May Miller
PFD Report
All Responded
Ref: 2020-0201
All 2 responses received
· Deadline: 3 Dec 2020
Coroner's Concerns (AI summary)
Data sharing and confidentiality rules prevented GPs from disclosing crucial risk factor information to care homes without consent, hindering safeguarding due to a lack of inter-agency sharing.
View full coroner's concerns
The MATTERS OF CONCERN as follows:-
In light of the data sharing and confidentiality requirements under GDPR, the GP was unable to disclose full information to the Limes or to Beech House about any previous conduct or assessments of . At no time was the family of Mr asked to sign a letter giving consent to disclosure to other agencies before or after the residency. It was not known whether the GP could have been the central point of contact for all investigative agencies and the Care Homes.
It was established during the evidence that multiple investigative agencies may have been aware of Mr s risk factors but that due to his not having been admitted to Beech House from a registered facility, that information sharing was not possible.
Had there been in place a system for sharing safeguarding information with the Limes and Beech House, there may have been an opportunity to safeguard May Miller.
In light of the data sharing and confidentiality requirements under GDPR, the GP was unable to disclose full information to the Limes or to Beech House about any previous conduct or assessments of . At no time was the family of Mr asked to sign a letter giving consent to disclosure to other agencies before or after the residency. It was not known whether the GP could have been the central point of contact for all investigative agencies and the Care Homes.
It was established during the evidence that multiple investigative agencies may have been aware of Mr s risk factors but that due to his not having been admitted to Beech House from a registered facility, that information sharing was not possible.
Had there been in place a system for sharing safeguarding information with the Limes and Beech House, there may have been an opportunity to safeguard May Miller.
Responses
Action Planned
The Limes will contact receiving care homes to share information when a resident is considering a move. They will also invite local Social Services and GP practice to coffee mornings to build a working relationship. (AI summary)
The Limes will contact receiving care homes to share information when a resident is considering a move. They will also invite local Social Services and GP practice to coffee mornings to build a working relationship. (AI summary)
View full response
Dear Julie.
The Limes comprises 30 properties owned on a leasehold basis. The owners of the properties are encouraged to live independently and previously any concern the warden may have had on a resident has been passed on to their families who it has been expected would discuss their relatives needs with professional agencies, care homes etc. We believed this to have happened in this case.
We employ a warden who lives on site but her role is limited to that of a good neighbour. The warden would normally visit each resident once a week. If required this is increased but we are not a care home and any daily care needs would need to be arranged by the wider family.
Prospective residents are interviewed by the warden and the manager. A letter of suitability is always obtained from the G.P. but they seemed to be bound by confidentiality and the information is received is very limited.
We have always taken the view that it’s up to the care home to consider the suitability of a resident? and undertake an assessment prior to admission. On admission I would have expected given their lack of information that an assessment would have started straightaway. Had we been approached by Beach House we would have shared what knowledge we had.
In light of the above case and on reflection the following changes will be made to our working practice. The residents will be informed of the changes to our policy immediately by letter and our handbook will also be amended to reflect the changes.
On hearing that a resident is considering a move into residential care, contact will be made immediately with the receiving care home and all information will be shared. This would initially be by phone (warden) and would always be followed up in writing (manager)
I will also be writing to our local Social Services and G.P. practice and invite them to a coffee morning with the intention of building up a working relationship. Initially I would like to see this happen twice yearly. I would hope that from this clearer communication was possible and advice and support forthcoming when requested.
Company Secretary and Manager
The Limes Residents Association Limited: Company registration number: 2682550. Registered in England. Registered Office: The Garden Room, ‘The Limes’, 41 London Road, Halesworth, Suffolk IP19 8LT
The Limes comprises 30 properties owned on a leasehold basis. The owners of the properties are encouraged to live independently and previously any concern the warden may have had on a resident has been passed on to their families who it has been expected would discuss their relatives needs with professional agencies, care homes etc. We believed this to have happened in this case.
We employ a warden who lives on site but her role is limited to that of a good neighbour. The warden would normally visit each resident once a week. If required this is increased but we are not a care home and any daily care needs would need to be arranged by the wider family.
Prospective residents are interviewed by the warden and the manager. A letter of suitability is always obtained from the G.P. but they seemed to be bound by confidentiality and the information is received is very limited.
We have always taken the view that it’s up to the care home to consider the suitability of a resident? and undertake an assessment prior to admission. On admission I would have expected given their lack of information that an assessment would have started straightaway. Had we been approached by Beach House we would have shared what knowledge we had.
In light of the above case and on reflection the following changes will be made to our working practice. The residents will be informed of the changes to our policy immediately by letter and our handbook will also be amended to reflect the changes.
On hearing that a resident is considering a move into residential care, contact will be made immediately with the receiving care home and all information will be shared. This would initially be by phone (warden) and would always be followed up in writing (manager)
I will also be writing to our local Social Services and G.P. practice and invite them to a coffee morning with the intention of building up a working relationship. Initially I would like to see this happen twice yearly. I would hope that from this clearer communication was possible and advice and support forthcoming when requested.
Company Secretary and Manager
The Limes Residents Association Limited: Company registration number: 2682550. Registered in England. Registered Office: The Garden Room, ‘The Limes’, 41 London Road, Halesworth, Suffolk IP19 8LT
Action Planned
Suffolk County Council is undertaking a Safeguarding Adults Review, with themed learning points to be defined. The review is expected to be completed by mid-December 2020, with full sign off by the SAB in February 2021. (AI summary)
Suffolk County Council is undertaking a Safeguarding Adults Review, with themed learning points to be defined. The review is expected to be completed by mid-December 2020, with full sign off by the SAB in February 2021. (AI summary)
View full response
May Miller - REGULATION 28 REPORT TO PREVENT FUTURE DEATHS
This report has been prepared by , Head of Safeguarding Adults, Suffolk County Council and Chair of the Safeguarding Adult Review Panel on behalf of , Executive Director People Services, Suffolk County Council
The preparation of the report included discussion with , author of the witness statement offered to the inquest hearing and , Professional Advisor to the Safeguarding Partnership and lead professional for the May Miller Safeguarding Adults Review.
1. Matters of Concern: Coroner findings. In light of the data sharing and confidentiality requirements under GDPR, the GP was unable to disclose full information to the Limes or to Beech House about any previous conduct or assessments of .
At no time was the family of Mr asked to sign a letter giving consent to disclosure to other agencies before or after the residency.
It was not known whether the GP could have been the central point of contact for all investigative agencies and the Care Homes.
It was established during the evidence that multiple investigative agencies may have been aware of Mr ’s risk factors but that due to his not having been admitted to Beech House from a registered facility, that information sharing was not possible.
Had there been in place a system for sharing safeguarding information with the Limes and Beech House, there may have been an opportunity to safeguard May Miller.
2. Decision to undertake a Safeguarding Adults Review The purpose of a SAR is described in the statutory guidance as to ‘promote effective learning and improvement action to prevent future deaths or serious harm occurring again’. The aim is that lessons can be learned from the case and for those lessons to be applied to future cases to prevent similar harm re-occurring. Further information regarding SARs can be found
reviews/
On 30 June 2020, the Safeguarding Adult Review Panel (SARP) received a referral for consideration for a Safeguarding Adults Review. Thereafter discussion was held with the deceased’s family with regards to the proposal to undertake a Safeguarding Adult Review and its intended purpose.
On 14 October 2020, the agreed to proceed as a full SAR Review in Rapid Time.
The Review in Rapid Time is a pilot project delivered by the Social Care Institute for Excellence, with Local Authorities participating voluntarily. COVID-19 has created a new urgency to identifying and sharing learning from certain cases, and this project looks to align the timescales of completing adults’ reviews in the same way as serious safeguarding incidents involving children (15 working days)
As part of Department of Health and Social Care’s COVID-19 Action Plan for Social Care, SCIE has worked with Safeguarding Adults Boards to develop and test a new model for conducting SARs In Rapid Time.
3. Terms of reference: Themed learning points to be included in the SAR The Review Group set up meeting with relevant leads will be held on 19 November 2020, where the key themes for the SAR will be defined. However, from the safeguarding investigation report undertaken by Adult and Community Services, it is thought that the key themes will be as follows:
a) Assessment and admission of customers to care settings who are self-funding. To identify barriers to robust information sharing across partner agencies with regards to safeguarding concerns and wider risk factors. This is to include any barriers to information sharing between housing providers and care providers in the placement of an adult who may pose a risk to others. b) Responses to older people with dementia who have high additional needs in a crisis situation, and appropriate placements of those people c) Availability of hospital and community beds for older people with dementia who have mental health needs d) Who should undertake mental health act assessments under the Mental Health Act 1983, when they should undertake them, and when particular agencies should/can request them.
4. Timeframe It is anticipated that the review will be completed by mid-December 2020, after which it will be presented to the SARP for further critique and development of the action plan. Full sign off will be undertaken by the SAB in February 2021 Any urgent matters arising from the review and action plan will be addressed with relevant senior leaders before February.
This report has been prepared by , Head of Safeguarding Adults, Suffolk County Council and Chair of the Safeguarding Adult Review Panel on behalf of , Executive Director People Services, Suffolk County Council
The preparation of the report included discussion with , author of the witness statement offered to the inquest hearing and , Professional Advisor to the Safeguarding Partnership and lead professional for the May Miller Safeguarding Adults Review.
1. Matters of Concern: Coroner findings. In light of the data sharing and confidentiality requirements under GDPR, the GP was unable to disclose full information to the Limes or to Beech House about any previous conduct or assessments of .
At no time was the family of Mr asked to sign a letter giving consent to disclosure to other agencies before or after the residency.
It was not known whether the GP could have been the central point of contact for all investigative agencies and the Care Homes.
It was established during the evidence that multiple investigative agencies may have been aware of Mr ’s risk factors but that due to his not having been admitted to Beech House from a registered facility, that information sharing was not possible.
Had there been in place a system for sharing safeguarding information with the Limes and Beech House, there may have been an opportunity to safeguard May Miller.
2. Decision to undertake a Safeguarding Adults Review The purpose of a SAR is described in the statutory guidance as to ‘promote effective learning and improvement action to prevent future deaths or serious harm occurring again’. The aim is that lessons can be learned from the case and for those lessons to be applied to future cases to prevent similar harm re-occurring. Further information regarding SARs can be found
reviews/
On 30 June 2020, the Safeguarding Adult Review Panel (SARP) received a referral for consideration for a Safeguarding Adults Review. Thereafter discussion was held with the deceased’s family with regards to the proposal to undertake a Safeguarding Adult Review and its intended purpose.
On 14 October 2020, the agreed to proceed as a full SAR Review in Rapid Time.
The Review in Rapid Time is a pilot project delivered by the Social Care Institute for Excellence, with Local Authorities participating voluntarily. COVID-19 has created a new urgency to identifying and sharing learning from certain cases, and this project looks to align the timescales of completing adults’ reviews in the same way as serious safeguarding incidents involving children (15 working days)
As part of Department of Health and Social Care’s COVID-19 Action Plan for Social Care, SCIE has worked with Safeguarding Adults Boards to develop and test a new model for conducting SARs In Rapid Time.
3. Terms of reference: Themed learning points to be included in the SAR The Review Group set up meeting with relevant leads will be held on 19 November 2020, where the key themes for the SAR will be defined. However, from the safeguarding investigation report undertaken by Adult and Community Services, it is thought that the key themes will be as follows:
a) Assessment and admission of customers to care settings who are self-funding. To identify barriers to robust information sharing across partner agencies with regards to safeguarding concerns and wider risk factors. This is to include any barriers to information sharing between housing providers and care providers in the placement of an adult who may pose a risk to others. b) Responses to older people with dementia who have high additional needs in a crisis situation, and appropriate placements of those people c) Availability of hospital and community beds for older people with dementia who have mental health needs d) Who should undertake mental health act assessments under the Mental Health Act 1983, when they should undertake them, and when particular agencies should/can request them.
4. Timeframe It is anticipated that the review will be completed by mid-December 2020, after which it will be presented to the SARP for further critique and development of the action plan. Full sign off will be undertaken by the SAB in February 2021 Any urgent matters arising from the review and action plan will be addressed with relevant senior leaders before February.
Sent To
- Suffolk Safeguarding Partnership
- Limes Sheltered Housing
Response Status
Linked responses
2 of 2
56-Day Deadline
3 Dec 2020
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
On 26 June 2020 I commenced an investigation into the death of 95 year old May Adalaid Miller.
The investigation concluded at the end of the inquest on 7 October 2020. The conclusion of the inquest was that;
May Miller died from natural causes precipitated by a violent assault on 9 February 2020, as she slept at her residential care home.
The investigation concluded at the end of the inquest on 7 October 2020. The conclusion of the inquest was that;
May Miller died from natural causes precipitated by a violent assault on 9 February 2020, as she slept at her residential care home.
Circumstances of the Death
This was a very sad death indeed. May Miller, although frail by virtue of her age, was well and happy when she became a resident of Beech House Residential Care Home on 4 February 2020. Whilst in her room asleep on 9 February, 5 days after she arrived at the home, she was attacked by another resident, , aged 89, with his walking stick. He beat around her head and face. There were defensive injuries to her arms and legs. The Beech House staff heard her screams and attended immediately. Another resident also raised the alarm by pressing the alarm in her own room opposite.
On arrival of the carers, Mr was standing in the corridor, unable to recall what had happened. It was thought that he was suffering from dementia with periods of lucidity and other periods of hallucination. There had been no assessment.
A Warden from the Limes gave evidence that Mr had resided at their independent living facility (in a property he purchased) between 16 June 2019 and 4 February 2020 before moving to Beech House. Upon initial assessment the Warden found him belligerent and aggressive and felt there was something not quite right. There was no formal procedure for vetting or assessment except the request for a GP report. Nonetheless, the Limes accepted his application for residency when it went to a committee for consideration. His behaviour deteriorated and appeared to be aggressive and sexually motivated, causing the Warden to feel unsafe. She subsequently stopped visiting him alone, and later, not at all.
Mr ’s daughter gave evidence that her father had had a social worker but had declined a mental health assessment. He had episodes or paranoia but there had been no signs of physical aggression or violence. Prior to approaching Beech House she had applied to Holmwood, Bungay who had refused to accept him due to his declining condition. Beech House’s evidence was that they had not been made aware of this information, and could not request information from any professional sources since he was arriving from an unregistered facility.
On arrival of the carers, Mr was standing in the corridor, unable to recall what had happened. It was thought that he was suffering from dementia with periods of lucidity and other periods of hallucination. There had been no assessment.
A Warden from the Limes gave evidence that Mr had resided at their independent living facility (in a property he purchased) between 16 June 2019 and 4 February 2020 before moving to Beech House. Upon initial assessment the Warden found him belligerent and aggressive and felt there was something not quite right. There was no formal procedure for vetting or assessment except the request for a GP report. Nonetheless, the Limes accepted his application for residency when it went to a committee for consideration. His behaviour deteriorated and appeared to be aggressive and sexually motivated, causing the Warden to feel unsafe. She subsequently stopped visiting him alone, and later, not at all.
Mr ’s daughter gave evidence that her father had had a social worker but had declined a mental health assessment. He had episodes or paranoia but there had been no signs of physical aggression or violence. Prior to approaching Beech House she had applied to Holmwood, Bungay who had refused to accept him due to his declining condition. Beech House’s evidence was that they had not been made aware of this information, and could not request information from any professional sources since he was arriving from an unregistered facility.
Copies Sent To
2) , Warden at the Limes
4) CQC
Similar PFD Reports
Reports sharing organisations, categories, or themes
Related Inquiry Recommendations
Public inquiry recommendations addressing similar themes
Sharing information about closed Prevent referrals
Southport Inquiry
Inter-agency benefit data sharing
Issue guidance on data protection and confidentiality for child welfare information sharing
Laming Inquiry
Inter-agency benefit data sharing
Data sourced from Courts and Tribunals Judiciary under the Open Government Licence.