Independent investigation into the care and treatment received by Mr B

East of England
Published 01 May 2023
Subject Mr B

The aim of this report is to help improve the delivery of care for people who are at risk of self-harm. Mr B was a 50-year-old man who had been living with secondary progressive multiple sclerosis (MS) for over 20 years and was living in a care home. On 27 May 2023, Mr B left the assessment unit of Brook Meadows House (BMH) where he had been living since 10 June 2022, and travelled to Kent, where he ended his life. Documents

Acceptance Status
Accepted 6
No Response Published 1

Total Recommendations 7
About this data

Acceptance Status tracks whether the trust accepted or responded to each recommendation.

Independent health investigation reports and reviews commissioned by government or NHS England.

Recommendations (7)

1 All organisations
Accepted
Recommendation
There were delays in completing risk assessments and supporting care plans. These did not include all necessary information, including risk factors, a formulation of risk, and a supporting care plan with a crisis and contingency plan. They were not updated … Read more
EPUT must assure ourselves that we have an effective shared risk management information system in place which supports: 1. Effective sharing of risk information, so that teams can work collaboratively and produce up-to-date risk assessments and support plans which clearly identify routes of escalation. 2. Recording and sharing of actions taken and their impact, so that all system partners are assured that effective action has been taken in response to risk 3. The involvement of the individual and their family/carer so that their concerns and opinions are heard and can contribute to risk management. 4. Having processes in place which look at the quality of risk assessments and care plans, so that they are used to effectively support people using services. Target date (Measurement Tool & action frequency of monitoring owner Progress, Comments & Evidence (SMART) implementat (eg daily, monthly) (role, team ion directorate) EPUT must assure ourselves that we 1. Training on risk Team December Record keeping have an effective shared risk assessment. manager 2025 Training has been delivered on clinical record keeping. management information system in 2. Organisation of place which supports: professionals meetings DDQS A separate training package is also being developed to 1. Effective sharing of risk for when multiple support newly appointed care co-ordinators. information, so that teams can providers are involved. work collaboratively and produce 3. Audit results of risk As part of a Trust-wide programme to put in place eSOPs, up-to-date risk assessments and assessments including the Clinical Record Keeping Standard Operating support plans which clearly involvement of families Procedures is in development. It has a section on risk identify routes of escalation. assessments. 2. Recording and sharing of actions taken and their impact, so that all New Trust care plan is due to be implemented in next system partners are assured that quarter. effective action has been taken in response to risk There is auditing of person-centred care plans and risk 3. The involvement of the individual assessments.
2 EPUT, Southend on Sea City Council, Brook Meadows House, Commisceo Primary Care Solutions
Accepted
Recommendation
When a safeguarding concern was raised, there was no process to confirm whether the agreed actions had been taken and whether they were effective in safeguarding the individual. EPUT, Southend on Sea City Council, Brook Meadows House and Commisceo Primary … Read more
EPUT, Southend-on-Sea City Council, Brook Meadows House and Commisceo Primary Care Solutions must have a system in place which provides a notification when actions have not been taken and assurance that: • When safeguarding concerns or alerts are raised, actions are taken. • Outcomes of actions and their impact are assessed and recorded and shared with all relevant parties. Target date: Dec 2025 Progress, Comments & Evidence: 1. Regular monitoring of Team manager, Trust-wide Safeguarding Adults Procedural Guidance safeguarding incidents and DDQS and in place. issues through CIRG, Safeguarding At the time of this incident, the team was integrated management of Datix and with social care and therefore Recovery and QoC. Wellbeing would have taken the lead in the inquiry. This has now changed as the team is no longer integrated and the local authority now leads safeguarding investigations. This does not however negate the care co-ordinator from having a responsibility to keep their patients safe. Safeguarding referrals are managed through our incident reporting system.
3 EPUT
Accepted
Recommendation
There were delays in EPUT allocating a care coordinator to Mr B although his complexity and risk were recognised. Some cases are held by the duty team as there is insufficient capacity to allocate a care coordinator. There is a … Read more
EPUT must: 1. Evaluate caseloads for acuity and volume and develop a plan so that staff are working with equitable workloads. 2. Evaluate local capabilities and training needs for complex case management and develop a plan to address any gaps so that staff have the right support and knowledge, skills, supervision and mentoring to perform their roles. 3. Assure itself there is effective monitoring of which cases are held by the duty team, that risks are being managed effectively, and that people are allocated a care coordinator as soon as possible. Target date: Dec 2025 Progress, Comments & Evidence: Evidence from review of Team manager Increase in substantive staff over agency. caseload review. Trust one-to-one support template for supervision. Supervision rates and Improvement to allocation of care coordinator structure. process, including communication to the patient and GP. The team has been reconfigured to work in geographical clusters which aims to provide better support and accountability for unallocated patients.
4 EPUT, integrated care systems (ICS)
Accepted
Recommendation
Mr B had severe depression and was suffering from flashbacks following the trauma of the first attempt to end his life. Mr B stated a preference for face to face contact, and wanted individual therapy. Mr B’s needs for psychological … Read more
EPUT must review its processes for referral into Psychological Services to ensure that: 1. People using the service are aware that they can access individual therapy without first having to attend the Psychological Awareness Programme. 2. The referral process is fit for purpose and monitored by the leadership team, and that level of risk is considered. 3. People’s preference for how they engage with services (virtually or face to face) is considered. 4. Staff understand what psychological therapies are available, and how to refer people to them. 5. Referrals clearly indicate which pathway is being requested. 6. Access to psychology is equitable across the Trust; EPUT and the integrated care systems (ICS) must identify any shortfalls in capacity in the commissioning of psychology across their footprint and work together to ensure that it meets national guidelines. 7. Suitably qualified and experienced staff deliver psychological therapy for depression as a first line of treatment in line with NICE guidance. 8. They work with psychology staff to develop a system to upskill others in the community mental health team to mitigate the long waiting times for psychological intervention. Target date: Dec 2025 Progress, Comments & Evidence: Team manager and Dec 2025 People can access the Psychological Awareness Performance and quality data Head of South East Programme (PAP) prior to an individual assessment for Psychological Services Essex Adult or therapy and personalised plan made with patients Training information Community who opt not to access this. Psychological There are weekly locality meetings across the area. Services Clinical decision making is always employed to ensure that intervention delivery will meet individual needs to best ensure safe and high quality practice. Discussions are held in supervision and through a weekly Psychological Services clinical discussion meeting. The Southend Recovery and Wellbeing staff have undertaken a series of training sessions in psychological therapies to upskill them to better support patient waiting for psychological interventions. All therapy plans are personalised and needs led. Where this matches NICE guidelines, the services delivers referenced models. Clinical decision making is always employed to ensure that intervention delivery will meet individual needs to best ensure safe and high quality practice. These discussions are held in supervision and through a weekly Psychological Services clinical discussion meeting, to further assure competent and optimal clinical decision making.
5 EPUT, MSE, Southend on Sea City Council, BMH, All organisations involved in delivering care, specialist nurses
Accepted
Recommendation
The link to the neurology service was lost and Mr B was not re-referred for MS care before discharge from MSE, which impacted on collaborative working to meet his physical and mental health needs. Mr B was placed in an … Read more
EPUT, MSE, Southend-on-Sea City Council and Brook Meadows House must assure themselves that: 1. All health and social care professionals understand the scope and limits of the services each team offers. 2. The model of care and delivery meets the needs of people placed there and staff have the knowledge, skills and capabilities to meet the needs of people placed there. 3. There is a link to the specialist services to meet the needs of people placed in the assessment unit. 4. There is an effective escalation system to flag where there are challenges in collaborative working and solutions can be found to ensure that service users’ needs are met. 5. All organisations involved in delivering care should assure themselves that: multidisciplinary meetings are arranged to plan care which considers all the care needs of the individual. 6. The roles and responsibilities of all health and social care professionals involved in delivering care are agreed. 7. Multidisciplinary reviews of delivery of care are carried out at agreed intervals and in response to risk. 8. Care and risk plans are developed and reviewed regularly by the multidisciplinary teams and the service user to monitor their efficacy. Target date: Dec 2025 Progress, Comments & Evidence: Team manager Dec 2025 Local management: Review of cluster working.  Weekly MDTs Training information.  Cluster meetings with consultants  Supervision sessions to include review of patients mental health, social and physical health needs. Shared care planning and risk management: When other professionals are involved with a patient, separate professionals meetings are arranged by the care co-ordinator or key responsible professional. Additional physical health training is being incorporated into the community mental health teams’ training: Physical health staff link contacts will be provided through the training plan to support collaborative working.
6 EPUT
Accepted
Recommendation
Records were not always kept up to date, with delays between contacts and their assessments being written up, which meant that information was not available to all involved in care. Additions made post-death were not always clearly identified. EPUT needs … Read more
EPUT needs to: • Ensure that reasons for posthumous access to records are defined in the record keeping policy • Assure itself that all records, including contacts with partner agencies, are being recorded in line with expected practice Target date: Dec 2025 Progress, Comments & Evidence: New clinical record keeping DDQS Dec 2025 Clinical record keeping guidance in development. guidance, which includes There is auditing of person-centred care plans and specific information in relation risk assessments. to posthumous entries Clinical record keeping audit.
7 MSE, the council, BMH
Pending
Recommendation
When Mr B was discharged from MSE, the discharge policy and best practice were not followed. The planned second discharge planning meeting was not held as Mr B was discharged before it happened. Not all relevant information was included in … Read more
No specific response found in the action plan for this recommendation.