PFD report

Mohammed Ashraful Islam CHOUDHURY · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 6 Jan 2026•Bedfordshire and Luton

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
4

Raised in this report

Recipients
1

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 1 recipient

Stated actions
6

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 raised4

  1. Failure to check with the GP whether medication compliance was being maintained
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to provide timely clinical follow-up after medication prescribing
  2. Withdrawal of medication administration support despite known lack of insight and need for medication compliance
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable support for patients taking prescribed medicationPart of recurring concern: Unsafe medication administration
  3. Absence of an MDT plan to address anti-psychotic depot medication non-concordance
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to convene coordinated professional case-planning discussions for safety concernsPart of recurring concern: Failure to establish effective plans to address identified safety concernsPart of recurring concern: Failure to reliably develop and review risk-reduction plans
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.6

  1. Action

    Embed depot-medication compliance auditing and weekly monitoring, with findings reported through local and Directorate governance and escalated where required.

    Stated by East London NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 8 January 2026.
  2. Action

    Reinforce medication non-concordance policies and procedures requiring weekly MDT discussion and comprehensive electronic-record documentation of missed depot injections or adherence concerns.

    Stated by East London NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 8 January 2026.
  3. Action

    Train relevant clinical staff to use the NHS Summary Care Record and routinely verify prescription issues and collection when adherence is significant to risk management.

    Stated by East London NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 8 January 2026.

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.3

  1. Position

    Routine Summary Care Record checks, enhanced monitoring and escalation processes are considered sufficient; no further action is required.

    Stated by East London NHS Foundation 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 check with the GP whether medication compliance was being maintained

Wider context from the report

“(i) The risks identified in respect of ████████ on his discharge from his second hospital admission in August 2020, which included the fact that his paranoid schizophrenia (unusually) was associated with violent behaviour and that he lacked insight into his mental illness, were not adequately addressed by his mental health provider. This was of particular concern when he became non-concordant with his anti-psychotic depot medication from mid-September 2022. (ii) There was no MDT plan to address the significant development of ████████ non-concordance with his anti-psychotic depot medication from mid-September 2022. (iii) Despite knowing that ████████ lacked insight into his mental illness and of the need to ensure that he remained compliant with all medication, the support provided to him with medication administration, in addition to his depot, was withdrawn without there being any checks made with his GP as to whether he was remaining complaint with this medication (which he was not). ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to provide timely clinical follow-up after medication prescribing.

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

Withdrawal of medication administration support despite known lack of insight and need for medication compliance

Wider context from the report

“(i) The risks identified in respect of ████████ on his discharge from his second hospital admission in August 2020, which included the fact that his paranoid schizophrenia (unusually) was associated with violent behaviour and that he lacked insight into his mental illness, were not adequately addressed by his mental health provider. This was of particular concern when he became non-concordant with his anti-psychotic depot medication from mid-September 2022. (ii) There was no MDT plan to address the significant development of ████████ non-concordance with his anti-psychotic depot medication from mid-September 2022. (iii) Despite knowing that ████████ lacked insight into his mental illness and of the need to ensure that he remained compliant with all medication, the support provided to him with medication administration, in addition to his depot, was withdrawn without there being any checks made with his GP as to whether he was remaining complaint with this medication (which he was not). ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable support for patients taking prescribed medication; Unsafe medication administration.

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

Absence of an MDT plan to address anti-psychotic depot medication non-concordance

Wider context from the report

“(i) The risks identified in respect of ████████ on his discharge from his second hospital admission in August 2020, which included the fact that his paranoid schizophrenia (unusually) was associated with violent behaviour and that he lacked insight into his mental illness, were not adequately addressed by his mental health provider. This was of particular concern when he became non-concordant with his anti-psychotic depot medication from mid-September 2022. (ii) There was no MDT plan to address the significant development of ████████ non-concordance with his anti-psychotic depot medication from mid-September 2022. (iii) Despite knowing that ████████ lacked insight into his mental illness and of the need to ensure that he remained compliant with all medication, the support provided to him with medication administration, in addition to his depot, was withdrawn without there being any checks made with his GP as to whether he was remaining complaint with this medication (which he was not). ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to convene coordinated professional case-planning discussions for safety concerns; Failure to establish effective plans to address identified safety concerns; Failure to reliably develop and review risk-reduction plans.

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 adequately address identified risks associated with violent behaviour, lack of insight and medication non-concordance

Wider context from the report

“(i) The risks identified in respect of ████████ on his discharge from his second hospital admission in August 2020, which included the fact that his paranoid schizophrenia (unusually) was associated with violent behaviour and that he lacked insight into his mental illness, were not adequately addressed by his mental health provider. This was of particular concern when he became non-concordant with his anti-psychotic depot medication from mid-September 2022. (ii) There was no MDT plan to address the significant development of ████████ non-concordance with his anti-psychotic depot medication from mid-September 2022. (iii) Despite knowing that ████████ lacked insight into his mental illness and of the need to ensure that he remained compliant with all medication, the support provided to him with medication administration, in addition to his depot, was withdrawn without there being any checks made with his GP as to whether he was remaining complaint with this medication (which he was not). ”

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 depot-medication compliance auditing and weekly monitoring, with findings reported through local and Directorate governance and escalated where required.

Verbatim wording from the response

“An audit cycle has been embedded into routine practice to ensure compliance with these standards. A retrospective review conducted during 2024-2025 examined 275 service users on depot within Luton”

Source location

Response from East London Foundation Trust
Page 1 · response
Published 8 January 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

Reinforce medication non-concordance policies and procedures requiring weekly MDT discussion and comprehensive electronic-record documentation of missed depot injections or adherence concerns.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Response: The Trust has reviewed and reinforced its operational policy and standard operating procedures regarding medication non-concordance. These now require that missed depot injections or concerns about adherence be formally discussed in the weekly multidisciplinary team (MDT) meeting and documented comprehensively in the electronic patient record.”

Source location

Response from East London Foundation Trust
Page 1 · response
Published 8 January 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

Train relevant clinical staff to use the NHS Summary Care Record and routinely verify prescription issues and collection when adherence is significant to risk management.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Response: To address this gap, all relevant clinical staff have now been trained to access and use the NHS Summary Care Record (SCR). This enables clinicians to verify prescription issues and collection, thereby reducing reliance solely on self-report. The SCR is now routinely checked, where medication adherence forms a significant component of risk management.”

Source location

Response from East London Foundation Trust
Page 3 · response
Published 8 January 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

Formalise MDT risk oversight for medication non-adherence through risk-register inclusion, weekly RAG review, senior multidisciplinary attendance and recording of decisions and responsible clinicians.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Response: The MDT has reflected on this learning and strengthened processes accordingly. Where a service user misses a depot injection or demonstrates medication non-adherence, the matter is now formally raised within the weekly MDT and added to the MDT risk register where appropriate. All MDT meetings are attended by the team Consultant, Operational Lead, Depot Clinic Lead, Care Coordinator, Psychologist, Occupational Therapist and wider MDT members. Risk is reviewed, RAG rated, and monitored weekly until resolved or stabilised. Managers and senior clinicians have reiterated the requirement that all discussions, decisions and responsibilities are clearly recorded in the electronic clinical system, including the named clinician responsible for agreed actions.”

Source location

Response from East London Foundation Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 8 January 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

Deliver mandatory risk-assessment and safety-planning training across Community Mental Health Teams, covering disengagement, relapse prevention, escalation, legal frameworks and multi-agency working.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In parallel, risk assessment and safety planning training are being delivered across Community Mental Health Teams. This training strengthens staff skills in formulation-based risk assessment, relapse prevention, recognition of disengagement, and appropriate use of escalation processes, including legal frameworks and multi-agency working. Attendance is mandatory for all CMHT clinical staff.”

Source location

Response from East London Foundation Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 8 January 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 enhanced monitoring and documented risk-management plans when service users with capacity decline medication, including documented consideration of family involvement.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Where a service user with capacity declines medication, enhanced monitoring and documented risk management plans are implemented. If non-compliance persists and risk increases, the case is reviewed to consider the need for a formal Mental Capacity Assessment, involvement of crisis services, or application of Mental Health Act powers where clinically appropriate. Clinicians are also required to have documented discussions regarding family involvement, recognising the important role carers may play in identifying early signs of relapse.”

Source location

Response from East London Foundation Trust
Page 3 · response
Published 8 January 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

Routine Summary Care Record checks, enhanced monitoring and escalation processes are considered sufficient; no further action is required.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Response: To address this gap, all relevant clinical staff have now been trained to access and use the NHS Summary Care Record (SCR). This enables clinicians to verify prescription issues and collection, thereby reducing reliance solely on self-report. The SCR is now routinely checked, where medication adherence forms a significant component of risk management.”

Source location

Response from East London Foundation Trust
Page 3 · response
Published 8 January 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

Strengthened medication non-concordance procedures, auditing, monitoring and training are considered sufficient; no further action is required.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Response: The Trust has reviewed and reinforced its operational policy and standard operating procedures regarding medication non-concordance. These now require that missed depot injections or concerns about adherence be formally discussed in the weekly multidisciplinary team (MDT) meeting and documented comprehensively in the electronic patient record.”

Source location

Response from East London Foundation Trust
Page 1 · response
Published 8 January 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

Weekly MDT review, risk-register oversight, escalation and documented accountability are considered sufficient; no further action is required.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Response: The MDT has reflected on this learning and strengthened processes accordingly. Where a service user misses a depot injection or demonstrates medication non-adherence, the matter is now formally raised within the weekly MDT and added to the MDT risk register where appropriate. All MDT meetings are attended by the team Consultant, Operational Lead, Depot Clinic Lead, Care Coordinator, Psychologist, Occupational Therapist and wider MDT members. Risk is reviewed, RAG rated, and monitored weekly until resolved or stabilised. Managers and senior clinicians have reiterated the requirement that all discussions, decisions and responsibilities are clearly recorded in the electronic clinical system, including the named clinician responsible for agreed actions.”

Source location

Response from East London Foundation Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 8 January 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
1/1

Data last updated 7 September 2026