Jack Susianta

PFD Report Historic (No Identified Response) Ref: 2016-0176
Date of Report 6 May 2016
Coroner Mary Hassell
Response Deadline est. 1 July 2016
Coroner's Concerns (AI summary)
Critical information about Jack's expected recovery, symptom recurrence, and urgent help protocols was not communicated to his family, preventing them from seeking timely hospital readmission.
View full coroner's concerns
The consultant psychiatrist who assessed Jack on the morning of Tuesday, 28 July, fully expected him to continue to improve. Whilst she was concerned that he might take drugs again, she thought that he had recovered from this psychotic episode.

However, she did not communicate to his family:

- first and foremost, the fact that she expected him now to be free from all psychotic symptoms;
- second, that any recurrence of these symptoms would be a cause for significant concern and potentially immediate action;
- thirdly, in exactly what circumstances professional help should be sought on an urgent basis and how to go about this.

Jack’s family were very worried indeed about his condition. However, because they had not been given the clinical expectation, they did not know that they could/should take him back to hospital, even though he had been discharged only hours before.

By the time they rang police that afternoon, Jack was on the point of leaving the house. However, they had felt something was wrong from the evening before. His brother had even trawled the internet looking for appropriate advice.
Sent To
  • East London NHS Foundation Trust
Response Status
Linked responses 0 of 1
56-Day Deadline 1 Jul 2016
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 3 August 2015, one of my assistant coroners, William Dolman, commenced an investigation into the death of Jack Susianta, aged 17 years. The investigation concluded at the end of the inquest on 29 April 2016. At inquest, the jury made a determination that death arose as a result of a drug related accident.
Circumstances of the Death
Jack was a 17 year old boy who suffered a drug related psychotic episode after having taken cannabis and ecstasy at a music festival. He was detained by police under s136 of the Mental Health Act and taken to Homerton University Hospital at around 3am on Tuesday, 28 July 2015. Following assessment, he was diagnosed as having suffered a substance related psychosis, and was discharged soon after 7am with a plan for follow up.

However, after discharge Jack’s condition deteriorated. His family recognised this, but did not know how best to help him, other than to stay close and offer love & support.

The following afternoon, Wednesday, 29 July, his family called police again but, during the call, he left the family home by jumping through a window. Police attended and he was deemed a high risk missing person. During a line search, police officers saw him running towards a river. One gave chase and nearly caught him, but Jack dodged and then jumped in the river. He submerged and drowned.
Copies Sent To
Homerton University Hospital NHS Trust Hackney Child Death Overview Panel
Related Inquiry Recommendations

Public inquiry recommendations addressing similar themes

Candour about harm
Mid Staffs Inquiry
Emergency family notification Duty of Candour implementation
Protocol for duty to assist referrals
Cranston Inquiry
Duty of Candour implementation
Duty of Candour - Northern Ireland
Infected Blood Inquiry
Duty of Candour implementation
Duty of Candour - Scotland and Wales Review
Infected Blood Inquiry
Duty of Candour implementation
Duty of Candour - England Review
Infected Blood Inquiry
Duty of Candour implementation
Individual Duty of Candour for Leaders
Infected Blood Inquiry
Duty of Candour implementation
Leadership Accountability for Safety
Infected Blood Inquiry
Duty of Candour implementation
Organisational Culture Change
Infected Blood Inquiry
Duty of Candour implementation
Civil Service Statutory Duty of Candour
Infected Blood Inquiry
Duty of Candour implementation
Monitoring Non-Statutory Duties
Infected Blood Inquiry
Duty of Candour implementation

Data sourced from Courts and Tribunals Judiciary under the Open Government Licence.