Matthew McManus
PFD Report
All Responded
Ref: 2022-0044
Alcohol, drug and medication related deaths
Mental Health related deaths
Other related deaths
Suicide (from 2015)
All 2 responses received
· Deadline: 8 Apr 2022
Response Status
Responses
2 of 2
56-Day Deadline
8 Apr 2022
All responses received
About PFD responses
Organisations named in PFD reports must respond within 56 days explaining what actions they are taking.
Source: Courts and Tribunals Judiciary
Coroner’s Concerns
Matthew McManus had complex mental health and social care needs. He was in contact with a significant number of agencies many of which focused on the risk that Matthew posed to others. However, the evidence before me, particularly that of the Salford Safeguarding Board indicates that no -one saw Matthew as the vulnerable adult he was and addressed how his own complex needs were to be met, either through a Care Act assessment or any other means.
, on behalf of the Safeguarding Board who conducted a Safeguarding Adult Review told the Inquest that there was no one person or agency co-ordinating his support and care, meaning that Matthew did not have a single point of contact to help him understand and navigate the services being offered to him. This became particularly concerning when Matthew’s mental health declined, making him more erratic and difficult to contact. This left already stretched services to do what they could to pull information together from their own resources or conversations with other agencies. Without proper co-ordination, there was no full information sharing, joint assessment, or joint planning of Matthew’s support, which meant there was never a full appreciation of the risk he posed to himself, and no real care plan was in place to manage that risk.
Without a clear pathway for agencies to jointly assess and co-ordinate care in the case of adults with complex mental health and social care needs, I am concerned that future deaths will occur.
A copy of the SSAB Safeguarding Adult Review can be found at this link https://safeguardingadults.salford.gov.uk/media/1291/version-for-publication-ssab-discretionary-sar-mathew.pdf
, on behalf of the Safeguarding Board who conducted a Safeguarding Adult Review told the Inquest that there was no one person or agency co-ordinating his support and care, meaning that Matthew did not have a single point of contact to help him understand and navigate the services being offered to him. This became particularly concerning when Matthew’s mental health declined, making him more erratic and difficult to contact. This left already stretched services to do what they could to pull information together from their own resources or conversations with other agencies. Without proper co-ordination, there was no full information sharing, joint assessment, or joint planning of Matthew’s support, which meant there was never a full appreciation of the risk he posed to himself, and no real care plan was in place to manage that risk.
Without a clear pathway for agencies to jointly assess and co-ordinate care in the case of adults with complex mental health and social care needs, I am concerned that future deaths will occur.
A copy of the SSAB Safeguarding Adult Review can be found at this link https://safeguardingadults.salford.gov.uk/media/1291/version-for-publication-ssab-discretionary-sar-mathew.pdf
Responses
Greater Manchester Health & Social Care Partnership has developed a new regional approach to identify and support adults with complex mental health and social care needs, including establishing a working group. They are also utilizing the GM Care Record to improve care coordination by integrating social care data feeds, and will share learning across relevant boards and forums.
AI summary
View full response
Dear Ms Morris
Re: Regulation 28 Report to Prevent Future Deaths – Matthew McManus 09/11/20
Thank you for your Regulation 28 Report dated 11/02/22 concerning the sad death of Matthew McManus on 09/11/20. On behalf of Greater Manchester Health & Social Care Partnership or GMHSCP (which pending legislation will develop into the GM Integrated Care Board (ICB) from the current shadow structures in July 2022), I would like to begin by offering our sincere condolences to Mr McManus’ family for their loss.
Thank you for highlighting your concerns during Mr McManus’ Inquest which concluded on 21 January 2022. On behalf of the Partnership, I apologise that you have had to bring these matters of concern to our attention but it is also very important to ensure we make the necessary improvements to the quality and safety of future services.
The inquest concluded that Matthew’s death was a result of 1a) Multiple Injuries. Following the inquest, you raised concerns in your Regulation 28 Report to Greater Manchester Health and Social Care Partnership (GMHSCP) that there is a risk future deaths will occur unless action is taken.
I hope the response below demonstrates to you and Mr McManus’ family that GMHSCP have taken the concerns you have raised seriously and will learn from this as a whole system.
This letter addresses the issues that fall within the remit of GMHSCP and how we can share the learning from this case.
Coordination of care for adults with complex mental health and social care needs.
GMHSCP acknowledges that there has been a potential gap in support for a small number of patients with complex mental health and social care needs.
As a Greater Manchester Health & Social Care system we are therefore fully committed to closing such gaps and ensuring there is no unwarranted variation in commissioning practice.
In accordance with the NHS Long Term Plan, Greater Manchester is developing its Integrated Care System (ICS). ICSs are new partnerships between the organisations that meet health and care needs across an area, to coordinate services and to plan in a way that improves population health and reduces inequalities between different groups. Integrated care is about giving people the support they need, joined up across local councils, the NHS, and other partners. It removes traditional divisions between hospitals and family doctors, between physical and mental health, and between NHS and council services.
Additionally, Greater Manchester has accelerated use of the GM Care Record (GMCR) to support data sharing between health and care professionals across the region. It now means that all professionals involved in a patient’s care can share vital information across different organisations, settings and localities. As well as informing clinical decision making at the point of care, the GMCR is also being further enhanced to support joined up care planning and coordination through a range of clinical use cases. GMCR is now active between the two GM mental health trusts, GPs, and the hospital trusts within Greater Manchester. The inclusion of social care data feeds is also underway to further support care planning and coordination. Access to the GMCR can be made available to all relevant organisations that would have a requirement to access data, i.e. GP’s, acute trusts, councils and private organisations.
This work will ensure dedicated space and attention in Greater Manchester to work through the issues highlighted in the Regulation 28 Report and share learning between all stakeholders. This will also include formal oversight and assurance through to the refreshed Quality Board function within GMHSCP and the GM ICB from July 2022.
We can also confirm that we will, going forward, ensure that we continue to work together across the Greater Manchester health and care system so that changes in practice are actioned and reviewed.
Actions taken or being taken to share learning across Greater Manchester.
1. Learning to be presented/shared with the Greater Manchester Quality Board. This meeting is attended by commissioners, including commissioners of specialist services, regulators, Healthwatch and NICE.
2. Shared learning from this and similar cases at Greater Manchester and borough level will be cascaded to professionals through relevant governance and learning forums.
In conclusion, key learning points and recommendations will be monitored to ensure they are embedded within practice. GMHSCP is committed to improving outcomes for the population of Greater Manchester.
I hope this response demonstrates to you and Mr McManus’ family that GMHSCP have taken the concerns you have raised seriously and are committed to work together as a system including our service users, carers and families to improve the care provided.
Thank you for bringing these important patient safety issues to my attention and please do not hesitate to contact me should you need any further information.
Re: Regulation 28 Report to Prevent Future Deaths – Matthew McManus 09/11/20
Thank you for your Regulation 28 Report dated 11/02/22 concerning the sad death of Matthew McManus on 09/11/20. On behalf of Greater Manchester Health & Social Care Partnership or GMHSCP (which pending legislation will develop into the GM Integrated Care Board (ICB) from the current shadow structures in July 2022), I would like to begin by offering our sincere condolences to Mr McManus’ family for their loss.
Thank you for highlighting your concerns during Mr McManus’ Inquest which concluded on 21 January 2022. On behalf of the Partnership, I apologise that you have had to bring these matters of concern to our attention but it is also very important to ensure we make the necessary improvements to the quality and safety of future services.
The inquest concluded that Matthew’s death was a result of 1a) Multiple Injuries. Following the inquest, you raised concerns in your Regulation 28 Report to Greater Manchester Health and Social Care Partnership (GMHSCP) that there is a risk future deaths will occur unless action is taken.
I hope the response below demonstrates to you and Mr McManus’ family that GMHSCP have taken the concerns you have raised seriously and will learn from this as a whole system.
This letter addresses the issues that fall within the remit of GMHSCP and how we can share the learning from this case.
Coordination of care for adults with complex mental health and social care needs.
GMHSCP acknowledges that there has been a potential gap in support for a small number of patients with complex mental health and social care needs.
As a Greater Manchester Health & Social Care system we are therefore fully committed to closing such gaps and ensuring there is no unwarranted variation in commissioning practice.
In accordance with the NHS Long Term Plan, Greater Manchester is developing its Integrated Care System (ICS). ICSs are new partnerships between the organisations that meet health and care needs across an area, to coordinate services and to plan in a way that improves population health and reduces inequalities between different groups. Integrated care is about giving people the support they need, joined up across local councils, the NHS, and other partners. It removes traditional divisions between hospitals and family doctors, between physical and mental health, and between NHS and council services.
Additionally, Greater Manchester has accelerated use of the GM Care Record (GMCR) to support data sharing between health and care professionals across the region. It now means that all professionals involved in a patient’s care can share vital information across different organisations, settings and localities. As well as informing clinical decision making at the point of care, the GMCR is also being further enhanced to support joined up care planning and coordination through a range of clinical use cases. GMCR is now active between the two GM mental health trusts, GPs, and the hospital trusts within Greater Manchester. The inclusion of social care data feeds is also underway to further support care planning and coordination. Access to the GMCR can be made available to all relevant organisations that would have a requirement to access data, i.e. GP’s, acute trusts, councils and private organisations.
This work will ensure dedicated space and attention in Greater Manchester to work through the issues highlighted in the Regulation 28 Report and share learning between all stakeholders. This will also include formal oversight and assurance through to the refreshed Quality Board function within GMHSCP and the GM ICB from July 2022.
We can also confirm that we will, going forward, ensure that we continue to work together across the Greater Manchester health and care system so that changes in practice are actioned and reviewed.
Actions taken or being taken to share learning across Greater Manchester.
1. Learning to be presented/shared with the Greater Manchester Quality Board. This meeting is attended by commissioners, including commissioners of specialist services, regulators, Healthwatch and NICE.
2. Shared learning from this and similar cases at Greater Manchester and borough level will be cascaded to professionals through relevant governance and learning forums.
In conclusion, key learning points and recommendations will be monitored to ensure they are embedded within practice. GMHSCP is committed to improving outcomes for the population of Greater Manchester.
I hope this response demonstrates to you and Mr McManus’ family that GMHSCP have taken the concerns you have raised seriously and are committed to work together as a system including our service users, carers and families to improve the care provided.
Thank you for bringing these important patient safety issues to my attention and please do not hesitate to contact me should you need any further information.
The Department of Health and Social Care is improving care coordination through the ongoing development and implementation of the Community Mental Health Framework (CMHF), with all local areas having received funding and expected to have new models of care by 2023/24. They also highlight the Health and Care Act 2022, which has led to Integrated Care Systems, and the recently published integration white paper.
AI summary
View full response
Dear Ms Morris,
Thank you for your letter of 11 February 2022 about the death of Matthew McManus. I am replying as Minister with responsibility for Mental Health and am thankful to you for the additional time allowed.
Firstly, I would like to say how deeply saddened I was to read of the circumstances of Mr McManus’ death. I can appreciate how distressing his death must be for his family and those who knew and loved him, and I offer my heartfelt condolences.
Mr McManus was clearly experiencing difficulties that were compounded by the intersecting issues that had brought him into contact with, or led him to the seek the support of, a range of local services. From the Regulation 28 report you issued and the Salford Safeguarding Adults Board report that document links to, I understand that Mr McManus had complex needs that required support from mental health, addiction services and the justice system; however, it appears he did not meet the criteria to be supported under the Care Programme Approach (CPA), which would have provided a package of support for issues (such as drug use, and suicide and self-harm risk).
I would like to assure you that we are, through the development and implementation in local areas of the Community Mental Health Framework (CMHF), working to improve the way people with mental health conditions access joined-up support across health and social care, as well other parts of local systems. I would also like to assure you that more broadly we are bringing a broad range of local services closer together through the Health and Care Act 2022 and the integrated care systems (ICSs) that were formed as a result.
With regard to joined-up care, the NHS Long Term Plan, published January 2019, set out a commitment to transform community mental health services for adults and older adults, and the CMHF, published in September 2019, proposed replacing the CPA for community mental health services “whilst retaining its sound theoretical principles based on good care co-ordination and high-quality care planning”. We are therefore moving away from the CPA towards a more broadly accessible community mental health offer with patients supported by a named keyworker who works with and within a multidisciplinary (MDT) team made up of a range of partners, which may include social care, housing and justice.
In March 2022, NHSE published the Care Program Approach NHS England position statement3. The statement is published in order to support ICSs and mental health providers to transform, expand and improve their community mental health services and implement new modes in line with the CMHF.
The shift away from the CPA towards the CMHF is based on a range of broad principles, including:
• that there is a named keyworker for all service users with a clearer MDT approach to both assess and meet the need of service users, to reduce the reliance on care co- ordinators and to increase resilience in systems of care, allowing all staff to make the best use of their skills and qualifications; and
• high-quality co-produced, holistic, personalised care and support planning for people with severe mental health problems living in the community: a live and dynamic process facilitated by the use of digital shared care records and integration with other relevant care planning processes; with service users actively co-producing brief and relevant care plans with staff, and with active input from non-NHS partners where appropriate including social care (to ensure Care Act compliance), housing, public health and the voluntary, community and social enterprise (VCSE) sector.
Through implementing the CMHF, services will need to adopt clearer MDT-based approaches by ensuring that named keyworkers and patients are supported by a robust MDT integrated with care and the VCSE sector, which will help to address people social as well as clinical needs, rather than the system of care relying on a single care co-ordinator.
All local areas have received funding to develop and begin delivering these new models of care. By the end of 2023/24, all areas will have one of these models in place, with care provided to at least 370,000 adults per year nationally.
With regard to increased joined up working between and within local organisations, the Health and Care Act 2022 is a key part of the government’s agenda to increase collaboration between the NHS and local authorities to improve health and wellbeing outcomes. The Act has brought about the formation of ICS, which bring together a wide range of partners to deliver more joined- up, personalised and preventative care for population and communities through more joined-up decision making across NHS Bodies, local authorities and other partners.
Furthermore, in February, the Government published its integration white paper, ‘Joining up care for people, places and populations.’ The paper recognised the importance of clarity of accountability for delivering integrated care at the local, or ‘place’ level, and it set out opportunities for how this could be achieved. The Government is continuing with plans to further develop the opportunities set out in the white paper, to ensure all places have clear governance arrangements and accountability structures that deliver strong, effective leadership.
I hope this response is helpful, and I thank you again for bringing this important issue to my attention.
Kind regards,
MARIA CAULFIELD MP
Thank you for your letter of 11 February 2022 about the death of Matthew McManus. I am replying as Minister with responsibility for Mental Health and am thankful to you for the additional time allowed.
Firstly, I would like to say how deeply saddened I was to read of the circumstances of Mr McManus’ death. I can appreciate how distressing his death must be for his family and those who knew and loved him, and I offer my heartfelt condolences.
Mr McManus was clearly experiencing difficulties that were compounded by the intersecting issues that had brought him into contact with, or led him to the seek the support of, a range of local services. From the Regulation 28 report you issued and the Salford Safeguarding Adults Board report that document links to, I understand that Mr McManus had complex needs that required support from mental health, addiction services and the justice system; however, it appears he did not meet the criteria to be supported under the Care Programme Approach (CPA), which would have provided a package of support for issues (such as drug use, and suicide and self-harm risk).
I would like to assure you that we are, through the development and implementation in local areas of the Community Mental Health Framework (CMHF), working to improve the way people with mental health conditions access joined-up support across health and social care, as well other parts of local systems. I would also like to assure you that more broadly we are bringing a broad range of local services closer together through the Health and Care Act 2022 and the integrated care systems (ICSs) that were formed as a result.
With regard to joined-up care, the NHS Long Term Plan, published January 2019, set out a commitment to transform community mental health services for adults and older adults, and the CMHF, published in September 2019, proposed replacing the CPA for community mental health services “whilst retaining its sound theoretical principles based on good care co-ordination and high-quality care planning”. We are therefore moving away from the CPA towards a more broadly accessible community mental health offer with patients supported by a named keyworker who works with and within a multidisciplinary (MDT) team made up of a range of partners, which may include social care, housing and justice.
In March 2022, NHSE published the Care Program Approach NHS England position statement3. The statement is published in order to support ICSs and mental health providers to transform, expand and improve their community mental health services and implement new modes in line with the CMHF.
The shift away from the CPA towards the CMHF is based on a range of broad principles, including:
• that there is a named keyworker for all service users with a clearer MDT approach to both assess and meet the need of service users, to reduce the reliance on care co- ordinators and to increase resilience in systems of care, allowing all staff to make the best use of their skills and qualifications; and
• high-quality co-produced, holistic, personalised care and support planning for people with severe mental health problems living in the community: a live and dynamic process facilitated by the use of digital shared care records and integration with other relevant care planning processes; with service users actively co-producing brief and relevant care plans with staff, and with active input from non-NHS partners where appropriate including social care (to ensure Care Act compliance), housing, public health and the voluntary, community and social enterprise (VCSE) sector.
Through implementing the CMHF, services will need to adopt clearer MDT-based approaches by ensuring that named keyworkers and patients are supported by a robust MDT integrated with care and the VCSE sector, which will help to address people social as well as clinical needs, rather than the system of care relying on a single care co-ordinator.
All local areas have received funding to develop and begin delivering these new models of care. By the end of 2023/24, all areas will have one of these models in place, with care provided to at least 370,000 adults per year nationally.
With regard to increased joined up working between and within local organisations, the Health and Care Act 2022 is a key part of the government’s agenda to increase collaboration between the NHS and local authorities to improve health and wellbeing outcomes. The Act has brought about the formation of ICS, which bring together a wide range of partners to deliver more joined- up, personalised and preventative care for population and communities through more joined-up decision making across NHS Bodies, local authorities and other partners.
Furthermore, in February, the Government published its integration white paper, ‘Joining up care for people, places and populations.’ The paper recognised the importance of clarity of accountability for delivering integrated care at the local, or ‘place’ level, and it set out opportunities for how this could be achieved. The Government is continuing with plans to further develop the opportunities set out in the white paper, to ensure all places have clear governance arrangements and accountability structures that deliver strong, effective leadership.
I hope this response is helpful, and I thank you again for bringing this important issue to my attention.
Kind regards,
MARIA CAULFIELD MP
Report Sections
Investigation and Inquest
An inquest was opened on the 26th November 2020. The inquest was heard between the 17th and 21st January 2022. The medical cause of death was recorded as-1a Multiple Injuries The conclusion of the inquest was suicide.
Circumstances of the Death
Matthew was 36 years old at the time of his death. Matthew had struggled with his mental health throughout his adult life. In 2020 his mental health deteriorated leading to a number of crisis presentations to hospital in April and May for assessment under the Mental Health Act. He was diagnosed with a Personality Disorder which was characterised by his changeable presentation, difficulty in regulating his emotions and his experience of becoming distressed, being impulsive and having intrusive thoughts of self-harm and suicide. Matthew had been a heroin user in the past but had not used heroin for over a decade and was prescribed opiate substitutes.
On the 22nd July 2020 Matthew was sentenced to a Community Rehabilitation Order and was subject to supervision by probation. In August he was referred by probation to the Salford Criminal Justice Team provided by Greater Manchester Mental Health Trust. Matthew was also seeing a Substance Misuse worker at Achieve and by August 2020 had started sessions aimed at a full detox from Subutex. He was also referred to the Community Mental Health Team. They assessed Matthew in September 2020 and referred him to a community-based psychiatrist. The assessment determined that Matthew did not require the Care Programme Approach and therefore he was not allocated a Care Coordinator.
On the 29th October, there were concerns about Matthew's behaviour. Police attended and took him to hospital to be assessed under the Mental Health Act. He was then discharged back to police custody. Whilst in police custody between the 30th October and 2nd November Matthew made repeated threats to his own life.
Matthew appeared before Magistrates on the 2nd November, where he was made subject to bail conditions that restricted his access to entering the area where his children lived and from having contact with their mother. Family and particularly his children were very important to Matthew. Later on, the 2nd November, Matthew presented as very distressed to his probation officers. They were concern about the risk he presented to himself had increased and were aware that one of his protective factors, namely his children had been impacted by his bail conditions, they conveyed him to hospital for assessment by the Mental Health Liaison Team. He was seen but not assessed as requiring an inpatient admission under the Mental Health Act. As a result of his bail conditions, Matthew lost an allocation of housing that he had been looking forward to moving into near friends and family. This would likely have had a further impact of Matthew's mental health.
On the 5th November 2020 Matthew had a conversation with a Children's Social Worker from which it is likely that he believed that his access to his children would need to be supervised. This is also likely to have had an impact on Matthew's mental health.
On Monday 9th November 2020, Matthew was of no fixed abode and had been staying with friends in the Stockport area. He contacted his substance misuse worker to find out when their next appointment was.
During that conversation, Matthew told her that he was thinking about going to buy heroin to end his life. His worker reminded him of protective factors and of their future appointments. Matthew then spoke to his probation officer, and repeated that he had thought about buying heroin to end his life, but he expressed an intention to keep attending appointments and said he did not now have any intention to buy substances. His Probation Officer later sent him by text the details of temporary accommodation in the North Manchester Area. Matthew also spoke to his mother. She was concerned about him because of texts they had exchanged over the weekend in which Matthew had indicated that he was low in mood and said that he was 'done'.
At 19:50 Matthew was seen on CCTV attending in South Manchester. He entered the at 19:53 and began to walk on the Manchester . At 19:56 Matthew was travelling at speed. Matthew sustained multiple injuries and died at the scene. Toxicological analysis confirmed the use of prescribed medication use before death including Buprenorphine.
I must determine whether Matthew intended to take his own life. I do so on the balance of probabilities. I take into account his diagnosis of personality disorder, his fluctuation in presentations and his impulsivity. The description of his mood on the 9th November by his mother and Ms. Foley, combined with his historic pattern of intrusive thoughts of suicide and suicidal acts, and the evidence from the CCTV footage. The CCTV evidence showed that Matthew attended a within 3 minutes of arrival and that prior to entering the he allowed himself to . I also find that Matthew is likely to have been aware of the sound of the that ultimately . I therefore conclude on the balance of probabilities that Matthew intended to take his own life.
I find that although there were a number of agencies in contact with, working with or supporting Matthew, including probation, the Criminal Justice Liaison Team, Achieve, Salford City Council Housing Services and Salford City Council Children's Services there was no co-ordinated approach to his care and support and there was no single agency or person co-ordinating the planning of his care and support across the relevant agencies.
I find that although there were examples of good communication between some agencies, there was a lack of a holistic and co-ordinated approach to Matthew's needs and that this co-ordinated approach could have led to a fuller understanding by those agencies as a whole of the risks he posed to himself, particularly from the 29th October onwards and an opportunity to put in place an effective risk management plan. Therefore, this lack of a co-ordinated approach possibly made a more than minimal contribution to his death.
Conclusion: Suicide
On the 22nd July 2020 Matthew was sentenced to a Community Rehabilitation Order and was subject to supervision by probation. In August he was referred by probation to the Salford Criminal Justice Team provided by Greater Manchester Mental Health Trust. Matthew was also seeing a Substance Misuse worker at Achieve and by August 2020 had started sessions aimed at a full detox from Subutex. He was also referred to the Community Mental Health Team. They assessed Matthew in September 2020 and referred him to a community-based psychiatrist. The assessment determined that Matthew did not require the Care Programme Approach and therefore he was not allocated a Care Coordinator.
On the 29th October, there were concerns about Matthew's behaviour. Police attended and took him to hospital to be assessed under the Mental Health Act. He was then discharged back to police custody. Whilst in police custody between the 30th October and 2nd November Matthew made repeated threats to his own life.
Matthew appeared before Magistrates on the 2nd November, where he was made subject to bail conditions that restricted his access to entering the area where his children lived and from having contact with their mother. Family and particularly his children were very important to Matthew. Later on, the 2nd November, Matthew presented as very distressed to his probation officers. They were concern about the risk he presented to himself had increased and were aware that one of his protective factors, namely his children had been impacted by his bail conditions, they conveyed him to hospital for assessment by the Mental Health Liaison Team. He was seen but not assessed as requiring an inpatient admission under the Mental Health Act. As a result of his bail conditions, Matthew lost an allocation of housing that he had been looking forward to moving into near friends and family. This would likely have had a further impact of Matthew's mental health.
On the 5th November 2020 Matthew had a conversation with a Children's Social Worker from which it is likely that he believed that his access to his children would need to be supervised. This is also likely to have had an impact on Matthew's mental health.
On Monday 9th November 2020, Matthew was of no fixed abode and had been staying with friends in the Stockport area. He contacted his substance misuse worker to find out when their next appointment was.
During that conversation, Matthew told her that he was thinking about going to buy heroin to end his life. His worker reminded him of protective factors and of their future appointments. Matthew then spoke to his probation officer, and repeated that he had thought about buying heroin to end his life, but he expressed an intention to keep attending appointments and said he did not now have any intention to buy substances. His Probation Officer later sent him by text the details of temporary accommodation in the North Manchester Area. Matthew also spoke to his mother. She was concerned about him because of texts they had exchanged over the weekend in which Matthew had indicated that he was low in mood and said that he was 'done'.
At 19:50 Matthew was seen on CCTV attending in South Manchester. He entered the at 19:53 and began to walk on the Manchester . At 19:56 Matthew was travelling at speed. Matthew sustained multiple injuries and died at the scene. Toxicological analysis confirmed the use of prescribed medication use before death including Buprenorphine.
I must determine whether Matthew intended to take his own life. I do so on the balance of probabilities. I take into account his diagnosis of personality disorder, his fluctuation in presentations and his impulsivity. The description of his mood on the 9th November by his mother and Ms. Foley, combined with his historic pattern of intrusive thoughts of suicide and suicidal acts, and the evidence from the CCTV footage. The CCTV evidence showed that Matthew attended a within 3 minutes of arrival and that prior to entering the he allowed himself to . I also find that Matthew is likely to have been aware of the sound of the that ultimately . I therefore conclude on the balance of probabilities that Matthew intended to take his own life.
I find that although there were a number of agencies in contact with, working with or supporting Matthew, including probation, the Criminal Justice Liaison Team, Achieve, Salford City Council Housing Services and Salford City Council Children's Services there was no co-ordinated approach to his care and support and there was no single agency or person co-ordinating the planning of his care and support across the relevant agencies.
I find that although there were examples of good communication between some agencies, there was a lack of a holistic and co-ordinated approach to Matthew's needs and that this co-ordinated approach could have led to a fuller understanding by those agencies as a whole of the risks he posed to himself, particularly from the 29th October onwards and an opportunity to put in place an effective risk management plan. Therefore, this lack of a co-ordinated approach possibly made a more than minimal contribution to his death.
Conclusion: Suicide
Copies Sent To
(Little Hulton Health Centre)
Similar PFD Reports
Reports sharing organisations, categories, or themes with this PFD
Related Inquiry Recommendations
Public inquiry recommendations addressing similar themes
Continuing responsibility for care
Mid Staffs Inquiry
No person-centred care
Care and discharge planning
Establish comprehensive counselling and support services as integral to patient care
Bristol Heart Inquiry
No person-centred care
Care and discharge planning
Adopt patient-professional partnership model across all NHS healthcare settings
Bristol Heart Inquiry
No person-centred care
Poor health and social care integration
Cross-Administration Patient Safety Coordination
Infected Blood Inquiry
Poor health and social care integration
Central Delivery with Devolved Support
Infected Blood Inquiry
Poor health and social care integration
Data sourced from Courts and Tribunals Judiciary under the Open Government Licence.