Joshua Brown

PFD Report Partially Responded Ref: 2014-0289
Date of Report 17 July 2014
Coroner Rebecca Cobb
Coroner Area North East Kent
Response Deadline est. 11 September 2014
Coroner's Concerns (AI summary)
The community health team lacked formal processes for family involvement and information sharing, especially when the patient withheld consent, hindering their ability to support him and verify information accuracy.
View full coroner's concerns
(1) The evidence was that Mr Brown lived with his parents who were therefore his primary support outside the Community Health Team but were not strictly speaking his carers and therefore were not formally able to be involved as such by the Community Team when Mr Brown did not wish information about him to be shared They_ therefore did not receive information that might have alerted May Bay, them to periods when he was particularly vulnerable and when they might have had information that would have been of assistance to the Team in caring for Mr Brown: (2) The evidence also demonstrated that it was not the practice of the Team to show family members what notes had been made by the Team of information shared with them by family members, with the consequence that inaccuracies or misunderstandings may have arisen in some notes and there was no provision for those notes to be signed as accurate by the relevant family members_ (3) The family members were not made aware of ways in which they could obtain through the Kent and Medway NHS Social Care and Partnership Trust (of which the Team was a part) more information about how they might best support Mr Brown and themselves receive support.

(4) In general, the evidence showed limitations on the possibilities for engagement by the with family members and by family members with the Team, particularly when Mr Brown did not wish information about him to be shared and this worked to his disadvantage_ There was, however, evidence of some improvement having already been made by the Trust in this respect. When engagement was possible, the absence of a system whereby a person giving information to the Team would check that that information had been correctly noted and interpreted by the Team posed obvious risks for anyone under the care of the Team_
Responses
Department of Health Central Government
2 Oct 2014
Noted
The Department of Health references existing guidance regarding information sharing with family members and mental capacity assessments in cases of suicide risk, but does not outline any new action being taken. (AI summary)
View full response
From Rt Hon Norman Lamb MP Minister of State for and Support Department Department of Health of Health Richmond House 79 Whitehall London SWIA 2NS Ms R Cobb Senior Coroner 2 OCT 2014 Coroner's Office, Kent County Council St Peters House Dane Valley Road St Peters Broadstairs Kent CT1O 3FD Vas rs Ck&, Thank you for your letter following the inquest into the death of Joshua Brown. In your report you state that Mr Brown took his own life while suffering from depression; the clinical cause of death being from multiple injuries sustained after falling from the top of a cliff_ Mr Brown had a history of self-harm and suicidal thoughts and in 2011 had verbally indicated his intention to take his own life. He had been diagnosed with moderate depression and maladaptive personality traits and was in the care of the Community Health Team (CHT): was to read of Mr Brown's death and wish to extend my sincere sympathies to his family: Your main concerns appear to arise from the fact that Mr Brown did not wish his personal information to be shared with his family. In particular; you raise the following points: Mr Brown lived at home with parents and although were his primary support were not his carers: Mr Brown did not wish information about himself to be shared and s0 the CHT were not able to involve his parents formally_ His parents therefore did not receive information that might have alerted them to when Mr Brown was particularly vulnerable, and equally information which might have been of assistance to the CHT caring for him was not passed on. Care sorry his they they

Department of Health It was not the practice of the CHT to confirm the accuracy of notes had made with family members with the consequence that inaccuracies or misunderstanding may have arisen in some of the notes. There was therefore no provision for these notes to be signed as accurate by the relevant family members, Family members were not made aware of how to obtain information through the Kent and Medway NHS Trust about ways they could best support Mr Brown and themselves There were limitations for engagement by the CHT with family members, particularly because Mr Brown did not wish his information to be shared this worked to his disadvantage _ Current legislation provides that; where a clinician believes that a patient is at risk of suicide, and that patient refuses to provide consent for information to be shared with family members or any other third party, and, in the judgement of the clinician; the patient has full mental capacity to understand the risks, then disclosure of that patient's confidential information is not warranted. In such circumstances the clinician needs to consider the risks to his or her own relationship with the patient the patient may withdraw from treatment if he or she does not believe the clinician will respect confidentiality: Breaking patient confidentiality could also create a risk that future patients will fail to seek treatment because do not trust the NHS to provide a confidential service_ The Department has received feedback from a number of families bereaved by suicide about their experiences with services. Issues of confidentiality have been a recurring theme_ The public has repeatedly raised concerns that practitioners can seem reluctant to use information from families and friends or provide families with information about a person's suicide risk Several Prevention of Future Deaths reports from Coroners have also drawn attention to this situation. The Department has therefore facilitated a consensus statement on confidentiality, Information sharing and suicide prevention: consensus statement; which was published in January 2014 alongside the first annual report on the suicide prevention strategy. Both of these documents are published on the Government website: https IwwWYov uklgovernmentlpublications/suicide-prevention-report The consensus statement says: "We strongly support working closely with families. Obtaining information from and listening to the concerns of families are key factors in determining risk We recognise however that some people do not wish to share information about themselves or they they

From Rt Hon Norman Lamb MP Minister of State for Care and Support Department of Health their care. Practitioners should therefore discuss with people how wish information to be shared, and with whom: Wherever possible, this should include what should happen if there is serious concern over suicide risk To expand on this, the consensus statement advises that there are times in dealing with a patient at risk of suicide when practitioners will need to consider informing the family and friends about aspects of risk and may need to create a channel of communication for both giving and receiving information that will help keep the person safe_ The statement recommends that practitioners routinely discuss and confirm with patients whether they wish their family and friends to be involved in their care generally, and whether wish for information about themselves to be shared. The patient's view on who should be involved (and potentially, who should not be involved) , should there be serious concern over suicide risk, needs to be discussed_ considered and recorded_ In cases where these discussions have not happened in advance, a practitioner may need to assess whether the patient; at least at that time, lacks the capacity to consent to information about a suicide risk being shared_ The Mental Capacity Act makes it clear that persons must be assumed to have capacity unless it is established that they lack capacity, and that people are not to be treated as unable to make a decision merely because make unwise decisions. However; if a person is at imminent risk of suicide there may well be sufficient doubts about mental capacity at that time_ In these circumstances, a professional judgement will need to be made, based on an understanding of the patient and what would be in the patient's best interest This should take into account the patient's previously expressed wishes and views in relation to sharing information with family, and, where practical, include consultation with colleagues. The judgement may be that it is right to share critical information the purpose of the disclosure is to protect a person who lacks capacity from serious harm; there is an expectation that practitioners will disclose relevant confidential information,_ where it is considered to be in the person's best interest to do s0. This work was supported by our National Suicide Prevention Strategy Advisory Group: The consensus statement will be discussed again at the next meeting of this group in November 2014_ they they they '

Department of Health hope that this response is helpful and am grateful to you for bringing the circumstances of Mr Brown's death to my attention: Y3 Aee5 € NORMAN LAMB
Part of a Series

2 separate reports were issued from this inquest, each sent to different organisations.

  • 2015-0162
    Sent to: Association of Chief Police OfficersCollege of Policing
    1 of 2 responded

This report (2014-0289) is shown above.

Sent To
  • Care Quality Commission
  • Department of Health and Social Care
  • Kent and Medway NHS and Social Care Partnership Trust
Response Status
Linked responses 1 of 3
56-Day Deadline 11 Sep 2014
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 25th July 2013 commenced an investigation into the death of Joshua Lewis BROWN. The investigation concluded at the end of the inquest on 8th 2014, The conclusion of the inquest was: "Took his own life whilst suffering from depression" , the clinical cause of death being: 1a) Multiple injuries
Circumstances of the Death
Mr Brown died on 13th June 2011 at the foot of cliffs at Louisa Broadstairs, Kent having been recorded on the CCTV of a nearby property to climb over the railings at the cliff edge, stand on the other side for about a minute then put his arms out to the side and drop forward off the cliff . Prior to that he had sat for around 15 minutes on a nearby bench: He had a history of self-harm and had had many suicidal thoughts and had also verbally on occasions that year indicated his intention to take his own life. He had been diagnosed as suffering from moderate depression on a background of maladaptive personality traits and was under the care of the Community Health Team ("the Team").
Action Should Be Taken
In my opinion action should be taken to prevent future deaths and believe you and your organisation are in a position to take such action:
Related Inquiry Recommendations

Public inquiry recommendations addressing similar themes

Separate SIO and Family Liaison Officer roles
Daniel Morgan Panel
Emergency family notification
GP Notification of Death Circumstances
Hyponatraemia Inquiry
Emergency family notification
Evaluation of Parental Involvement
Hyponatraemia Inquiry
Informal user feedback
Parental Involvement in Training
Hyponatraemia Inquiry
Informal user feedback
Patient Concern Organisation
Hyponatraemia Inquiry
Informal user feedback
Lay representation on IPC committee
Vale of Leven Inquiry
Informal user feedback
Candour about harm
Mid Staffs Inquiry
Emergency family notification
Profile
Mid Staffs Inquiry
Informal user feedback
For joint action Profile
Mid Staffs Inquiry
Informal user feedback
Access for public and patient comments
Mid Staffs Inquiry
Informal user feedback

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