Christopher Ajayi
PFD Report
All Responded
Ref: 2014-0558-wp26761
Community health care and emergency services related deaths
Hospital Death (Clinical Procedures and medical management) related deaths
All 1 response received
· Deadline: 26 Dec 2014
Coroner's Concerns (AI summary)
A vulnerable patient with complex mental and physical health needs was discharged into unsupported accommodation without a care package or necessary medical oversight, highlighting severe failures in discharge planning and care coordination.
View full coroner's concerns
During Ihe course of the Inquest the evidence revealed malters givlng rlse to concern: In my opinion there is a risk thal future deaths will occur unless action Is taken: In the circumstances It Is my statutory duly to report to you; , Mr Ajayi was aged 45 when he died, He had a long history of mental illness and a forensic history_ He suffered wilh severe mental illness with a diagnosls of paranoid schlzophrenia in 1989 which was amended to schizo-affeclive disorder In 2002_ He was a wanderer and also not always compliant wilh medication He was slngle and had lilile or no contact with his family in the time leading up to hls death: In the last hospltal admission before his death he was diagnosed wilh HONK Hyperosmolar non-Ketotic coma: This means hls blood sugar was high. He now required Insulin to control his diabetes and he was, when discharged, to administer this to himself twice a On the 9hh August 2012 (hare was a discharge planning meeting at the Maudsley (his last hospilal admlssion) Hls Care Coordinator altended, It was known by then; because of his poor history of being non-compllant; (hat he would be being discharged wllh a Communlty Treatment Order In place. His named Care Coordinator does not seem to recall much about this meeting but has acknowledged that he would have been told that Mr Ajayi was now insulin dependent, From thereon; It appears that nolhing of value was done in relation to Mr Ajayi's discharge planning: He Was eventually discharged, wrongly, into unsupported accommodatlon with no care package, where no GP was caring for and no Diabetic nurse aware of his discharge Whilst his named Care Coordinator was on leave his colleague, another Care Coordinator; equally did not ensure everythlng was in place Both argued that as Mr Ajayi was placed by Southwark Councll; afler discharge, into accommodatlon out of the borough, Ihat milllaled, practically; In relation to them visiting post discharge: No one gross would day: him was t0 visit him_ To use the words that Counsel for the family used; (his group of staff (Care Coordinators) carry an enormous responsibilily The job must be carried out wilh great diligence and care Slaff must be of the right calibre, and have Ihe right training, and support; to carry out (heir tasks well The evidence revealed that these members of slaff have a high degree of delegation imposed upon Ihem are deallng with probably the most vulnerable people in society. It cannot be uncommon for a mentally unwell person to be discharged from hospital whilst sulferlng irom a physical condition. One Impinges on the other When that person is required to administer Ilfe-savilng trealment t0 themselves Therefore; they particularly vulnerable. acknowledge that pationts such as Mr Ajayi; who frequently dlsengage with treatment; can only have thelr risk of harmldeath reduced, eliminated However; (his case hlghlighted so very many missed opporlunllies, malnly wlthln (he department of Care Coordinators, have heard some evidence about resources impinging upon matters Certainly, in (his case, Ihe accommodation whlch would be available tor &n Individual such a8 Mr Ajayl (who was on the Sexual Offender's list as well as having (he problems clled above), Is, and was, limlted. However; thls report Is not concernlng that issue It concerns (ha abillty of Ihis group of slaff to carry out their jobs ensuring the lowest posslble risk to thelr users as can be achleved If necessary; Mr Ajayi should have (as would have been likely), stayed in hospilal unlil the right discharge arrangement was in place (supported accommodation or unsupported wlth an intensive package of care) caring element of the Care Coordinator role was missing: am assured that the team (hat was responsible for Mr Ajayi's communily care have developed a more structured multi-dlsciplinary approach including monitoring of 7 day follow up and am told Is robustly monitored in respect of compllance with the seven follow up), and the Identlficalion of high risk patients such as Mr Ajayi, am further assured Ihat discharge planning is expected to be comprehensively and carefully planned before discherge. Sadly, dld not find this evldence reflected in the Care Coordinators' evidence, have not been shown any audit figures to prove that changes have been checked as in actlon comprehensively, and the evidence was not Impresslve in relation to changes wilhln this partlcular deparlment, No re-Iraining was evldent; Bolh Care Coordinators were experienced and both also knew Mr Ajayi and hls hlstory, albelt not upon his new diagnosis. The evidence as a whole came across as still a servlce deallng wlth extremely vulnerable members of (he publlc, where crucial decisions and follow up Implnge directly on those individual's Well-being, They are not The day acling a8 well as others in (he communily. There appears to have been no root and branch overhaul of the departmant Further; (here was inconslstent evidence as to supervision, whlch In Ilself, would only account for supervisory control over some users of (he service, at that particular time. have concerns (hat the named Care Coordinator told me that his supervision was two weekly, where his manager told me it was monthly: Other than more suporvision; ain strugglng to flnd any othor tangible changes that am sure have been made; to prevent thls group of staff from allowing Ihe same circumstances to occur again;
Responses
Noted
(AI summary)
(AI summary)
View full response
South London and Maudsley NHS] MHS Foundation Trust Inquest touching on the death of Christopher Ajayi: Ms Ormond-Walshe, HM Coroner Southwark Coroner s Court; 1 Tennis Street, London SW1 1YD South London and Maudsley NHS FT response to Preventing Future Death (PFD) report December 2014
Z2nd _
1. Introduction The following statement has been written in response to the Coroner s regulation 28 report to prevent future deaths (dated 30.10.14), which detailed failures identified in CA's care, together with & number of related concerns: These failures related primarily around discharge planning and discharge follow up (9 in total, 6 'gross ) The Coroner judged that on the balance of probabilities one or more of identified gross failures were linked with CA's death by uncontrolled diabetes. The accepts the Coroner's to report (under Section 5, paragraph 7) and this statement seeks to respond to the failures identified, together with addressing the concerns raised_ The Trust had invited the Coroner to write her PFD report specifically to our Trust in order that we may further clarify matters of concern as lead provider for CA'$ integrated health and social care. This response elaborates on witness statement (17.07.14) and oral evidence to the Inquest, given on behalf ofthe Trust: This evidence covered the Trust's expected standards of clinical communication about collaborative discharge care planning around mental and physical health needs, together with all the changes that have taken place in the Trust and the learning that has arisen from this incident_ Although requested as a sole response from the Trust, this response has been discussed with the London Borough of Southwark; as our Local Authority partners in 'delivering integrated health and social care:
2. Inquest Evidence, Summing Up and Conclusions (determination) In considering the failures and concerns raised, the Trust was reassured that the Coroner, in her summing Up, was comforted by the internal Trust Serious Incident (SI) Investigation and action plans, together with the senior level interest and attendance throughout the evidence The Trust is grateful that the Coroner acknowledged that lessons have been learnt through this incident; both internally within the Trust and across interface partnership working: The lessons are taken forward in positive collaborations with our Southwark Clinical Commissioners, together with Acute, Primary and Third sector providers, particularly with regards to supporting patients, like CA, with severe and enduring mental illness and co- morbid physical health problems.
3. Cause of Death The Trust agrees with the Coroner' s verdict that on the balance of probabilities the cause of CA's death was found 1(a) Hyperosmolar Non-Ketotic Coma (HONK), 1(b) Diabetes Mellitis type IIl (Insulin dependent), Schizoaffective disorder.
the Trust duty being very
4. Neglect (rider) The Trust also accepts that the Coroner has reached a Part 4 (Conclusion) conclusion that the death was due to natural causes to which Neglect contributed:
5. Concerns raised in the Regulation 28 report and Trust response
5.1 Discharge Planning and Discharge Follow Up The Trust acknowledges and agrees with the Coroner that in this specific case discharge planning and discharge follow up fell below expected standards: Mental and Physical Health CA was known to have complex mental and physical health needs, with a history of not complying with his treatment As a result; his mental health after care was appropriately discharged under a Community Treatment Order with a condition of remaining adherent with depot antipsychotic medication However it was also established, but not effectively communicated, that his physical health status and treatment had changed significantly before discharge and that an appropriate after care package should have been in place to reflect this_ An appropriate physical health care plan that had been instigated on the in-patient unit was not translated into an effective and robust community physical health care plan covering appropriate support and supervision_ Social Care and Accommodation CA was known by both The Trust and Local Authority providers to have complex social housing needs. An In-Patient ADL assessment identified that CA was able to live and function independently, assuming his mental health was stable However, there was a lack of effective communication and clarification between the care cO- ordinator and in-patient unit and Local Authority Housing providers regarding the exact nature of the support and supervision any post discharge accommodation would require, and as such CA was discharged to unsupported accommodation with no assertive community supervision. Action taken: The breakdown in effective clinical communication and collaborative care planning was noted in the Trust' $ Sl investigation report (together with action plans) and further 'acknowledged and discussed in supporting evidence given at Inquest:
long put
All Trust ad London Borough of Southwark (LBS) staff involved in this specific case gave evidence, learnt lessons and have been de-briefed on the Coroner' $ conclusions All Trust and LBS staff involved have been given reminders about the Trust guidance on effective discharge planning, clinical documentation and physical health which are all pertinent to this case. Prior to the Inquest, the Trust SI Investigators had met with the In-Patient and Community Teams (March 2014) to feedback findings of the investigation Progress has been made from the updated action plans following the Trust internal Sl investigation, resulting in more robust systems and structures being in place between the Southwark in-patient and community teams_ GP registration: this is a National MHMDS quality requirement, monitored for all Trust patients; ordinarily administrative staff within the In-Patient ward concerned are extremely vigilant in checking all patients have a registered GP; these GP checks, including cross reference to the NHS Spine and ensuring GP email enablement are under constant internal monitoring: Pre-discharge meetings: community teams are sent dates for these meetings in advance from the in-patient team (via email) and consider these in daily team planning meetings_ Minimum standards of contact between community and in-patient teams: this currently takes place on average once a week, with improvement noted in overall communication between inpatient, community and other services Discharge proforma (discharge notification): this is now routinely completed and copies sent to community team/team manager on the of discharge (compliance is monitored through ongoing audit): Discharge summaries: the Trust has an expectation that all patients discharged have summary record to their in-patient mental and physical health care, treatments and risks (compliance in monitored through ongoing audit)_- Multidisciplinary team discussions: daily review meetings, 'zoning' systems and more structured weekly clinical team review meetings have been developed ensuring effective team-based case load reviews and to improve oversight and monitoring or individual Care Co-ordinators work: The community team involved have undertaken two specific audits; (a) Team 7 follow-up performance (Oct-Dec 2014) showed no missed reviews; (b) Discharge of two patients with unstable diabetes (Dec 2014) demonstrated extensive communication and forward planning prior to discharge, appropriately involving all partners. 4 of 8 Policy day day Page
Audit processes, addressed in 1:1 supervision as well as monthly Performance meeting with Director for Community services, and Borough Community Service Leads, including (a) 7 follow up, (b) discharge notifications, (c) physical health checks, (d) supervision and appraisal_ Community Treatment Order (CTO) initiation at discharge: the Trust issued policy guidance (Sept 2013) clarifying that the In-Patient Responsible Clinician (RC) undertakes the CTO initiation, together with an Approved Mental Health Practioner (AMHP) from the receiving community team, setting CTO conditions that have previously been discussed with the receiving community RC Trust Board Level feedback: Senior Trust staff have been extensively briefed both in preparation, during and after this Inquest; concerns raised have been acknowledged and taken forward, particularly around the area of planning, instigating and joint working partnership arrangements for patients with severe mental health problems and co-morbid (serious) physical health problems_
5.2 Care Co-Ordinator: Roles and responsibilities Trust acknowledges that the Care Co-ordinators role supporting patients suffering from severe and enduring mental health problems is a challenging and vital role in effective delivery of integrated health and social care Staff are required to be highly qualified (Band 6 grade and above), trained and supported to undertake their duties; all Care Co-ordinators have comprehensive induction to role, including the statutory expectations for both health and social care and additional training is offered, tailored to their specific needs. All care co-ordinators within Trust community teams work within a Multidisciplinary (MDT) setting; 1:1 clinical and performance supervision is provided by the community Team Leader (average monthly; more frequent as required); with the expectation that Care Co-ordinators additionally update other team members on important developments for individual patients at both morning handover meetings, weekly clinical MDT clinical reviews and regular CPA community reviews. Team Leaders within community teams have a Co-Leadership role with the Consultant Psychiatrist in overseeing the clinical care for all patients under the teams care; their role is also to allocate patients to individual Care Co-ordinators, delegating responsibility to closely manage those individuals under the Care Programme Approach (CPA) framework and monitoring this process under 1:1 supervision: All staff employed by the Trust are professionally accountable to the Trust and their Professional regulators; have a responsibility to escalate any concerns through the supervision process and MDT structures and are made aware of this at induction and through the supervision process Actions taken: 5 of 8 day - The the they Page
Trust revised Supervision policy (Sept 2014); this recent policy update which covers Trust and LBS staff; has been sent out to all staff and available on the Trust intranet for reference, sets out clear expectations of staff supervision, recognising effective supervision as an integral aspect of the working lives of all NHS clinical and social work staff to support them to deliver the best care to patients and their carers, provide opportunity to develop as competent parishioners and to develop their skills Trust expectations of Band 6 Mental Health Practitioners and Social Workers are consistently raised through supervision, and regular supervision for all staff is constantly monitored: Staff mandatory annual training is centrally monitored. Performance concerns are managed through regular supervision, increasing the frequency of supervision as required; annual appraisals of competencies, training and support needs are closely monitored for compliance with Trust expectations Individual failings identified in this case are robustly managed under the Trust'$ performance management framework Case load management: Southwark community psychosis teams have active case- loads between 250-300 patients, resulting in average Care Co-ordinator case-loads of 25-30; the Trust continues to work with stakeholders in Primary care and the Third sector to develop capacity within the active case load, aiming ideally to reduce the average Care Co-ordinator case load to facilitate enhanced delivery of evidence based interventions; case loads are monitored on an ongoing basis, both within 1.1 supervision, and across the community as a whole_
5.3 Trust Safety Net beyond supervision The has clear guidance (acknowledged by the Coroner) around standards of clinical communication (verbal/written) between (a) In-patient to Community (handover of secondary care mental health responsibilities), (b) In-patient to Acute (KCH) to ensure effective interface working around Physical Health care, (c) In-patient to Primary Care (GP: Practice & District Nurses} in appropriately transferring for physical health clinical responsibilities and (d) the Trust and Local Authority (under S75 responsibilities) for delivering integrated health and social care. Actions in process: Clinical Commissioning: the Trust is currently involved in discussions with Southwark Clinical Commissioners with respect to changing the emphasis of services commissioned, embedding principles of the Trust Adult Mental Health model (recently introduced in Lambeth and Lewisham boroughs) including teams undertaking more structured clinical reviews and developing robust systems to improve collaborative interface working with in-patient services, crisis services, local
being Trust Policy
authority and the third sector; the Trust expects to hear from the Southwark CCG in early 2015 about their intentions King' $ Health Partners Physical Health developments; the Trust has an appointed Physical Head Lead who is actively engaged in King's Health partnership discussions and developing service level agreements (SLAs) with our Acute and Primary sector partners. ICT harmony: there have been significant developments in increasing mutual access between the Trust and Acute electronic patient record systems, with the development of an ICT 'Portal' to review clinical information; further developments are underway to link these secondary care systems with Primary care ICT (EMIS) systems; this work is further being supported by the Southwark CCG_ MDT Physical Health leads within community MDTs: teams are being encouraged to identify and support individual team staff members to lead on developing support for patients to engage with the assessment, treatment and support around their physical health_ Commissioning intentions (2015/16); appropriately supporting community patients to manage their physical health are being prioritised in the next round of CQUINs; there is a range of collaborative initiatives including consideration of pilots with GPs undertaking outreach clinics in community team bases to increase the numbers of patients receiving appropriate physical health assessments, investigations and interventions Southwark Diabetic services; discussions are underway to scale up the award winning Diabetic Liaison service currently running at KCH to assist patients with severe mental health disorders, with additional training developed for community mental health staff: Community District Nurses: the Trust is working with our partners to ensure District Nurse provision to ensure safe community diabetes management_ Partnership working around social care and support: discussions are currently underway reviewing housing and community support needs for patients to appropriately address physical health care once living independently in the community Additionally, there is a further Serious Case Review underway; managed through the Safeguarding Adult Partnership Board, which will further understand the issues raised by this case and develop our learning:
key being
6. Governance Robust discharge planning and follow up and support to care coordinators are supported by the actions outlined in this report: However, the Trust will undertake an audit in March 2015 to assure itself and partners that implementation has been effective The audit results will be reported and reviewed by the Trust Adult Safeguarding Committee and the London Borough of Southwark's Safeguarding Adults Partnership Board, and with final review and sign off by the Trust Board's Quality Subcommittee:
7. Conclusion This report has set out a range of actions already under taken by the Trust and further action proposed that seeks to address the concerns raised by Coroner' $ conclusions issued in her PFD report_ The Trust acknowledges that important lessons have been learnt from this specific case that are being taken forward in improving integrated working; the Trust is otherwise confident that there is no systemic problems with regard to discharge and community follow up of similar patients with complex mental and physical health problems
22.12.2014 8 of 8 Page
Z2nd _
1. Introduction The following statement has been written in response to the Coroner s regulation 28 report to prevent future deaths (dated 30.10.14), which detailed failures identified in CA's care, together with & number of related concerns: These failures related primarily around discharge planning and discharge follow up (9 in total, 6 'gross ) The Coroner judged that on the balance of probabilities one or more of identified gross failures were linked with CA's death by uncontrolled diabetes. The accepts the Coroner's to report (under Section 5, paragraph 7) and this statement seeks to respond to the failures identified, together with addressing the concerns raised_ The Trust had invited the Coroner to write her PFD report specifically to our Trust in order that we may further clarify matters of concern as lead provider for CA'$ integrated health and social care. This response elaborates on witness statement (17.07.14) and oral evidence to the Inquest, given on behalf ofthe Trust: This evidence covered the Trust's expected standards of clinical communication about collaborative discharge care planning around mental and physical health needs, together with all the changes that have taken place in the Trust and the learning that has arisen from this incident_ Although requested as a sole response from the Trust, this response has been discussed with the London Borough of Southwark; as our Local Authority partners in 'delivering integrated health and social care:
2. Inquest Evidence, Summing Up and Conclusions (determination) In considering the failures and concerns raised, the Trust was reassured that the Coroner, in her summing Up, was comforted by the internal Trust Serious Incident (SI) Investigation and action plans, together with the senior level interest and attendance throughout the evidence The Trust is grateful that the Coroner acknowledged that lessons have been learnt through this incident; both internally within the Trust and across interface partnership working: The lessons are taken forward in positive collaborations with our Southwark Clinical Commissioners, together with Acute, Primary and Third sector providers, particularly with regards to supporting patients, like CA, with severe and enduring mental illness and co- morbid physical health problems.
3. Cause of Death The Trust agrees with the Coroner' s verdict that on the balance of probabilities the cause of CA's death was found 1(a) Hyperosmolar Non-Ketotic Coma (HONK), 1(b) Diabetes Mellitis type IIl (Insulin dependent), Schizoaffective disorder.
the Trust duty being very
4. Neglect (rider) The Trust also accepts that the Coroner has reached a Part 4 (Conclusion) conclusion that the death was due to natural causes to which Neglect contributed:
5. Concerns raised in the Regulation 28 report and Trust response
5.1 Discharge Planning and Discharge Follow Up The Trust acknowledges and agrees with the Coroner that in this specific case discharge planning and discharge follow up fell below expected standards: Mental and Physical Health CA was known to have complex mental and physical health needs, with a history of not complying with his treatment As a result; his mental health after care was appropriately discharged under a Community Treatment Order with a condition of remaining adherent with depot antipsychotic medication However it was also established, but not effectively communicated, that his physical health status and treatment had changed significantly before discharge and that an appropriate after care package should have been in place to reflect this_ An appropriate physical health care plan that had been instigated on the in-patient unit was not translated into an effective and robust community physical health care plan covering appropriate support and supervision_ Social Care and Accommodation CA was known by both The Trust and Local Authority providers to have complex social housing needs. An In-Patient ADL assessment identified that CA was able to live and function independently, assuming his mental health was stable However, there was a lack of effective communication and clarification between the care cO- ordinator and in-patient unit and Local Authority Housing providers regarding the exact nature of the support and supervision any post discharge accommodation would require, and as such CA was discharged to unsupported accommodation with no assertive community supervision. Action taken: The breakdown in effective clinical communication and collaborative care planning was noted in the Trust' $ Sl investigation report (together with action plans) and further 'acknowledged and discussed in supporting evidence given at Inquest:
long put
All Trust ad London Borough of Southwark (LBS) staff involved in this specific case gave evidence, learnt lessons and have been de-briefed on the Coroner' $ conclusions All Trust and LBS staff involved have been given reminders about the Trust guidance on effective discharge planning, clinical documentation and physical health which are all pertinent to this case. Prior to the Inquest, the Trust SI Investigators had met with the In-Patient and Community Teams (March 2014) to feedback findings of the investigation Progress has been made from the updated action plans following the Trust internal Sl investigation, resulting in more robust systems and structures being in place between the Southwark in-patient and community teams_ GP registration: this is a National MHMDS quality requirement, monitored for all Trust patients; ordinarily administrative staff within the In-Patient ward concerned are extremely vigilant in checking all patients have a registered GP; these GP checks, including cross reference to the NHS Spine and ensuring GP email enablement are under constant internal monitoring: Pre-discharge meetings: community teams are sent dates for these meetings in advance from the in-patient team (via email) and consider these in daily team planning meetings_ Minimum standards of contact between community and in-patient teams: this currently takes place on average once a week, with improvement noted in overall communication between inpatient, community and other services Discharge proforma (discharge notification): this is now routinely completed and copies sent to community team/team manager on the of discharge (compliance is monitored through ongoing audit): Discharge summaries: the Trust has an expectation that all patients discharged have summary record to their in-patient mental and physical health care, treatments and risks (compliance in monitored through ongoing audit)_- Multidisciplinary team discussions: daily review meetings, 'zoning' systems and more structured weekly clinical team review meetings have been developed ensuring effective team-based case load reviews and to improve oversight and monitoring or individual Care Co-ordinators work: The community team involved have undertaken two specific audits; (a) Team 7 follow-up performance (Oct-Dec 2014) showed no missed reviews; (b) Discharge of two patients with unstable diabetes (Dec 2014) demonstrated extensive communication and forward planning prior to discharge, appropriately involving all partners. 4 of 8 Policy day day Page
Audit processes, addressed in 1:1 supervision as well as monthly Performance meeting with Director for Community services, and Borough Community Service Leads, including (a) 7 follow up, (b) discharge notifications, (c) physical health checks, (d) supervision and appraisal_ Community Treatment Order (CTO) initiation at discharge: the Trust issued policy guidance (Sept 2013) clarifying that the In-Patient Responsible Clinician (RC) undertakes the CTO initiation, together with an Approved Mental Health Practioner (AMHP) from the receiving community team, setting CTO conditions that have previously been discussed with the receiving community RC Trust Board Level feedback: Senior Trust staff have been extensively briefed both in preparation, during and after this Inquest; concerns raised have been acknowledged and taken forward, particularly around the area of planning, instigating and joint working partnership arrangements for patients with severe mental health problems and co-morbid (serious) physical health problems_
5.2 Care Co-Ordinator: Roles and responsibilities Trust acknowledges that the Care Co-ordinators role supporting patients suffering from severe and enduring mental health problems is a challenging and vital role in effective delivery of integrated health and social care Staff are required to be highly qualified (Band 6 grade and above), trained and supported to undertake their duties; all Care Co-ordinators have comprehensive induction to role, including the statutory expectations for both health and social care and additional training is offered, tailored to their specific needs. All care co-ordinators within Trust community teams work within a Multidisciplinary (MDT) setting; 1:1 clinical and performance supervision is provided by the community Team Leader (average monthly; more frequent as required); with the expectation that Care Co-ordinators additionally update other team members on important developments for individual patients at both morning handover meetings, weekly clinical MDT clinical reviews and regular CPA community reviews. Team Leaders within community teams have a Co-Leadership role with the Consultant Psychiatrist in overseeing the clinical care for all patients under the teams care; their role is also to allocate patients to individual Care Co-ordinators, delegating responsibility to closely manage those individuals under the Care Programme Approach (CPA) framework and monitoring this process under 1:1 supervision: All staff employed by the Trust are professionally accountable to the Trust and their Professional regulators; have a responsibility to escalate any concerns through the supervision process and MDT structures and are made aware of this at induction and through the supervision process Actions taken: 5 of 8 day - The the they Page
Trust revised Supervision policy (Sept 2014); this recent policy update which covers Trust and LBS staff; has been sent out to all staff and available on the Trust intranet for reference, sets out clear expectations of staff supervision, recognising effective supervision as an integral aspect of the working lives of all NHS clinical and social work staff to support them to deliver the best care to patients and their carers, provide opportunity to develop as competent parishioners and to develop their skills Trust expectations of Band 6 Mental Health Practitioners and Social Workers are consistently raised through supervision, and regular supervision for all staff is constantly monitored: Staff mandatory annual training is centrally monitored. Performance concerns are managed through regular supervision, increasing the frequency of supervision as required; annual appraisals of competencies, training and support needs are closely monitored for compliance with Trust expectations Individual failings identified in this case are robustly managed under the Trust'$ performance management framework Case load management: Southwark community psychosis teams have active case- loads between 250-300 patients, resulting in average Care Co-ordinator case-loads of 25-30; the Trust continues to work with stakeholders in Primary care and the Third sector to develop capacity within the active case load, aiming ideally to reduce the average Care Co-ordinator case load to facilitate enhanced delivery of evidence based interventions; case loads are monitored on an ongoing basis, both within 1.1 supervision, and across the community as a whole_
5.3 Trust Safety Net beyond supervision The has clear guidance (acknowledged by the Coroner) around standards of clinical communication (verbal/written) between (a) In-patient to Community (handover of secondary care mental health responsibilities), (b) In-patient to Acute (KCH) to ensure effective interface working around Physical Health care, (c) In-patient to Primary Care (GP: Practice & District Nurses} in appropriately transferring for physical health clinical responsibilities and (d) the Trust and Local Authority (under S75 responsibilities) for delivering integrated health and social care. Actions in process: Clinical Commissioning: the Trust is currently involved in discussions with Southwark Clinical Commissioners with respect to changing the emphasis of services commissioned, embedding principles of the Trust Adult Mental Health model (recently introduced in Lambeth and Lewisham boroughs) including teams undertaking more structured clinical reviews and developing robust systems to improve collaborative interface working with in-patient services, crisis services, local
being Trust Policy
authority and the third sector; the Trust expects to hear from the Southwark CCG in early 2015 about their intentions King' $ Health Partners Physical Health developments; the Trust has an appointed Physical Head Lead who is actively engaged in King's Health partnership discussions and developing service level agreements (SLAs) with our Acute and Primary sector partners. ICT harmony: there have been significant developments in increasing mutual access between the Trust and Acute electronic patient record systems, with the development of an ICT 'Portal' to review clinical information; further developments are underway to link these secondary care systems with Primary care ICT (EMIS) systems; this work is further being supported by the Southwark CCG_ MDT Physical Health leads within community MDTs: teams are being encouraged to identify and support individual team staff members to lead on developing support for patients to engage with the assessment, treatment and support around their physical health_ Commissioning intentions (2015/16); appropriately supporting community patients to manage their physical health are being prioritised in the next round of CQUINs; there is a range of collaborative initiatives including consideration of pilots with GPs undertaking outreach clinics in community team bases to increase the numbers of patients receiving appropriate physical health assessments, investigations and interventions Southwark Diabetic services; discussions are underway to scale up the award winning Diabetic Liaison service currently running at KCH to assist patients with severe mental health disorders, with additional training developed for community mental health staff: Community District Nurses: the Trust is working with our partners to ensure District Nurse provision to ensure safe community diabetes management_ Partnership working around social care and support: discussions are currently underway reviewing housing and community support needs for patients to appropriately address physical health care once living independently in the community Additionally, there is a further Serious Case Review underway; managed through the Safeguarding Adult Partnership Board, which will further understand the issues raised by this case and develop our learning:
key being
6. Governance Robust discharge planning and follow up and support to care coordinators are supported by the actions outlined in this report: However, the Trust will undertake an audit in March 2015 to assure itself and partners that implementation has been effective The audit results will be reported and reviewed by the Trust Adult Safeguarding Committee and the London Borough of Southwark's Safeguarding Adults Partnership Board, and with final review and sign off by the Trust Board's Quality Subcommittee:
7. Conclusion This report has set out a range of actions already under taken by the Trust and further action proposed that seeks to address the concerns raised by Coroner' $ conclusions issued in her PFD report_ The Trust acknowledges that important lessons have been learnt from this specific case that are being taken forward in improving integrated working; the Trust is otherwise confident that there is no systemic problems with regard to discharge and community follow up of similar patients with complex mental and physical health problems
22.12.2014 8 of 8 Page
Sent To
- South London and Maudsley trust
Response Status
Linked responses
1 of 1
56-Day Deadline
26 Dec 2014
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
Coroners Sociely of England and Wales
Circumstances of the Death
The circumstances were recorded a8: dcceased was agod 45 years old, wllh a long history of schizo-affective disorder and, at times, type II Diabetes Mollitis. He had & long hlstory of not complylng with his treatmont, He was admitted to the Maudsley Hospital on 9h May 2012 initlally 8n alias name and lhen under s3 MHA 1983. During thls admission he became severely Ill, wilh HONK (Hyperosmoler non-Kelotic coma), and had & brief spall at King*s College Hospital ITU (4l August 2012) to treat that: This left hlm, for the first insulin dependent, requiring hlm to give hiiself insulin injections twice & day: Upon transfer back to the Maudsley plans were to have him put under a Community Treatment Order; upon dlscharge. He clearly required supported accommodation; especlally in light of his newly dlagnosod insulin dependent dlabotes Mellitis Type II. He was discharged, however, into unsupported housing and no ectlon was taken to check on him bofore he died, This was all despite Ihe fact that he wAs only dispensed with only two weeks' supply of medlcation upon discharge and it must have been known he had missed his depot anti-psychotic injection, his follow up appointments and trlbunal hearing: He was found decomposed In hls unsupported accommodation 0n 17h Soptember 2012, approximately a month after hls discharge, having been seen by no professional or carer durlng thal month. The deceased was & Vulnerable person; and a challonging pationt too. There were many failures in relation to hls care In relation to his discharge planning, and discharge follow up. These include: There was & failure to chock his GP status after it became clear what his The uslng put 77s time, his real name was; There was & failure to appoint a GP to look afler the deceased once he was discharged Into the community: Thls was a gross fallure There was a failure to properly, or adequately prepare for the deceased's discharge e.g. to ensure he returned t0 KCH Ior further educalion 4-5 deys before discharge. There wes & fallure in communicalion In relation t0 ensuring that the deceased"'s psychiatrist who assessed him When flnally discharglng hlm on a CTO, knew of his new diagnosis of HONK. There was a fallure to discharge him into supported accommodation of at least low ~ medium support: Thls was & gross failure_ There was & failuro t send a dlscharge notlfication to & now GP who should have been appointed to care tor the deceased. This was a fallure. There wes & failure to send & dlscharge summary to & GP who should have been appoinled to care for the deceased. Thls was & gross fallure. After his discharge from hospital: There was &a failure to ensure he was checked In relation to taking his insulin and hls psychlatric medicetion; which if appears he had stopped aller & while. This was & gross fallure There was a fallure to arrange a pollce wellare check; or olherwise ensure the deceased was checked 0n, when: (0) He failed to altend his Tribunal meeting In relalion to his CTO on the ward on 34* August 2012. (b) He did not attend his 3d September 2012 base meetlng (0) He missed his depot injection on 10h September 2012 (d) He missod his base appoinlment on 42h Septomber 2012 These were gross fallures, Indlvldually, and cumulatlvely: failing gross
Bul for one or moro of (hoso Tallures; on Ihe balance of probabililies, (he deceased not have died when he did. probably tind that he died of uncontrolled diabetes; linked t0 one or more of (he gross failures,
Bul for one or moro of (hoso Tallures; on Ihe balance of probabililies, (he deceased not have died when he did. probably tind that he died of uncontrolled diabetes; linked t0 one or more of (he gross failures,
Action Should Be Taken
In my opinion action should be taken to prevent fulure deaths and believe that tho Trust has the power to take guch acllon,
Similar PFD Reports
Reports sharing organisations, categories, or themes
Related Inquiry Recommendations
Public inquiry recommendations addressing similar themes
Community mental health services for violence-fixated children
Southport Inquiry
Mental health access for alcohol addiction
Mental health assessment powers for isolated children
Southport Inquiry
Mental health access for alcohol addiction
Independent review of use of force on mentally ill detainees
Brook House Inquiry
Mental health access for alcohol addiction
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
Data sourced from Courts and Tribunals Judiciary under the Open Government Licence.