Jamie Elliott
PFD Report
All Responded
Ref: 2017-0135
All 1 response received
· Deadline: 4 Sep 2017
Coroner's Concerns (AI summary)
Mental health clinicians failed to contact external providers when patients received treatment elsewhere. There was also a lack of timely, face-to-face consultant psychiatric assessments for patients with worsening conditions, despite identified concerns.
View full coroner's concerns
Evidence was given by the Trust that a Serious Incident Review had identified areas of concern but no changes had been implemented and it was not clear when any of the suggested changes would actually be made. My concerns are:
1. Mental health clinicians from the Trust should be required to contact external providers of mental health services, if possible, when a patient is receiving treatment elsewhere, particularly when consideration is being given to compulsorily detain that individual. They should not simply take the patient’s account at face value.
2. There should be a psychiatric assessment, by a Consultant Psychiatrist in circumstances where there is a referral to the Home Treatment Team where a patient’s condition has worsened. Ideally this should be within 48 hours and should be a face to face psychiatric assessment.
1. Mental health clinicians from the Trust should be required to contact external providers of mental health services, if possible, when a patient is receiving treatment elsewhere, particularly when consideration is being given to compulsorily detain that individual. They should not simply take the patient’s account at face value.
2. There should be a psychiatric assessment, by a Consultant Psychiatrist in circumstances where there is a referral to the Home Treatment Team where a patient’s condition has worsened. Ideally this should be within 48 hours and should be a face to face psychiatric assessment.
Responses
Action Taken
The Trust distributed a memo to clinical staff in City and Hackney regarding contact with external providers. A policy has been updated to include referrals to the Home Treatment team where patients haven't been seen within 48 hours of referral, needing prioritization and potential consultant review. (AI summary)
The Trust distributed a memo to clinical staff in City and Hackney regarding contact with external providers. A policy has been updated to include referrals to the Home Treatment team where patients haven't been seen within 48 hours of referral, needing prioritization and potential consultant review. (AI summary)
View full response
Dear relating the from being They has face face Issues the has City issue.
Iforallyisthise is due to be discussed at the where from Incidents is Lessons Forum in representative members of presented and spread to teams_ 'borough team for furtner dissemination to In relation to face to Operational haacbeesygpiadred38 inciudents bylhe Home Treatment team the include the Referrals who have not been seen 48 hrs Of referral should be by a thealth/social care professional within Siche consueanl ebychdabreshigorigheede by whoever accepts the referral to prioritise review. (he team or the team manager in order one to reeeeraaisilvbo have not been seen by a health eeferaenGl be seen by # docioecoutinaly care professional prior to erergency medical review is reqoirede 'within 2 maximum 0f 72 hours lf thls will be provided by the on call outside of normal then psychiatry service. that the above information seriously and that your concatiog havereevou that the Trust has taken these have been addressed. If you require further information please do not hesitate to contact me.
Iforallyisthise is due to be discussed at the where from Incidents is Lessons Forum in representative members of presented and spread to teams_ 'borough team for furtner dissemination to In relation to face to Operational haacbeesygpiadred38 inciudents bylhe Home Treatment team the include the Referrals who have not been seen 48 hrs Of referral should be by a thealth/social care professional within Siche consueanl ebychdabreshigorigheede by whoever accepts the referral to prioritise review. (he team or the team manager in order one to reeeeraaisilvbo have not been seen by a health eeferaenGl be seen by # docioecoutinaly care professional prior to erergency medical review is reqoirede 'within 2 maximum 0f 72 hours lf thls will be provided by the on call outside of normal then psychiatry service. that the above information seriously and that your concatiog havereevou that the Trust has taken these have been addressed. If you require further information please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sent To
- East London NHS Foundation Trust
Response Status
Linked responses
1 of 1
56-Day Deadline
4 Sep 2017
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 23rd November 2016 I began an investigation into the death of Jamie Neil Elliott who died aged 52 on the 18th November 2016 at his home address at .
The investigation concluded at the end of the inquest into his death on 21st April 2016 which was conducted by myself.
I made a determination at inquest that the deceased died as a result of hanging on the 18th November 2016 with a conclusion of suicide.
The investigation concluded at the end of the inquest into his death on 21st April 2016 which was conducted by myself.
I made a determination at inquest that the deceased died as a result of hanging on the 18th November 2016 with a conclusion of suicide.
Circumstances of the Death
On the 10th August 2016 Jamie Elliott referred himself to the Trust presenting with thoughts of suicide.
Between that date and the 18th November 2016, he was seen by the Home Treatment Team on numerous occasions and was assessed by a Consultant Psychiatrist from the Trust on the 20th October 2016 with further contact with that clinician on the 27th October and 10th November 2016.
Jamie also called the Trust Crisis Team frequently in the 3 months prior to death.
I found that during this 3 month period, Jamie expressed clear, detailed and escalating suicidal ideations such that he was offered voluntary in-patient admission on the 10th, 13th and 15th November, 2016 but he declined this.
Consideration was given to compulsorily detaining him however, clinicians from the Trust were fortified by the fact that Jamie appeared to be receiving private therapy, 3 times a week, from a therapist elsewhere and therefore the fact he was taking some medication and receiving this treatment were factors which weighed in the balance against compulsorily detaining him.
In fact, no contact was made between clinicians from the Trust and that private therapist to: (i) verify that treatment (ii) ascertain how Jamie was responding to therapy and (iii) identify whether he was also expressing suicidal ideation to that individual.
Had such contact been made clinicians from the Trust would have been in a better position to consider whether to compulsorily detain Jamie and the outcome in Jamie’s case may have been different.
It was also clear that clinicians from the Home Treatment Team assumed that the contact between Jamie and the Consultant Psychiatrist on the 10th November, 2016 was a face to face psychiatric assessment when this had not been the case. His condition had clearly deteriorated by this time and he was not given a psychiatric assessment on the 10th November or after this date.
Between that date and the 18th November 2016, he was seen by the Home Treatment Team on numerous occasions and was assessed by a Consultant Psychiatrist from the Trust on the 20th October 2016 with further contact with that clinician on the 27th October and 10th November 2016.
Jamie also called the Trust Crisis Team frequently in the 3 months prior to death.
I found that during this 3 month period, Jamie expressed clear, detailed and escalating suicidal ideations such that he was offered voluntary in-patient admission on the 10th, 13th and 15th November, 2016 but he declined this.
Consideration was given to compulsorily detaining him however, clinicians from the Trust were fortified by the fact that Jamie appeared to be receiving private therapy, 3 times a week, from a therapist elsewhere and therefore the fact he was taking some medication and receiving this treatment were factors which weighed in the balance against compulsorily detaining him.
In fact, no contact was made between clinicians from the Trust and that private therapist to: (i) verify that treatment (ii) ascertain how Jamie was responding to therapy and (iii) identify whether he was also expressing suicidal ideation to that individual.
Had such contact been made clinicians from the Trust would have been in a better position to consider whether to compulsorily detain Jamie and the outcome in Jamie’s case may have been different.
It was also clear that clinicians from the Home Treatment Team assumed that the contact between Jamie and the Consultant Psychiatrist on the 10th November, 2016 was a face to face psychiatric assessment when this had not been the case. His condition had clearly deteriorated by this time and he was not given a psychiatric assessment on the 10th November or after this date.
Similar PFD Reports
Reports sharing organisations, categories, or themes
Related Inquiry Recommendations
Public inquiry recommendations addressing similar themes
Responsibility for monitoring delivery of standards and quality
Mid Staffs Inquiry
GP oversight of specialist care
Data sourced from Courts and Tribunals Judiciary under the Open Government Licence.