised in this report

Recipients
1

Named on the report

Responses found
2

Of 1 recipient

Stated actions
5

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 raised3

  1. Failure to identify a dedicated, named care co-ordinator for mental health patients during prolonged planned leave
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable care-coordinator provision and cover for mental health service users
  2. Lack of a documented system for highlighting and managing planned, prolonged key care co-ordinator absence
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable care-coordinator provision and cover for mental health service users
  3. Failure to ensure coverage of named key care co-ordinators’ roles and responsibilities during planned leave
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable care-coordinator provision and cover for mental health service users
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.5

  1. Action

    Maintain an accessible Youth Team off-duty chart, updated for absences and changes, with daily huddles confirming staffing and cover requirements.

    Stated by The TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 28 July 2026.
  2. Action

    Operate the Trust-wide E-Roster to identify staffing gaps, manage absences, arrange temporary cover and monitor team capacity.

    Stated by The TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 28 July 2026.
  3. Action

    Conduct monthly Early Warning Trigger Score audits to identify staffing-capacity risks and support escalation for additional staffing support.

    Stated by The TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 28 July 2026.

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.2

  1. Position

    Existing rostering, absence-management and risk-monitoring systems are considered sufficient to address staffing vacancies and maintain continuity of care.

    Stated by The TrustExisting 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

Failure to identify a dedicated, named care co-ordinator for mental health patients during prolonged planned leave

Wider context from the report

“There is no documented system that I consider adequately highlights and manages planned, prolonged key care co-ordinator absence in the Youth team, nor a formal, documented process that clearly and accurately ensures that the roles and responsibilities of named key care co-ordinators are adequately covered during periods of planned leave. There is no process to ensure a dedicated, named care co-ordinator is identified to the mental health patient to provide continuity of care during prolonged periods of planned leave. I consider that the risk of a lack of a dedicated and identified care co-ordinator for a significant period during planned leave creates an ongoing risk of future deaths for people with significant mental health disorders, so consider this a matter for a PFD report. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable care-coordinator provision and cover for mental health service users.

Open source report

Source evidence

How this individual concern was interpreted

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

PFD Monitor interpretation

Lack of a documented system for highlighting and managing planned, prolonged key care co-ordinator absence

Wider context from the report

“There is no documented system that I consider adequately highlights and manages planned, prolonged key care co-ordinator absence in the Youth team, nor a formal, documented process that clearly and accurately ensures that the roles and responsibilities of named key care co-ordinators are adequately covered during periods of planned leave. There is no process to ensure a dedicated, named care co-ordinator is identified to the mental health patient to provide continuity of care during prolonged periods of planned leave. I consider that the risk of a lack of a dedicated and identified care co-ordinator for a significant period during planned leave creates an ongoing risk of future deaths for people with significant mental health disorders, so consider this a matter for a PFD report. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable care-coordinator provision and cover for mental health service users.

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 ensure coverage of named key care co-ordinators’ roles and responsibilities during planned leave

Wider context from the report

“There is no documented system that I consider adequately highlights and manages planned, prolonged key care co-ordinator absence in the Youth team, nor a formal, documented process that clearly and accurately ensures that the roles and responsibilities of named key care co-ordinators are adequately covered during periods of planned leave. There is no process to ensure a dedicated, named care co-ordinator is identified to the mental health patient to provide continuity of care during prolonged periods of planned leave. I consider that the risk of a lack of a dedicated and identified care co-ordinator for a significant period during planned leave creates an ongoing risk of future deaths for people with significant mental health disorders, so consider this a matter for a PFD report. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable care-coordinator provision and cover for mental health service users.

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

Maintain an accessible Youth Team off-duty chart, updated for absences and changes, with daily huddles confirming staffing and cover requirements.

Verbatim wording from the response

“2. Team off duty chart: this is a chart of all staff within the team, noting who is on and off duty, on leave (of any type, planned or unplanned) at any given time. It also records who is responsible for covering the duty role (availability for urgent calls and referrals) on each day, and who is covering for staff that are off. This chart is held in the Youth Team Microsoft Teams channel to enable all staff who are working on and off site to access it quickly. The chart is created 2 months ahead of time and updated by the team administrator whenever there are reported absences or changes.”

Source location

Response from Norfolk and Suffolk NHS Foundation Trust
Page 1 · response
Published 28 July 2026

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 the Trust-wide E-Roster to identify staffing gaps, manage absences, arrange temporary cover and monitor team capacity.

Verbatim wording from the response

“1. E-roster: this is an electronic platform which holds all shifts across the Trust so that it is easy to see who is working and who is not at any given time to enable planning. Oversight of the E-Roster is undertaken by the Operational Manager and Community Team Manager identify gaps, manage staff absence, book additional temporary staff and provide an overview of how many hours a day each team has to manage capacity.”

Source location

Response from Norfolk and Suffolk NHS Foundation Trust
Page 1 · response
Published 28 July 2026

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 monthly Early Warning Trigger Score audits to identify staffing-capacity risks and support escalation for additional staffing support.

Verbatim wording from the response

“4. Early Warning Trigger Score (EWTS) Audit: this is a monthly audit providing a structured approach to the early identification of quality risks within a clinical team. Upon completion of the audit, a Trigger Score is calculated. The Community Early Warning Trigger Tool has 25 indicators to categorise the team capacity including vacancies, sickness, complaints, leadership post filled, medic posts filled, and more. This supports managers to recognise the risk within their team and escalate as necessary for support with staffing. The EWTS is used in conjunction with Clinical Audit outcomes, financial oversight and key performance indicators, and is a tool used across the Trust.”

Source location

Response from Norfolk and Suffolk NHS Foundation Trust
Page 1 · response
Published 28 July 2026

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 a monthly Associate Director of Nursing Check and Challenge review of the E-Roster to identify factors affecting team capacity and support forward planning.

Verbatim wording from the response

“5. Check and Challenge for the staff roster: this includes monthly review by Associate Director of Nursing for community of the E-roster in relation to anything that may impact on team capacity (for example staff vacancies, sickness, planned leave). This regular review began in April 2026, to ensure we are looking ahead as well as at the current capacity to enable planning of team capacity.”

Source location

Response from Norfolk and Suffolk NHS Foundation Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 28 July 2026

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 and apply ratified guidance for managing planned prolonged Youth Team care-coordinator absence, including handover, patient review, reallocation decisions, notification and joint transition appointments.

Verbatim wording from the response

“As explained in the attached letter to you dated 13 May 2026 (enclosed), there are specific processes in place both for planned and unplanned leave. I note your concern set out in the prevention of future deaths report, specifically relates to the management of planned and prolonged absence of care-co-ordinators in the Youth Team however.”

Source location

Response from Norfolk and Suffolk NHS Foundation Trust (2)
Page 1 · response
Published 28 July 2026

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 rostering, absence-management and risk-monitoring systems are considered sufficient to address staffing vacancies and maintain continuity of care.

Verbatim wording from the response

“As indicated in the Trust's legal team letter on 6 May 2026, the Trust were not aware that you had an ongoing concern in relation to the management of key staff vacancies and absent staff in the Youth team. As such we would be grateful if you would consider the information below, as the Trust considers there is a system in place that addresses the ongoing concerns you have.”

Source location

Response from Norfolk and Suffolk NHS Foundation Trust
Page 1 · response
Published 28 July 2026

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 planned-absence processes and ratified guidance are considered sufficient to document and manage prolonged Youth Team care-coordinator leave.

Verbatim wording from the response

“As explained in the attached letter to you dated 13 May 2026 (enclosed), there are specific processes in place both for planned and unplanned leave. I note your concern set out in the prevention of future deaths report, specifically relates to the management of planned and prolonged absence of care-co-ordinators in the Youth Team however.”

Source location

Response from Norfolk and Suffolk NHS Foundation Trust (2)
Page 1 · response
Published 28 July 2026

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 positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when they do not describe a specific action.1

  1. 1

    The East Youth Team’s current EWTS score does not indicate a capacity concern requiring business continuity action.

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

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 East Youth Team’s current EWTS score does not indicate a capacity concern requiring business continuity action.

Verbatim wording from the response

“8. Staff shortages due to vacant posts are highlighted through the EWTS audit putting in context the impact of vacancies alongside staff sickness. If the EWTS demonstrates a high score, it can trigger consideration for Business continuity for the team, reviewing capacity and what activity can be undertaken within the resources available. This would also be recorded as a risk on the trust risk register to highlight the increased risk in the team. The East Youth Team EWTS is currently 5 which would not trigger concern for the teams capacity. When staff leave, their posts are reviewed to see if the role and grade of that post meets the needs of the service or requires amendment. Posts then go through an approval process within the Trust before being advertised on NHS Jobs website and recruited to.”

Source location

Response from Norfolk and Suffolk NHS Foundation Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 28 July 2026

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
2/1

Data last updated 7 September 2026