PFD report

Anne Wilson · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 21 Jul 2015•South 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
12

Raised in this report

Recipients
2

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 2 recipients

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 raised12

  1. Lack of checklist or question examples for eliciting sufficient welfare concern information
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable welfare-check request handling and follow-up
  2. Lack of guidance on updating involved parties about changes in MPS actions
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable welfare-check request handling and follow-up
  3. Failure to inform the GP when a welfare check request is downgraded
    Part of recurring concern: Failure of police operational communications to reliably share safety-critical informationPart of recurring concern: Failure to reliably notify primary care of changes affecting patient carePart of recurring concern: Unreliable welfare-check request handling and follow-up
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.4

  1. Action

    Review and clarify joint LAS/MPS meeting arrangements to strengthen governance and ensure appropriate LAS representation.

    Stated by London Ambulance Service NHS TrustStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 21 July 2015.
  2. Action

    Incorporate the March 2015 Metropolitan Police welfare-check policy into the LAS/MPS Joint Memorandum of Understanding through the annual review process.

    Stated by London Ambulance Service NHS TrustStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 21 July 2015.
  3. Action

    Provide the current Metropolitan Police welfare-check briefing note to address uncertainty about the policy version in force.

    Stated by London Ambulance Service NHS TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 21 July 2015.

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

  1. Position

    The March 2015 Metropolitan Police welfare-check briefing is understood to be the current version in force.

    Stated by London Ambulance Service 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

Lack of checklist or question examples for eliciting sufficient welfare concern information

Wider context from the report

“(2) MPS staff responsible for dealing with requests for welfare checks were not given training in the new policy and the power-point guidance circulated did not contain: (a) A checklist or examples of questions that should be asked to elicit sufficient information about the concern being raised (b) an example of how to manage a request for a welfare check concerning the mental health of an individual (c) how to manage additional information received once a welfare check request had been closed. (d) The importance of updating those involved in the change in actions being taken by the MPS ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable welfare-check request handling and follow-up.

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 guidance on updating involved parties about changes in MPS actions

Wider context from the report

“(2) MPS staff responsible for dealing with requests for welfare checks were not given training in the new policy and the power-point guidance circulated did not contain: (a) A checklist or examples of questions that should be asked to elicit sufficient information about the concern being raised (b) an example of how to manage a request for a welfare check concerning the mental health of an individual (c) how to manage additional information received once a welfare check request had been closed. (d) The importance of updating those involved in the change in actions being taken by the MPS ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable welfare-check request handling and follow-up.

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 inform the GP when a welfare check request is downgraded

Wider context from the report

“(4) The MPS call handler informed Miss Wilson’s G.P that the police would attend Miss Wilson’s flat within the hour however the request for a welfare check was downgraded without informing the G.P of the change in decision or to seek further clarification of his concerns. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure of police operational communications to reliably share safety-critical information; Failure to reliably notify primary care of changes affecting patient care; Unreliable welfare-check request handling and follow-up.

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 guidance on managing additional information received after welfare check closure

Wider context from the report

“(2) MPS staff responsible for dealing with requests for welfare checks were not given training in the new policy and the power-point guidance circulated did not contain: (a) A checklist or examples of questions that should be asked to elicit sufficient information about the concern being raised (b) an example of how to manage a request for a welfare check concerning the mental health of an individual (c) how to manage additional information received once a welfare check request had been closed. (d) The importance of updating those involved in the change in actions being taken by the MPS ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable welfare-check request handling and follow-up.

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 share the GP’s mobile telephone number with the London Ambulance Service

Wider context from the report

“(5) The MPS did not share the G.P’s mobile telephone number with the LAS causing delay making further contact with the G.P. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable inter-agency information sharing for coordinated care.

Open source report

Source evidence

How this individual concern was interpreted

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

PFD Monitor interpretation

Failure to share the final MPS Welfare Check policy with the London Ambulance Service

Wider context from the report

“(6) It is unclear what version of the MPS Welfare Check policy is currently in force and a final version has not yet been shared with the LAS despite requests to do so. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable police concern-for-welfare 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

Unclear version control for the MPS Welfare Check policy

Wider context from the report

“(6) It is unclear what version of the MPS Welfare Check policy is currently in force and a final version has not yet been shared with the LAS despite requests to do so. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable police concern-for-welfare procedures.

Open source report

Source evidence

How this individual concern was interpreted

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

PFD Monitor interpretation

Failure of the MPS and LAS to meet to discuss joint working under the welfare checks policy

Wider context from the report

“(7) The MPS and LAS have joint working arrangements but have yet to meet to discuss joint working arrangements under the MPS Welfare checks policy. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable police concern-for-welfare procedures.

Open source report

Source evidence

How this individual concern was interpreted

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

PFD Monitor interpretation

Failure to share welfare check policy changes with the London Ambulance Service

Wider context from the report

“(1) In 2014 the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) introduced a new policy for dealing with requests for and attending welfare checks. The precise date of the implementation of the new policy could not be established at inquest. The MPS and the London Ambulance Service (LAS) have joint working arrangements however the changes made concerning the future handling of welfare checks was not shared with the LAS at that time. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure of police operational communications to reliably share safety-critical information; Unreliable joint emergency-service attendance at risk-marked properties; Unreliable police concern-for-welfare procedures; Unreliable welfare-check request handling and follow-up.

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 training for staff handling welfare check requests in the new policy

Wider context from the report

“(2) MPS staff responsible for dealing with requests for welfare checks were not given training in the new policy and the power-point guidance circulated did not contain: (a) A checklist or examples of questions that should be asked to elicit sufficient information about the concern being raised (b) an example of how to manage a request for a welfare check concerning the mental health of an individual (c) how to manage additional information received once a welfare check request had been closed. (d) The importance of updating those involved in the change in actions being taken by the MPS ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable police concern-for-welfare procedures; Unsafe management of operational protocol changes.

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 seek further clarification of the GP’s concerns before downgrading a welfare check request

Wider context from the report

“(4) The MPS call handler informed Miss Wilson’s G.P that the police would attend Miss Wilson’s flat within the hour however the request for a welfare check was downgraded without informing the G.P of the change in decision or to seek further clarification of his concerns. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable welfare-check request handling and follow-up.

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 guidance on managing welfare checks concerning an individual’s mental health

Wider context from the report

“(2) MPS staff responsible for dealing with requests for welfare checks were not given training in the new policy and the power-point guidance circulated did not contain: (a) A checklist or examples of questions that should be asked to elicit sufficient information about the concern being raised (b) an example of how to manage a request for a welfare check concerning the mental health of an individual (c) how to manage additional information received once a welfare check request had been closed. (d) The importance of updating those involved in the change in actions being taken by the MPS ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable welfare-check processes for people whose health is of concern; Unreliable welfare-check request handling and follow-up.

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

Review and clarify joint LAS/MPS meeting arrangements to strengthen governance and ensure appropriate LAS representation.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Following this Regulation 28 Report, the Director of Operations, who is the Trust's strategic operational lead for joint LAS and MPS working and the Director of Nursing and Quality, who is responsible for strategic policy and liaison regarding mental health and safeguarding with the MPS, have asked for our joint meeting arrangements to be reviewed and clarified to ensure that the governance arrangements are robust and that the LAS is represented at an appropriate level in the future.”

Source location

2015-0293-Response-by-London-Ambulance-Service-NHS-Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 21 July 2015

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

Incorporate the March 2015 Metropolitan Police welfare-check policy into the LAS/MPS Joint Memorandum of Understanding through the annual review process.

Verbatim wording from the response

“A copy of the Metropolitan Police “External Briefing Note – welfare checks dated March 2014 – updated March 2015 V.1” has been provided following the inquest. No fundamental changes were identified with the previous version (March 2014 – updated December 2014 V.1). We understand the document updated in March 2015 to be the current version in force and is to be incorporated into the LAS/MPS Joint Memorandum of Understanding by end December 2015, in accordance with the annual review process. Nevertheless the Deputy Director of Operations, Control Services and Deputy Director of Nursing and Quality will discuss the policy and its impact for the LAS at the next quarterly meeting of the LAS / MPS Joint Working Group on 13 November 2015.”

Source location

2015-0293-Response-by-London-Ambulance-Service-NHS-Trust
Page 1 · response
Published 21 July 2015

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

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

PFD Monitor interpretation

Provide the current Metropolitan Police welfare-check briefing note to address uncertainty about the policy version in force.

Verbatim wording from the response

“A copy of the Metropolitan Police “External Briefing Note – welfare checks dated March 2014 – updated March 2015 V.1” has been provided following the inquest. No fundamental changes were identified with the previous version (March 2014 – updated December 2014 V.1). We understand the document updated in March 2015 to be the current version in force and is to be incorporated into the LAS/MPS Joint Memorandum of Understanding by end December 2015, in accordance with the annual review process. Nevertheless the Deputy Director of Operations, Control Services and Deputy Director of Nursing and Quality will discuss the policy and its impact for the LAS at the next quarterly meeting of the LAS / MPS Joint Working Group on 13 November 2015.”

Source location

2015-0293-Response-by-London-Ambulance-Service-NHS-Trust
Page 1 · response
Published 21 July 2015

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

Discuss the welfare-check policy and its impact for ambulance services at the next LAS/MPS Joint Working Group meeting.

Verbatim wording from the response

“A copy of the Metropolitan Police “External Briefing Note – welfare checks dated March 2014 – updated March 2015 V.1” has been provided following the inquest. No fundamental changes were identified with the previous version (March 2014 – updated December 2014 V.1). We understand the document updated in March 2015 to be the current version in force and is to be incorporated into the LAS/MPS Joint Memorandum of Understanding by end December 2015, in accordance with the annual review process. Nevertheless the Deputy Director of Operations, Control Services and Deputy Director of Nursing and Quality will discuss the policy and its impact for the LAS at the next quarterly meeting of the LAS / MPS Joint Working Group on 13 November 2015.”

Source location

2015-0293-Response-by-London-Ambulance-Service-NHS-Trust
Page 1 · response
Published 21 July 2015

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 March 2015 Metropolitan Police welfare-check briefing is understood to be the current version in force.

Verbatim wording from the response

“A copy of the Metropolitan Police “External Briefing Note – welfare checks dated March 2014 – updated March 2015 V.1” has been provided following the inquest. No fundamental changes were identified with the previous version (March 2014 – updated December 2014 V.1). We understand the document updated in March 2015 to be the current version in force and is to be incorporated into the LAS/MPS Joint Memorandum of Understanding by end December 2015, in accordance with the annual review process. Nevertheless the Deputy Director of Operations, Control Services and Deputy Director of Nursing and Quality will discuss the policy and its impact for the LAS at the next quarterly meeting of the LAS / MPS Joint Working Group on 13 November 2015.”

Source location

2015-0293-Response-by-London-Ambulance-Service-NHS-Trust
Page 1 · response
Published 21 July 2015

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.1

  1. 1

    Issue a Control Services Bulletin on the Metropolitan Police welfare-check policy to prevent vulnerable-patient calls closing before clinical assessment.

    Stated by London Ambulance Service NHS TrustStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 21 July 2015.

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

Issue a Control Services Bulletin on the Metropolitan Police welfare-check policy to prevent vulnerable-patient calls closing before clinical assessment.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The METDG Standard Operating Procedure “Procedure for the Assessment of Ambulance Requests Received from the Metropolitan Police Service via CAD Link” v.5.0, issued on 18th February 2015, was provided as an attachment to the Serious Incident Investigation Report STEIS 2015 – 5617 of 2 June 2015 which included guidance on the management of police calls to high risk patient groups and no reply on ring back (paragraphs 6.1 and 6.2). The guidance did not include the MPS welfare checks policy, and so as an interim measure and prior to the meeting on 13 November 2015, a Control Services Bulletin will be issued at the”

Source location

2015-0293-Response-by-London-Ambulance-Service-NHS-Trust
Page 1 · response
Published 21 July 2015

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
1/2

Data last updated 7 September 2026