PFD report

Daniel John O’Sullivan · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 21 Oct 2022•Inner 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
7

Raised in this report

Recipients
3

Named on the report

Responses found
2

Of 3 recipients

Stated actions
19

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. Delays in alerting police when psychiatric patients fail to return from leave
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to take timely escalation action when safety thresholds are breachedPart of recurring concern: Unsafe management of inpatient leave and absence
  2. Poor contemporaneous documentation of unescorted leave
    Part of recurring concern: Unsafe management of inpatient leave and absence
  3. Failure of Serious Incident Investigations to investigate missing records and interview relevant witnesses
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate safety incident investigationsPart of recurring concern: Unreliable formal safety-incident management processesPart of recurring concern: Unreliable gathering of witness evidence for formal investigations
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.15

  1. Action

    Develop Quick Reference Guides supporting staff use of the electronic clinical record system and care-planning templates.

    Stated by Central and North West London NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 25 October 2022.
  2. Action

    Establish hourly ward accounting of patients during each shift, with responsibility allocated to the nurse in charge.

    Stated by Central and North West London NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 25 October 2022.
  3. Action

    Introduce Advanced Clinical Practitioners to support care planning, risk management and identification of Care and Treatment Plan deficiencies.

    Stated by Central and North West London NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 25 October 2022.

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

  1. Position

    Police reporting after voluntary-leave failures need not be immediate or automatic; individualized risk assessment and ward-team discussion determine the response.

    Stated by Central and North West London NHS Foundation 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

Delays in alerting police when psychiatric patients fail to return from leave

Wider context from the report

“2) My second concern is the poor contemporaneous documentation of the grant of unescorted leave from the hospital and the time taken to alert the police when Daniel failed to return on 26/3/19 by 21:00 pm. A ward nurse eventually contacted the police after midnight. i) I am concerned that an earlier call to the police may have prevented the death, because Daniel was recorded on General Security Zone (GSZ) cameras at 22:21 leaving Vauxhall bridge, and returning, on foot at 23:48. An earlier call might have enabled police to intervene before he was able to commence the actions which ended his life. ii) The ward manager claimed in evidence that he had instructed others to call the police when Daniel failed to return at 21:00. However, this was not documented anywhere in the medical records and a leave book with handwritten entries went missing after the death. The missing leave book was not investigated by the SII. iii) A nurse who called the police, sometime before 00:30 according to the medical records, at 01:10 according to police records, was not interviewed by the SII. I found these investigative deficits troubling because the learning of lessons in patient care depends, in part, on an early SII by the hospital concerned so that risks to patient safety can be identified to enable recommendations and improvements long before an inquest conclusion. The delay in reporting the failure to return to the Ward was a factor that contributed to the dangerous situation already created by rescinding s.2. I am nonetheless concerned that, in general, psychiatric patients being tested on voluntary leave are a vulnerable group and as such failures to return should be reported with expedition not only because they may be a danger to themselves, but also due to a risk of being preyed upon by others. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to take timely escalation action when safety thresholds are breached; Unsafe management of inpatient leave and absence.

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

Poor contemporaneous documentation of unescorted leave

Wider context from the report

“2) My second concern is the poor contemporaneous documentation of the grant of unescorted leave from the hospital and the time taken to alert the police when Daniel failed to return on 26/3/19 by 21:00 pm. A ward nurse eventually contacted the police after midnight. i) I am concerned that an earlier call to the police may have prevented the death, because Daniel was recorded on General Security Zone (GSZ) cameras at 22:21 leaving Vauxhall bridge, and returning, on foot at 23:48. An earlier call might have enabled police to intervene before he was able to commence the actions which ended his life. ii) The ward manager claimed in evidence that he had instructed others to call the police when Daniel failed to return at 21:00. However, this was not documented anywhere in the medical records and a leave book with handwritten entries went missing after the death. The missing leave book was not investigated by the SII. iii) A nurse who called the police, sometime before 00:30 according to the medical records, at 01:10 according to police records, was not interviewed by the SII. I found these investigative deficits troubling because the learning of lessons in patient care depends, in part, on an early SII by the hospital concerned so that risks to patient safety can be identified to enable recommendations and improvements long before an inquest conclusion. The delay in reporting the failure to return to the Ward was a factor that contributed to the dangerous situation already created by rescinding s.2. I am nonetheless concerned that, in general, psychiatric patients being tested on voluntary leave are a vulnerable group and as such failures to return should be reported with expedition not only because they may be a danger to themselves, but also due to a risk of being preyed upon by others. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unsafe management of inpatient leave and absence.

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 Serious Incident Investigations to investigate missing records and interview relevant witnesses

Wider context from the report

“2) My second concern is the poor contemporaneous documentation of the grant of unescorted leave from the hospital and the time taken to alert the police when Daniel failed to return on 26/3/19 by 21:00 pm. A ward nurse eventually contacted the police after midnight. i) I am concerned that an earlier call to the police may have prevented the death, because Daniel was recorded on General Security Zone (GSZ) cameras at 22:21 leaving Vauxhall bridge, and returning, on foot at 23:48. An earlier call might have enabled police to intervene before he was able to commence the actions which ended his life. ii) The ward manager claimed in evidence that he had instructed others to call the police when Daniel failed to return at 21:00. However, this was not documented anywhere in the medical records and a leave book with handwritten entries went missing after the death. The missing leave book was not investigated by the SII. iii) A nurse who called the police, sometime before 00:30 according to the medical records, at 01:10 according to police records, was not interviewed by the SII. I found these investigative deficits troubling because the learning of lessons in patient care depends, in part, on an early SII by the hospital concerned so that risks to patient safety can be identified to enable recommendations and improvements long before an inquest conclusion. The delay in reporting the failure to return to the Ward was a factor that contributed to the dangerous situation already created by rescinding s.2. I am nonetheless concerned that, in general, psychiatric patients being tested on voluntary leave are a vulnerable group and as such failures to return should be reported with expedition not only because they may be a danger to themselves, but also due to a risk of being preyed upon by others. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate safety incident investigations; Unreliable formal safety-incident management processes; Unreliable gathering of witness evidence for formal investigations.

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 formulate Care and Treatment plans identifying core treatment needs

Wider context from the report

“1) On completion of the inquest, I found the decision to rescind detention under s.2 on 25/3/19 was undermined in two essential respects: a) A failure to update a suicide self-harm risk assessment. b) A failure to formulate a Care and Treatment plan identifying core treatment needs. A Serious Incident Investigation (SII), commissioned by CNWL, completed on 9/9/2019, investigated the Risk Assessment and made recommendations which I heard from a CNWL witness had subsequently been implemented and I am satisfied that his risk to life has been satisfactorily reduced. However, I remain concerned that the Care and Treatment plan aspect was not identified by the SII and as such no recommendations were identified and followed up. The psychiatrist who rescinded s.2, on 25/3/2019, was unable to participate in the inquest through illness. As a result, I instructed an independent expert psychiatrist who gave evidence that there had been no treatment plan addressing Daniel’s core treatment needs. The core treatment needs were that Daniel required antipsychotic medication to control his delusional beliefs and psychological intervention to address his substance misuse which exacerbated his delusional beliefs. The expert also identified from statements and medical records that Daniel lacked insight into his mental health conditions and thereby lacked capacity. The treatment Daniel required was twofold. Assertive treatment of the delusional disorder with antipsychotics, whilst detained under s.2, to achieve stability, coupled with psychological therapy to address the illicit drug use. I heard evidence that antipsychotics could not commence until the results of liver function tests were available, but this did not persuade the expert, that recession of s.2 was correct. The psychiatrist who rescinded s.2 on 25/3/19 was interviewed by the SII but the care and treatment plan aspect was not explored by that investigation. My concern is that failures in the formulation of a Care and Treatment Plan made a significant contribution to the death and this failing was not exposed until the inquest when it could have been identified much earlier by the SII in September 2019. The fact that a Care and Treatment plan was not formulated gives me concern that the mistake could be repeated in future and my concern is compounded by the SII failing to investigate and make recommendations arising from this issue. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable care-planning 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 update suicide self-harm risk assessments

Wider context from the report

“1) On completion of the inquest, I found the decision to rescind detention under s.2 on 25/3/19 was undermined in two essential respects: a) A failure to update a suicide self-harm risk assessment. b) A failure to formulate a Care and Treatment plan identifying core treatment needs. A Serious Incident Investigation (SII), commissioned by CNWL, completed on 9/9/2019, investigated the Risk Assessment and made recommendations which I heard from a CNWL witness had subsequently been implemented and I am satisfied that his risk to life has been satisfactorily reduced. However, I remain concerned that the Care and Treatment plan aspect was not identified by the SII and as such no recommendations were identified and followed up. The psychiatrist who rescinded s.2, on 25/3/2019, was unable to participate in the inquest through illness. As a result, I instructed an independent expert psychiatrist who gave evidence that there had been no treatment plan addressing Daniel’s core treatment needs. The core treatment needs were that Daniel required antipsychotic medication to control his delusional beliefs and psychological intervention to address his substance misuse which exacerbated his delusional beliefs. The expert also identified from statements and medical records that Daniel lacked insight into his mental health conditions and thereby lacked capacity. The treatment Daniel required was twofold. Assertive treatment of the delusional disorder with antipsychotics, whilst detained under s.2, to achieve stability, coupled with psychological therapy to address the illicit drug use. I heard evidence that antipsychotics could not commence until the results of liver function tests were available, but this did not persuade the expert, that recession of s.2 was correct. The psychiatrist who rescinded s.2 on 25/3/19 was interviewed by the SII but the care and treatment plan aspect was not explored by that investigation. My concern is that failures in the formulation of a Care and Treatment Plan made a significant contribution to the death and this failing was not exposed until the inquest when it could have been identified much earlier by the SII in September 2019. The fact that a Care and Treatment plan was not formulated gives me concern that the mistake could be repeated in future and my concern is compounded by the SII failing to investigate and make recommendations arising from this issue. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable assessment of suicide and self-harm risk.

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

Vulnerability of psychiatric patients on voluntary leave to self-harm and predation

Wider context from the report

“2) My second concern is the poor contemporaneous documentation of the grant of unescorted leave from the hospital and the time taken to alert the police when Daniel failed to return on 26/3/19 by 21:00 pm. A ward nurse eventually contacted the police after midnight. i) I am concerned that an earlier call to the police may have prevented the death, because Daniel was recorded on General Security Zone (GSZ) cameras at 22:21 leaving Vauxhall bridge, and returning, on foot at 23:48. An earlier call might have enabled police to intervene before he was able to commence the actions which ended his life. ii) The ward manager claimed in evidence that he had instructed others to call the police when Daniel failed to return at 21:00. However, this was not documented anywhere in the medical records and a leave book with handwritten entries went missing after the death. The missing leave book was not investigated by the SII. iii) A nurse who called the police, sometime before 00:30 according to the medical records, at 01:10 according to police records, was not interviewed by the SII. I found these investigative deficits troubling because the learning of lessons in patient care depends, in part, on an early SII by the hospital concerned so that risks to patient safety can be identified to enable recommendations and improvements long before an inquest conclusion. The delay in reporting the failure to return to the Ward was a factor that contributed to the dangerous situation already created by rescinding s.2. I am nonetheless concerned that, in general, psychiatric patients being tested on voluntary leave are a vulnerable group and as such failures to return should be reported with expedition not only because they may be a danger to themselves, but also due to a risk of being preyed upon by others. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

No recurring-concern membership is currently published.

Open source report

Source evidence

How this individual concern was interpreted

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

PFD Monitor interpretation

Failure of Serious Incident Investigations to investigate care and treatment plan deficiencies and make recommendations

Wider context from the report

“1) On completion of the inquest, I found the decision to rescind detention under s.2 on 25/3/19 was undermined in two essential respects: a) A failure to update a suicide self-harm risk assessment. b) A failure to formulate a Care and Treatment plan identifying core treatment needs. A Serious Incident Investigation (SII), commissioned by CNWL, completed on 9/9/2019, investigated the Risk Assessment and made recommendations which I heard from a CNWL witness had subsequently been implemented and I am satisfied that his risk to life has been satisfactorily reduced. However, I remain concerned that the Care and Treatment plan aspect was not identified by the SII and as such no recommendations were identified and followed up. The psychiatrist who rescinded s.2, on 25/3/2019, was unable to participate in the inquest through illness. As a result, I instructed an independent expert psychiatrist who gave evidence that there had been no treatment plan addressing Daniel’s core treatment needs. The core treatment needs were that Daniel required antipsychotic medication to control his delusional beliefs and psychological intervention to address his substance misuse which exacerbated his delusional beliefs. The expert also identified from statements and medical records that Daniel lacked insight into his mental health conditions and thereby lacked capacity. The treatment Daniel required was twofold. Assertive treatment of the delusional disorder with antipsychotics, whilst detained under s.2, to achieve stability, coupled with psychological therapy to address the illicit drug use. I heard evidence that antipsychotics could not commence until the results of liver function tests were available, but this did not persuade the expert, that recession of s.2 was correct. The psychiatrist who rescinded s.2 on 25/3/19 was interviewed by the SII but the care and treatment plan aspect was not explored by that investigation. My concern is that failures in the formulation of a Care and Treatment Plan made a significant contribution to the death and this failing was not exposed until the inquest when it could have been identified much earlier by the SII in September 2019. The fact that a Care and Treatment plan was not formulated gives me concern that the mistake could be repeated in future and my concern is compounded by the SII failing to investigate and make recommendations arising from this issue. ”

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 respondent action was interpreted

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

PFD Monitor interpretation

Develop Quick Reference Guides supporting staff use of the electronic clinical record system and care-planning templates.

Verbatim wording from the response

“A number of changes have occurred within the Trust and more locally at St Charles Mental Health Unit since the incident in March 2019. The Trust began using SystmOne as its electronic clinical system in February 2019. As staff transitioned to the new electronic clinical record system they were learning about the operation and functionality of the system, and this also involved use of templates within the system and recording of information. It is fair to say that in March 2019 St Charles Mental Health Unit was at the start of the process of using SystmOne. Three and a half years later staff are now proficient in its use. This has been assisted by the use of Quick Reference Guides (QRG) developed to support staff.”

Source location

Response from Central and North West London NHS Foundation Trust
Page 3 · response
Published 25 October 2022

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 hourly ward accounting of patients during each shift, with responsibility allocated to the nurse in charge.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Each patient is allocated a nurse for each shift. The nurse is responsible for completing the leave form for their identified patients and these forms are then uploaded by administration staff to the patient clinical record. The Nurse in Charge of each shift has the responsibility of ensuring that every patient is accounted for hourly. This task is allocated at the beginning of each shift and is recorded hourly, on a separate reporting sheet for every 24-hour period.”

Source location

Response from Central and North West London NHS Foundation Trust
Page 4 · response
Published 25 October 2022

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

Introduce Advanced Clinical Practitioners to support care planning, risk management and identification of Care and Treatment Plan deficiencies.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In addition, St Charles Mental Health Unit has recruited and trained Advanced Clinical Practitioners (ACPs). One of the roles of the ACP is to support the MDT and in particular the nursing team with specific interventions, care planning and risk management. This includes reviewing the Care and Treatment Plan and highlighting any deficiencies.”

Source location

Response from Central and North West London NHS Foundation Trust
Page 3 · response
Published 25 October 2022

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 Missing Informal Patient Policy to specify police-contact information required in SystmOne and Datix records.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In response to the audit the following further actions were agreed:”

Source location

Response from Central and North West London NHS Foundation Trust
Page 5 · response
Published 25 October 2022

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 Datix recording of police contact during AWOL incidents to monitor reporting timeliness and escalate unnecessary delays.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In response to the audit the following further actions were agreed:”

Source location

Response from Central and North West London NHS Foundation Trust
Page 5 · response
Published 25 October 2022

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 Clinical Risk Assessment and Safety Policy and mandate its associated e-learning for staff.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The Clinical Risk Assessment and Safety Policy was reviewed in April 2021 which includes an e-learning package introduced in October 2020 which is now a mandatory requirement for staff to complete.”

Source location

Response from Central and North West London NHS Foundation Trust
Page 4 · response
Published 25 October 2022

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

Record each informal-leave episode on a paper form and upload it to the clinical record.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Each episode of leave is also now recorded on a paper document which is then scanned and uploaded onto the clinical record system each week.”

Source location

Response from Central and North West London NHS Foundation Trust
Page 4 · response
Published 25 October 2022

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

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

PFD Monitor interpretation

Increase qualified ward staffing to support formulation and negotiation of Care and Treatment Plans.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Approximately 18 months ago St Charles Mental Health Unit saw an increase in qualified staff for each ward at the Unit. This has provided additional opportunity for staff to spend one to one time formulating and negotiating Care and Treatment plans, aimed at reducing any identified risks and promoting patient recovery.”

Source location

Response from Central and North West London NHS Foundation Trust
Page 3 · response
Published 25 October 2022

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 Missing Informal Patient Policy with a risk-assessment checklist and flow chart for managing patients who fail to return from leave.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The Missing Informal Patient Policy was updated in March 2020. It now requires a checklist to be completed which was not in the previous version. This is a risk assessment checklist that is now used by staff for managing informal leave from the wards. The checklist records the time that the patient leaves the ward and expected time of return (which is agreed in advance with the patient). There is also a risk assessment and an action plan for completion to mitigate against any risk identified. The Missing Informal Patient Policy also now provides a useful flow chart with the steps that are required to be taken in the event of someone not returning at the agreed time. The approach is balanced by the perceived risk.”

Source location

Response from Central and North West London NHS Foundation Trust
Page 4 · response
Published 25 October 2022

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

Accredit the serious incident review process through SIRAN, revising policies, templates and review arrangements to meet best practice.

Verbatim wording from the response

“At the beginning of 2020, the Trust sought to incorporate best practice in its management of serious incidents, which would result in improvement and effectiveness of the process and evidenced through Accreditation. Following several months of readiness activity including auditing and self-evaluation, workshops with Divisional representatives, implementation of agreed actions, revision of templates and redrafting of our policy, we succeeded through SIRAN. At the time of the changes, the Trust also introduced a forum to support reviewers/investigators of serious incidents to enhance understanding of the Root Cause Analysis (RCA) process.”

Source location

Response from Central and North West London NHS Foundation Trust
Page 6 · response
Published 25 October 2022

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 Patient Safety Incident Response Framework through a fortnightly working group and human-factors education incorporating learning from this case.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In August 2022, NHS England launched the Patient Safety Incident Response Framework (PSIRF), which NHS organisations are expected to implement over the next year. This new framework phases out the RCA methodology, introducing human factors and system-based approaches instead. As rolling out of human factors training had already commenced in the Trust prior to publication of the new framework, the Trust is ahead in its preparations in this regard. A working group is in place and meeting fortnightly to drive implementation of the new process. Education is a significant part of this work and training procured will take learning from this case into account.”

Source location

Response from Central and North West London NHS Foundation Trust
Page 7 · response
Published 25 October 2022

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 RCA methodology training to staff and establish a forum supporting serious-incident reviewers and investigators.

Verbatim wording from the response

“At the beginning of 2020, the Trust sought to incorporate best practice in its management of serious incidents, which would result in improvement and effectiveness of the process and evidenced through Accreditation. Following several months of readiness activity including auditing and self-evaluation, workshops with Divisional representatives, implementation of agreed actions, revision of templates and redrafting of our policy, we succeeded through SIRAN. At the time of the changes, the Trust also introduced a forum to support reviewers/investigators of serious incidents to enhance understanding of the Root Cause Analysis (RCA) process.”

Source location

Response from Central and North West London NHS Foundation Trust
Page 6 · response
Published 25 October 2022

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 a dedicated Safeguarding Adult and Mental Capacity Lead Practitioner to support capacity-assessment training and Care and Treatment Plan completion.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The St Charles Mental Health Unit site also has a Safeguarding Adult & Mental Capacity Lead Practitioner who provides dedicated support to the unit with training for the assessment of capacity which informs care plans and a part of training will remind staff how this should feed into the Care and Treatment Plan and dynamic plans.”

Source location

Response from Central and North West London NHS Foundation Trust
Page 3 · response
Published 25 October 2022

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

Create a dedicated serious incident review post in the incident division.

Verbatim wording from the response

“On the specific issue of skills and competency to undertake reviews/investigations, 88 members of staff have been trained in RCA methodology in the last 2 years (since 2020). This methodology equips reviewers with the skill to probe and draw out care and service delivery problems and guides them to elicit lessons. In addition, the Division in which the incident occurred now has a dedicated serious incident review post, offering additional skills and support in this process.”

Source location

Response from Central and North West London NHS Foundation Trust
Page 6 · response
Published 25 October 2022

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

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

PFD Monitor interpretation

Establish a statutory duty for clinicians to create care and treatment plans for patients detained under the Mental Health Act.

Verbatim wording from the response

“We are aware through the independent review of the Mental Health Act and subsequent White Paper consultation, and according to the Care Quality Commission, that care planning is sometimes not to the high standards required by the Code of Practice. This is why the draft Mental Health Bill, which was published on 27 June 2022, proposes a statutory duty on clinicians to create a care and treatment plan for all relevant patients detained under the Mental Health Act (including, but not limited to, section 2 and section 3 patients), to help ensure that greater respect and attention is given to care and treatment planning.”

Source location

Response from Department of Health and Social Care
Page 2 · response
Published 25 October 2022

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

Police reporting after voluntary-leave failures need not be immediate or automatic; individualized risk assessment and ward-team discussion determine the response.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The timing of contact with the police if a patient fails to return is not standardised or mandated within the Missing Informal Patient Policy. This should be reviewed as part of planning for leave and incorporated into the plan for leave as agreed with the patient. Assessment of capacity and assessment of risk form part of the overall decision making and will be informed by the views of the multidisciplinary team and the aims and intended outcomes as provided for in the care plan. Although police involvement is sometimes necessary it is not always the default position when a patient fails to return the ward. Failure to return should prompt a discussion between the members of the ward team, involving the RC as necessary.”

Source location

Response from Central and North West London NHS Foundation Trust
Page 5 · response
Published 25 October 2022

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 care-plan formulation, monitoring and review processes, including multiple checks and balances, are considered robust and sufficient.

Verbatim wording from the response

“We are satisfied that the process now regarding formulation, monitoring and review of the Care and Treatment Plan is a robust one with appropriate checks and balances to promote the support and interventions our vulnerable patients require. As with all aspects of care and treatment of our patients, our processes are constantly under review, and we will continue to drive towards excellence and to achieve the best possible outcomes for our patients.”

Source location

Response from Central and North West London NHS Foundation Trust
Page 3 · response
Published 25 October 2022

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.4

  1. 1

    Apply quality-assurance scrutiny to serious incident reports at borough, divisional, executive and commissioner levels.

    Stated by Central and North West London NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 25 October 2022.
  2. 2

    Complete the third serious-incident quality-improvement project.

    Stated by Central and North West London NHS Foundation TrustStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 25 October 2022.
  3. 3

    Establish a weekly dedicated Metropolitan Police officer partnership with hospital managers to address emerging mental-health service themes.

    Stated by Central and North West London NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 25 October 2022.
  4. 4

    Operate a Trust-wide Learning from Serious Incidents Framework with learning events, workshops, bulletins and newsletters.

    Stated by Central and North West London NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 25 October 2022.

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

Apply quality-assurance scrutiny to serious incident reports at borough, divisional, executive and commissioner levels.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The Trust process for managing serious incidents has strengthened scrutiny of our reports, with quality assurance checks at Borough, Divisional and Executive level. An additional layer of scrutiny is through Commissioners, who review all serious incident reports before final sign off.”

Source location

Response from Central and North West London NHS Foundation Trust
Page 7 · response
Published 25 October 2022

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

Complete the third serious-incident quality-improvement project.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Quality Improvement”

Source location

Response from Central and North West London NHS Foundation Trust
Page 6 · response
Published 25 October 2022

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

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

PFD Monitor interpretation

Establish a weekly dedicated Metropolitan Police officer partnership with hospital managers to address emerging mental-health service themes.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Since March 2019 St Charles Mental Health Unit has forged a greater working partnership with the Metropolitan Police and we now have a dedicated police officer who is on site weekly and works closely with the hospital managers around emerging themes and interface with the police. This provides opportunity for the Metropolitan Police and CNWL to share local and London wide initiatives on interventions for people experiencing mental health difficulties.”

Source location

Response from Central and North West London NHS Foundation Trust
Page 5 · response
Published 25 October 2022

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 a Trust-wide Learning from Serious Incidents Framework with learning events, workshops, bulletins and newsletters.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In the last 18 months, the Trust has completed 2 Quality Improvement (QI) projects relating to serious incidents. A third is in progress. As a result, a standard process has been agreed across all areas of the Trust. There is a new Trust wide ‘Learning from Serious incidents Framework’ which has seen the introduction of learning”

Source location

Response from Central and North West London NHS Foundation Trust
Page 6 · response
Published 25 October 2022

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
2/3

Data last updated 7 September 2026