Mary Gwanyama
PFD Report
All Responded
Ref: 2021-0117
Community health care and emergency services related deaths
Hospital Death (Clinical Procedures and medical management) related deaths
Mental Health related deaths
Railway related deaths
Suicide (from 2015)
All 1 response received
· Deadline: 16 Jun 2021
Coroner's Concerns (AI summary)
A vulnerable patient was prematurely discharged into homelessness from a mental health unit without proper planning, medical review, or adequate risk assessment, failing to follow Care Programme Approach guidelines.
View full coroner's concerns
1. Mary was discharged from the Abraham Cowley Unit without a discharge planning meeting taking place in circumstances where there was no confirmation that she was eligible for housing provision and with no plan was to what would happen after the Travel Lodge placement ended. There is no policy in place which prevents a vulnerable patient being discharged into homelessness from the Abraham Cowley Unit.
2. Mary was not subject to a medical review from the 28th March 2018 to the 26th May 2018. There is no policy in place which mandates when or if a patient should be subject to face to face review by a consultant psychiatrist after discharge from the acute unit.
3. No formal risk assessment was undertaken of Mary and no risk assessment was recorded in her records prior to her discharge from the Abraham Cowley Unit.
4. The informal risk assessments undertaken in the Abraham Cowley Unit prior to her discharge failed to place any weight on the impact on Mary of a discharge with an inchoate plan for her housing and arrived at an incorrect assessment of her risk. The risk assessments were not sufficiently rigorous and evidence based.
5. Mary was prematurely discharged from the Abraham Cowley Unit suffering from severe depression and before sufficient time had been taken to observe the effectiveness of her prescribed medication. This appears in part to have been because the imperative to discharge patients took precedence over adequate discharge planning and assessment. The CPA ( “ Care Programme Approach”) was not followed.
6. Mary was discharged from the Home Treatment team on ineffective medication and without any coherent plan for her care in the community. Her care coordinator was not involved in the discharge planning. The CPA was not followed.
7. The fact that she was placed out of area made it difficult for her to participate in community based treatment and significantly impacted on the ability of her care coordinator and community psychiatrist to support her. There is no policy which governs how often a patient should be seen once in the community in order to review the risk assessment and monitor compliance with medication.
2. Mary was not subject to a medical review from the 28th March 2018 to the 26th May 2018. There is no policy in place which mandates when or if a patient should be subject to face to face review by a consultant psychiatrist after discharge from the acute unit.
3. No formal risk assessment was undertaken of Mary and no risk assessment was recorded in her records prior to her discharge from the Abraham Cowley Unit.
4. The informal risk assessments undertaken in the Abraham Cowley Unit prior to her discharge failed to place any weight on the impact on Mary of a discharge with an inchoate plan for her housing and arrived at an incorrect assessment of her risk. The risk assessments were not sufficiently rigorous and evidence based.
5. Mary was prematurely discharged from the Abraham Cowley Unit suffering from severe depression and before sufficient time had been taken to observe the effectiveness of her prescribed medication. This appears in part to have been because the imperative to discharge patients took precedence over adequate discharge planning and assessment. The CPA ( “ Care Programme Approach”) was not followed.
6. Mary was discharged from the Home Treatment team on ineffective medication and without any coherent plan for her care in the community. Her care coordinator was not involved in the discharge planning. The CPA was not followed.
7. The fact that she was placed out of area made it difficult for her to participate in community based treatment and significantly impacted on the ability of her care coordinator and community psychiatrist to support her. There is no policy which governs how often a patient should be seen once in the community in order to review the risk assessment and monitor compliance with medication.
Responses
Action Planned
The Trust will update its CPA policy and Acute Care Services Operational Protocol to reflect that anyone who is homeless must have a CPA discharge meeting on the inpatient ward prior to discharge. The CMHRS Operational Policy is going to be updated, with specific attention to the ‘transition’ process to another Trust. (AI summary)
The Trust will update its CPA policy and Acute Care Services Operational Protocol to reflect that anyone who is homeless must have a CPA discharge meeting on the inpatient ward prior to discharge. The CMHRS Operational Policy is going to be updated, with specific attention to the ‘transition’ process to another Trust. (AI summary)
View full response
Dear Ms Topping
Inquest touching the death of Mary Gwanyama Regulation 28 Report to Prevent Future Deaths (PFD) Surrey and Borders Partnership NHS Foundation Trust’s Response
I am writing in response to your Regulation 28 Report to Prevent Future Deaths, hereafter referred to as the ‘PFD’, issued on the 21st April 2021 following the inquest touching upon the death of Mary Gwanyama. I would like to thank you for investigating this matter so thoroughly and for bringing the matters of concern you have to my attention. In the PFD, you identified five key areas of concern that had arisen from the inquest. I will address each one in turn below, with details of action we have taken or plan to take to address the issues.
1. Discharge planning and homeless patients In the PFD, you said that Ms Gwanyama was discharged from the Abraham Cowley Unit without a discharge planning meeting taking place in circumstances where there was no confirmation that she was eligible for housing provision and with no plan as to what would happen after the Travel Lodge placement ended. You identified that there is no policy in place which prevents a vulnerable patient being discharged into homelessness from the Abraham Cowley Unit.
The Trust accepts that a discharge CPA meeting was not held prior to Ms Gwanyama being discharged from the Abraham Cowley Unit and, given she was homeless at the time and her housing situation was uncertain, such a meeting should have taken place. Accordingly, the Trust’s CPA policy and Acute Care Services Operational Protocol will be updated to reflect that anyone who is homeless must have a CPA discharge meeting on the inpatient ward prior to discharge.
Whilst we fully appreciate your concerns about no policy being in place, it is unfortunately not possible for the Trust to have a policy in place that prevents patients from being discharged into homelessness from our inpatient units. The onus is our duty to engage appropriately with and make the statutory referral to District and Borough Councils’ Housing Departments to find a homeless person settled accommodation. The pre-discharge planning would also involve our homelessness 16 June 2021
2
‘Duty to Refer’ to the District and Borough Housing Departments to include them in the discharge CPA meeting. The discharge CPA meeting must be attended by all the relevant professionals in a multi-agency approach.
2. Medical reviews In the PFD, you said that Ms Gwanyama was not subject to a medical review from the 28th March 2018 to the 26th May 2018 and that there is no policy in place which mandates when or if a patient should be subject to face to face review by a Consultant Psychiatrist after discharge from the acute unit.
Senior clinicians within the Trust have considered this issue, and our need to be agile to respond to people with differing needs. For that reason, the decision as to whether a person under HTT requires a medical review is risk and needs led within the context of a multi-disciplinary approach which includes a Consultant Psychiatrist. (It should however be noted that it is already mandated that a patient must have follow up with community services within 72 hours of discharge from hospital, within an overall multi- disciplinary approach.)
As explained in letter dated 24th March 2021, consideration is given at the daily HTT handover meetings, where there is a doctor present, as to how to best meet people’s needs within their overall care plan. It should also be noted that in addition to the handover meetings, each HTT holds weekly clinical reviews attended by the full multi-disciplinary team. During this review, each person on the HTT caseload is systematically reviewed to determine the appropriateness of the existing care plan, risk management plans including medical review and discharge plans.
To strengthen our approach to risk assessments and risk management, our HTT is now also going to use the SBAR (Situation, Background, Assessment and Recommendations) which will support evidence-based multi-disciplinary review. The HTT Operational Policy will be updated to reflect this and strengthen the documentation and decision making regarding medical reviews.
3. Risk assessments In the PFD, you said that no formal risk assessment was undertaken of Ms Gwanyama and no risk assessment was recorded in her records prior to her discharge from the Abraham Cowley Unit. Further, that the informal risk assessments undertaken in the Abraham Cowley Unit prior to her discharge failed to place any weight on the impact on Ms Gwanyama of a discharge with an inchoate plan for her housing and arrived at an incorrect assessment of her risk. The risk assessments were not sufficiently rigorous, and evidence based.
In letter dated 24th March 2021, he outlined the significant improvements that have been made regarding risk assessments since Ms Gwanyama’s death. In particular, he highlighted that a new risk assessment node has been developed on SystmOne, which was rolled out in October 2019 together with a training package focussed on:
a. Understanding risk assessment,
3
b. Understanding risk factors (dynamic and static),
c. How to make the best risk assessment,
d. The link between risk assessment and care plans, and
e. How to understand SystmOne’s new risk assessment tool.
In addition to this, in April 2021 we recruited a Lead Nurse for Quality and Practice, specifically for inpatient services. Part of her role is around ensuring the quality of our inpatient care plans and risk assessments and identifying areas for improvement. We have also delivered a significant amount of Suicide Prevention Training across our clinical services.
Weekly audits of risk assessments and care plans are conducted by Senior Matrons in ACU and Farnham Road Hospital. We also have in place a discharge checklist, to include whether a risk assessment has been completed prior to discharge. These checklists have been in place for some time; however, they are not routinely audited. We are therefore going to add to the weekly audits a review of the discharge checklist, to ensure they are being completed appropriately and the learning loop closed.
We are also reviewing our Risk Assessment and Management Policy to support and guide our staff in how to be confident in risk assessments risk and management.
4. Premature discharge In the PFD, you said that Ms Gwanyama was prematurely discharged from the Abraham Cowley Unit suffering from severe depression and before sufficient the time had been taken to observe the effectiveness of her prescribed medication. You said this appeared in part to have been because the imperative to discharge patients took precedence over adequate discharge planning and assessment. Further, that her care coordinator was not involved in the discharge planning.
The Trust considers that this issue will also be addressed by the change in policy and practice that will require a discharge CPA meeting to take place prior to a homeless person being discharged from the ward, with all the relevant professionals involved.
5. Community based treatment In the PFD, you said the fact that Ms Gwanyama was placed out of area made it difficult for her to participate in community based treatment and significantly impacted on the ability of her care coordinator and community psychiatrist to support her. You said that there is no policy which governs how often a patient should be seen once in the community to review the risk assessment and monitor compliance with medication.
Since Ms Gwanyama’s death, our community teams have implemented the SBAR process during their MDT reviews to RAG rate patients and determine how often they should be seen in the community based on their assessed risk. People’s risk changes and people will move through the different levels of risk-based contact. If a patient is rated Red, this requires weekly contact. If a patient is rated Amber, this requires fortnightly contacted. If a patient is rated Green, then the contact ranges from monthly
4
appointments to annual outpatient appointments – the level of contact to be determined by the MDT.
Our CMHRS Operational Policy is going to be updated, with specific attention to the ‘transition’ process to another Trust. Our policy is going to ensure that, where a patient is in transition to a neighbouring Trust, we will still provide face to face or telephone/virtual contact as we would base this on the SBAR/RAG rating and identified frequency of need, until the transfer process is complete. If the patient is residing in an area which is relatively local to the team and easily accessible by travel, then we would expect the team to travel to visit the patient if necessary.
Further, where a patient’s needs are considered urgent, then the CMHRS will be guided to make a referral to the patient’s local HTT/Crisis service (as this does not require a CPA transfer), to ensure their immediate care needs are met and risks assessed and appropriately supported.
I attach the Trust’s action plan that has been devised, to monitor and track our improvement work. The delivery of the plan will be monitored through our established Inpatient Improvement Board, chaired by the Chief Operating Officer and Chief Nursing Officer. Regular briefings will be made to myself, as Chief Executive and the Executive Directors.
On behalf of the Trust, I would like to offer our sincere condolences to Ms Gwanyama’s family for their loss and hope that our actions outlined above assures you and them that we have learnt and continue to learn from her death.
Inquest touching the death of Mary Gwanyama Regulation 28 Report to Prevent Future Deaths (PFD) Surrey and Borders Partnership NHS Foundation Trust’s Response
I am writing in response to your Regulation 28 Report to Prevent Future Deaths, hereafter referred to as the ‘PFD’, issued on the 21st April 2021 following the inquest touching upon the death of Mary Gwanyama. I would like to thank you for investigating this matter so thoroughly and for bringing the matters of concern you have to my attention. In the PFD, you identified five key areas of concern that had arisen from the inquest. I will address each one in turn below, with details of action we have taken or plan to take to address the issues.
1. Discharge planning and homeless patients In the PFD, you said that Ms Gwanyama was discharged from the Abraham Cowley Unit without a discharge planning meeting taking place in circumstances where there was no confirmation that she was eligible for housing provision and with no plan as to what would happen after the Travel Lodge placement ended. You identified that there is no policy in place which prevents a vulnerable patient being discharged into homelessness from the Abraham Cowley Unit.
The Trust accepts that a discharge CPA meeting was not held prior to Ms Gwanyama being discharged from the Abraham Cowley Unit and, given she was homeless at the time and her housing situation was uncertain, such a meeting should have taken place. Accordingly, the Trust’s CPA policy and Acute Care Services Operational Protocol will be updated to reflect that anyone who is homeless must have a CPA discharge meeting on the inpatient ward prior to discharge.
Whilst we fully appreciate your concerns about no policy being in place, it is unfortunately not possible for the Trust to have a policy in place that prevents patients from being discharged into homelessness from our inpatient units. The onus is our duty to engage appropriately with and make the statutory referral to District and Borough Councils’ Housing Departments to find a homeless person settled accommodation. The pre-discharge planning would also involve our homelessness 16 June 2021
2
‘Duty to Refer’ to the District and Borough Housing Departments to include them in the discharge CPA meeting. The discharge CPA meeting must be attended by all the relevant professionals in a multi-agency approach.
2. Medical reviews In the PFD, you said that Ms Gwanyama was not subject to a medical review from the 28th March 2018 to the 26th May 2018 and that there is no policy in place which mandates when or if a patient should be subject to face to face review by a Consultant Psychiatrist after discharge from the acute unit.
Senior clinicians within the Trust have considered this issue, and our need to be agile to respond to people with differing needs. For that reason, the decision as to whether a person under HTT requires a medical review is risk and needs led within the context of a multi-disciplinary approach which includes a Consultant Psychiatrist. (It should however be noted that it is already mandated that a patient must have follow up with community services within 72 hours of discharge from hospital, within an overall multi- disciplinary approach.)
As explained in letter dated 24th March 2021, consideration is given at the daily HTT handover meetings, where there is a doctor present, as to how to best meet people’s needs within their overall care plan. It should also be noted that in addition to the handover meetings, each HTT holds weekly clinical reviews attended by the full multi-disciplinary team. During this review, each person on the HTT caseload is systematically reviewed to determine the appropriateness of the existing care plan, risk management plans including medical review and discharge plans.
To strengthen our approach to risk assessments and risk management, our HTT is now also going to use the SBAR (Situation, Background, Assessment and Recommendations) which will support evidence-based multi-disciplinary review. The HTT Operational Policy will be updated to reflect this and strengthen the documentation and decision making regarding medical reviews.
3. Risk assessments In the PFD, you said that no formal risk assessment was undertaken of Ms Gwanyama and no risk assessment was recorded in her records prior to her discharge from the Abraham Cowley Unit. Further, that the informal risk assessments undertaken in the Abraham Cowley Unit prior to her discharge failed to place any weight on the impact on Ms Gwanyama of a discharge with an inchoate plan for her housing and arrived at an incorrect assessment of her risk. The risk assessments were not sufficiently rigorous, and evidence based.
In letter dated 24th March 2021, he outlined the significant improvements that have been made regarding risk assessments since Ms Gwanyama’s death. In particular, he highlighted that a new risk assessment node has been developed on SystmOne, which was rolled out in October 2019 together with a training package focussed on:
a. Understanding risk assessment,
3
b. Understanding risk factors (dynamic and static),
c. How to make the best risk assessment,
d. The link between risk assessment and care plans, and
e. How to understand SystmOne’s new risk assessment tool.
In addition to this, in April 2021 we recruited a Lead Nurse for Quality and Practice, specifically for inpatient services. Part of her role is around ensuring the quality of our inpatient care plans and risk assessments and identifying areas for improvement. We have also delivered a significant amount of Suicide Prevention Training across our clinical services.
Weekly audits of risk assessments and care plans are conducted by Senior Matrons in ACU and Farnham Road Hospital. We also have in place a discharge checklist, to include whether a risk assessment has been completed prior to discharge. These checklists have been in place for some time; however, they are not routinely audited. We are therefore going to add to the weekly audits a review of the discharge checklist, to ensure they are being completed appropriately and the learning loop closed.
We are also reviewing our Risk Assessment and Management Policy to support and guide our staff in how to be confident in risk assessments risk and management.
4. Premature discharge In the PFD, you said that Ms Gwanyama was prematurely discharged from the Abraham Cowley Unit suffering from severe depression and before sufficient the time had been taken to observe the effectiveness of her prescribed medication. You said this appeared in part to have been because the imperative to discharge patients took precedence over adequate discharge planning and assessment. Further, that her care coordinator was not involved in the discharge planning.
The Trust considers that this issue will also be addressed by the change in policy and practice that will require a discharge CPA meeting to take place prior to a homeless person being discharged from the ward, with all the relevant professionals involved.
5. Community based treatment In the PFD, you said the fact that Ms Gwanyama was placed out of area made it difficult for her to participate in community based treatment and significantly impacted on the ability of her care coordinator and community psychiatrist to support her. You said that there is no policy which governs how often a patient should be seen once in the community to review the risk assessment and monitor compliance with medication.
Since Ms Gwanyama’s death, our community teams have implemented the SBAR process during their MDT reviews to RAG rate patients and determine how often they should be seen in the community based on their assessed risk. People’s risk changes and people will move through the different levels of risk-based contact. If a patient is rated Red, this requires weekly contact. If a patient is rated Amber, this requires fortnightly contacted. If a patient is rated Green, then the contact ranges from monthly
4
appointments to annual outpatient appointments – the level of contact to be determined by the MDT.
Our CMHRS Operational Policy is going to be updated, with specific attention to the ‘transition’ process to another Trust. Our policy is going to ensure that, where a patient is in transition to a neighbouring Trust, we will still provide face to face or telephone/virtual contact as we would base this on the SBAR/RAG rating and identified frequency of need, until the transfer process is complete. If the patient is residing in an area which is relatively local to the team and easily accessible by travel, then we would expect the team to travel to visit the patient if necessary.
Further, where a patient’s needs are considered urgent, then the CMHRS will be guided to make a referral to the patient’s local HTT/Crisis service (as this does not require a CPA transfer), to ensure their immediate care needs are met and risks assessed and appropriately supported.
I attach the Trust’s action plan that has been devised, to monitor and track our improvement work. The delivery of the plan will be monitored through our established Inpatient Improvement Board, chaired by the Chief Operating Officer and Chief Nursing Officer. Regular briefings will be made to myself, as Chief Executive and the Executive Directors.
On behalf of the Trust, I would like to offer our sincere condolences to Ms Gwanyama’s family for their loss and hope that our actions outlined above assures you and them that we have learnt and continue to learn from her death.
Sent To
- Surrey and Borders Partnership
Response Status
Linked responses
1 of 1
56-Day Deadline
16 Jun 2021
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
Report Sections
Investigation and Inquest
An inquest into the death of Mary Nabila Gwanyama was opened on 1st June 2018, resumed on the 18th January 2021 and concluded on 10th February 2021.
I found that the cause of death was:
I a Multiple Injuries
I concluded with a narrative conclusion as follows: Mary Gwanyama was admitted to the Abraham Cowley Unit as an informal patient on the 24th February 2018. She was suffering from severe depression. She was prematurely discharged on the 28th March 2018 to the home treatment team without a formal or adequate risk assessment having been undertaken, before it had been possible to assess whether her prescribed medications were effective and having been misdiagnosed immediately prior to discharge. She was not subject to medical review thereafter. On the 24th April 2018 she was discharged to the community mental health team. She was housed out of area in temporary accommodation which made it difficult for her to be visited by her care co-ordinator who did not see her in the 35 days prior to her death. On the 26th May 2018 she stepped down into the path of an oncoming train at Weybridge Station and was killed on impact. She intended to take her own life. Her death was therefore a result of suicide.
I adjourned consideration of whether to write a report for the prevention of future deaths for further evidence to be provided by the 24th March 2021.
I found that the cause of death was:
I a Multiple Injuries
I concluded with a narrative conclusion as follows: Mary Gwanyama was admitted to the Abraham Cowley Unit as an informal patient on the 24th February 2018. She was suffering from severe depression. She was prematurely discharged on the 28th March 2018 to the home treatment team without a formal or adequate risk assessment having been undertaken, before it had been possible to assess whether her prescribed medications were effective and having been misdiagnosed immediately prior to discharge. She was not subject to medical review thereafter. On the 24th April 2018 she was discharged to the community mental health team. She was housed out of area in temporary accommodation which made it difficult for her to be visited by her care co-ordinator who did not see her in the 35 days prior to her death. On the 26th May 2018 she stepped down into the path of an oncoming train at Weybridge Station and was killed on impact. She intended to take her own life. Her death was therefore a result of suicide.
I adjourned consideration of whether to write a report for the prevention of future deaths for further evidence to be provided by the 24th March 2021.
Circumstances of the Death
i.) Mary held a British passport but had lived in America for a long period prior to coming to England in the autumn of 2017. She lived temporarily with her sister in Surrey. She was suffering from severe depression and was admitted to the Abraham Cowley Unit as an informal patient on the 24th February 2018. She was prescribed citalopram.
ii.) She wanted to be rehoused in Surrey near her sister. As part of the discharge planning she was referred to Elmbridge Borough Council housing department who needed to undertake investigations to determine if she was eligible for housing.
iii.) Mary was an experienced nurse and repeatedly said that the medication prescribed to her was not working. A date was fixed for her discharge from hospital. She did not want to be discharged. She feared being homeless. On the 21st March 2018 she expressed active suicidal thoughts and was placed on 1 to 1 nursing.
iv.) On the 22nd March 2018 she was seen by her Responsible Clinician. Her medication was increased, her nursing observations were reduced to every 15 minutes and the discharge planned for the 26th March 2018 was moved to the 27th March 2018 to allow her to see the citizens advice bureau. The plan was for her to be discharged to the Home Treatment Team.
v.) At that stage it had not been possible for the housing authority to determine if she was eligible for housing. Her care co-ordinator was not involved in the decision. No discharge planning meeting took place.
vi.) On the 27th March 2018 she saw a member of the Home Treatment Team and expressed suicidal plans and refused Home Treatment Team involvement. She continued to say that the medication wasn’t working. Her discharge was delayed until the following day.
vii.) On the 28th March 2018 she agreed to work with the Home Treatment Team because she was reassured that she could have a medical review in the community.
viii.) She was then seen in a ward round and her diagnosis was erroneously changed to probable mild depression with emotionally unstable personality disorder traits.
ix.) The discharge plan was for her to be housed at the expense of the Unit for 7 days at a Travel Lodge. There was no certainty at that stage that she would be eligible for housing after that date. The plan was that she was to attend the housing authority as homeless at the end of that period. She was discharged on that basis.
x.) No risk assessment was recorded on the 22nd March 2018 or the 28th March 2018 after the medical reviews and no formal risk assessments were undertaken.
xi.) Mary was under the care of the Home Treatment Team from the 28th March 2018 to the 24th April 2018. On the 30th March 2018 she stopped taking medication and expressed suicidal ideation. Her case was discussed at the multidisciplinary team meetings on the 3rd April 2018 and the 17th April 2018 which include junior doctors. It was unclear which consultant psychiatrist was responsible for her care at that time.
xii.) Despite a request by one of the junior doctors to change her medication on the 17th April 2018 this was refused by one of the psychiatrists at the Abraham Cowley Unit. Mary was not medically reviewed prior to this decision being taken.
xiii.) Payment for the Travel Lodge was extended until the 7th April 2021.
It was still unclear at that stage if she was eligible for housing so she returned to her sister’s home until the matter was resolved.
xiv.) Mary was found eligible for housing and given temporary housing out of area in Feltham on the 19th April 2020. The Home Treatment Team discharged her to the community team on the 24th April 2018. There was no discharge planning meeting with the care co-ordinator. The Care Programme Approach was not followed.
xv.) Mary was seen on the 24th April 2018 by her care co-ordinator, he took an emergency supply of her medication with him. She sought a medical review and it was requested by the care coordinator on the 1st May 2018.
xvi.) Mary was not seen for a medical review prior to her death on the 26th May 2018. She did not organise or collect a repeat prescription of her medication from the general practitioner in Surrey so would have been without medication prior to her death. Her care coordinator did not see her for 35 days before she died.
xvii.) On the 26th May 2018 she stepped out in front on an oncoming train at Weybridge Station and died from the catastrophic injuries she sustained.
ii.) She wanted to be rehoused in Surrey near her sister. As part of the discharge planning she was referred to Elmbridge Borough Council housing department who needed to undertake investigations to determine if she was eligible for housing.
iii.) Mary was an experienced nurse and repeatedly said that the medication prescribed to her was not working. A date was fixed for her discharge from hospital. She did not want to be discharged. She feared being homeless. On the 21st March 2018 she expressed active suicidal thoughts and was placed on 1 to 1 nursing.
iv.) On the 22nd March 2018 she was seen by her Responsible Clinician. Her medication was increased, her nursing observations were reduced to every 15 minutes and the discharge planned for the 26th March 2018 was moved to the 27th March 2018 to allow her to see the citizens advice bureau. The plan was for her to be discharged to the Home Treatment Team.
v.) At that stage it had not been possible for the housing authority to determine if she was eligible for housing. Her care co-ordinator was not involved in the decision. No discharge planning meeting took place.
vi.) On the 27th March 2018 she saw a member of the Home Treatment Team and expressed suicidal plans and refused Home Treatment Team involvement. She continued to say that the medication wasn’t working. Her discharge was delayed until the following day.
vii.) On the 28th March 2018 she agreed to work with the Home Treatment Team because she was reassured that she could have a medical review in the community.
viii.) She was then seen in a ward round and her diagnosis was erroneously changed to probable mild depression with emotionally unstable personality disorder traits.
ix.) The discharge plan was for her to be housed at the expense of the Unit for 7 days at a Travel Lodge. There was no certainty at that stage that she would be eligible for housing after that date. The plan was that she was to attend the housing authority as homeless at the end of that period. She was discharged on that basis.
x.) No risk assessment was recorded on the 22nd March 2018 or the 28th March 2018 after the medical reviews and no formal risk assessments were undertaken.
xi.) Mary was under the care of the Home Treatment Team from the 28th March 2018 to the 24th April 2018. On the 30th March 2018 she stopped taking medication and expressed suicidal ideation. Her case was discussed at the multidisciplinary team meetings on the 3rd April 2018 and the 17th April 2018 which include junior doctors. It was unclear which consultant psychiatrist was responsible for her care at that time.
xii.) Despite a request by one of the junior doctors to change her medication on the 17th April 2018 this was refused by one of the psychiatrists at the Abraham Cowley Unit. Mary was not medically reviewed prior to this decision being taken.
xiii.) Payment for the Travel Lodge was extended until the 7th April 2021.
It was still unclear at that stage if she was eligible for housing so she returned to her sister’s home until the matter was resolved.
xiv.) Mary was found eligible for housing and given temporary housing out of area in Feltham on the 19th April 2020. The Home Treatment Team discharged her to the community team on the 24th April 2018. There was no discharge planning meeting with the care co-ordinator. The Care Programme Approach was not followed.
xv.) Mary was seen on the 24th April 2018 by her care co-ordinator, he took an emergency supply of her medication with him. She sought a medical review and it was requested by the care coordinator on the 1st May 2018.
xvi.) Mary was not seen for a medical review prior to her death on the 26th May 2018. She did not organise or collect a repeat prescription of her medication from the general practitioner in Surrey so would have been without medication prior to her death. Her care coordinator did not see her for 35 days before she died.
xvii.) On the 26th May 2018 she stepped out in front on an oncoming train at Weybridge Station and died from the catastrophic injuries she sustained.
Inquest Conclusion
Mary Gwanyama was admitted to the Abraham Cowley Unit as an informal patient on the 24th February 2018. She was suffering from severe depression. She was prematurely discharged on the 28th March 2018 to the home treatment team without a formal or adequate risk assessment having been undertaken, before it had been possible to assess whether her prescribed medications were effective and having been misdiagnosed immediately prior to discharge. She was not subject to medical review thereafter. On the 24th April 2018 she was discharged to the community mental health team. She was housed out of area in temporary accommodation which made it difficult for her to be visited by her care co-ordinator who did not see her in the 35 days prior to her death. On the 26th May 2018 she stepped down into the path of an oncoming train at Weybridge Station and was killed on impact. She intended to take her own life. Her death was therefore a result of suicide.
I adjourned consideration of whether to write a report for the prevention of future deaths for further evidence to be provided by the 24th March 2021.
I adjourned consideration of whether to write a report for the prevention of future deaths for further evidence to be provided by the 24th March 2021.
Similar PFD Reports
Reports sharing organisations, categories, or themes
Related Inquiry Recommendations
Public inquiry recommendations addressing similar themes
Prevent discharge of hospitalised children with concerns until home is safe
Laming Inquiry
Care and discharge planning
Require consultant or paediatrician permission for discharging children with protection concerns.
Laming Inquiry
Care and discharge planning
Require documented future care plan for discharging children with protection concerns.
Laming Inquiry
Care and discharge planning
Ensure identified GP for children with deliberate harm concerns discharged from hospital.
Laming Inquiry
Care and discharge planning
Establish comprehensive counselling and support services as integral to patient care
Bristol Heart Inquiry
Care and discharge planning
Require every trust to provide a professional bereavement service and online information
Bristol Heart Inquiry
Care and discharge planning
Data sourced from Courts and Tribunals Judiciary under the Open Government Licence.