Prevention of Future Deaths reports · 2023

Annabel Findlay

Regulation 28 report to prevent future deaths, reference 2023-0080, written 1 Mar 2023. A coroner writes one of these when an inquest reveals a risk that could cause further deaths unless something changes.

Date of report1 Mar 2023
Reference2023-0080
DeceasedAnnabel Findlay
CoronerJake Taylor
Coroner areaLondon Inner (West)
CategorySuicide (from 2015) · Hospital Death (Clinical Procedures and medical management) related deaths
Sourcejudiciary.uk record · original PDF
Responses published1

The report

Text extracted from the PDF text layer. Reproduced verbatim, including the scan's own layout.

REGULATION 28: REPORT TO PREVENT FUTURE DEATHS 

REGULATION 28 REPORT TO PREVENT FUTURE DEATHS 

THIS REPORT IS BEING SENT TO:  

PRIORY HOSPITAL, ROEHAMPTON  

CORONER 

1 

2 

3 

4 

I am Mr. Jake Taylor, assistant coroner, for the coroner area of Inner West London. 

CORONER’S LEGAL POWERS 

I  make  this  report  under  paragraph  7,  Schedule  5,  of  the  Coroners  and  Justice  Act  2009  and 
Regulations 28 and 29 of the Coroners (Investigations) Regulations 2013. 

INVESTIGATION and INQUEST 

On 27 September 2021, I  commenced an investigation into the death  of  Annabel Jean Findlay 
who died aged 56 years’ old. The investigation concluded at the end of the inquest on  1 March 
2023. The conclusion of the inquest was a short-form conclusion of suicide. The medical cause of 
death was determined to be fatal pressure to the neck.  

CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE DEATH 

Ms. Findlay had a history of psychiatric illness and a long history of depression, for which she was 
receiving support and treatment. She was an outpatient under the care of psychiatrists at the Priory 
Hospital, Roehampton from 7 February 2018 until 20 August 2021. She was noted as not always 
engaging with medical professionals and disclosed that she had been self-medicating.  

On 20 August 2021, Ms. Findlay was admitted as an inpatient at the Priory Hospital, Roehampton, 
following a referral from her General Practitioner for “various complaints”. Ms. Findlay had been 
taking the anti-depressant venlafaxine but this had resulted in  unintended urinary retention and 
prior to her admission, her intake was being reduced by her treating psychiatrists. On 20 August 
2021, following her admission, she was  started on  a  different anti-depressant, vortioxetine and 
attended to by staff and medical professionals. 

On 27 August 2021, Ms. Findlay discharged herself from the Priory Hospital, Roehampton. This 
was despite the requests of her treating psychiatrist for her to remain so that her response to her 
change of medication could be monitored.  

At the time of discharge, no significant risks were identified and Ms. Findlay was deemed to have 
capacity and was deemed fit for discharge. A discharge plan was put in place.  

The  discharge  plan  for  Ms.  Findlay  included  that  she  was  to  contact  the  hospital  to  make  an 
outpatient appointment. She was also discharged with a week’s supply of medication. A discharge 
summary was sent to her GP. 

CORONER’S CONCERNS 

5 

 During  the  course  of  the  inquest,  the  evidence  revealed  matters  giving  rise  to  concern.  In  my 
opinion there is a risk that future deaths could occur unless action is taken. In the circumstances 
it is my statutory duty to report to you. 

The MATTERS OF CONCERN are as follows. – 

Although a discharge plan was implemented in Ms. Findlay’s case, it would appear that steps were 
not taken to contact her emergency contact and/or next of  kin, such as to facilitate Ms. Findlay 
being supported in the community upon discharge. Ms. Findlay, having discharged herself, left the 
hospital  with  next  of  kin/  emergency  contacts  not  being  aware  of  her  discharge  –  despite,  her 
emergency contact being the person who had transported her to the Priory Hospital. No follow up 
appointment was made prior to Ms. Findlay’s discharge and no attempts were made to contact 
her following her discharge until 6 September 2021.  

The matters of concern are as follows: 

A.  That no contact was made with next of kin/ emergency contacts prior to, or at the time of 

her release. 

B.  No follow up appointment was booked prior to Ms. Findlay’s discharge. 
C.  No attempt was made to contact Ms. Findlay until 6 September 2021 (some 10 days 

following her discharge). 

YOUR RESPONSE 

You are under a duty to respond to this report within 56 days of the date of this report, namely by 
26 April 2023. I, the coroner, may extend the period. 

7 

Your response must contain details of action taken or proposed to be taken, setting out the 
timetable for action. Otherwise you must explain why no action is proposed. 
COPIES and PUBLICATION 

I have sent a copy of my report to the Chief Coroner. I have also sent it to 
Findlay’s emergency contact - who may find it useful or of interest. 

 – Ms. 

8 

I am also under a duty to send the Chief Coroner a copy of your response. 

The Chief Coroner may publish either or both in a complete or redacted or summary form. He 
may send a copy of this report to any person who he believes may find it useful or of interest. 
You may make representations to me, the coroner, at the time of your response, about the 
release or the publication of your response by the Chief Coroner. 
1 March 2023 

9 

J. Taylor

Responses

1 response published against this report on judiciary.uk. A response is a body's written reply to the coroner's concerns; publication is at the discretion of the Chief Coroner's office, so an absent response does not mean nobody replied.

Response from Priory (PDF)
Chief Executive Officer 
Priory 

Monday 24 April 2023 

Mr Jake Taylor 
Assistant Coroner 
West London Coroner’s Court 
25 Bagley's Lane 
Fulham 
London, SW6 2QA 

Private and Confidential 

Dear Mr Taylor, 

Ms Annabel Jean Findlay - Response to Regulation 28 Report 

I write to you in response to the Regulation 28 Report dated Wednesday 1 March 2023. The report was 
issued following the Inquest touching the death of Ms Annabel Findlay. You have raised three matters 
of concern in respect of Ms Findlay’s discharge from Priory Hospital Roehampton (PHR).  

Please note that an internal learning review of Ms Findlay’s care and treatment was commissioned after 
we were notified of Ms Findlay’s death and recommendations for improvement were made as part of 
that  review.  The  recommendations  were  to  ensure  robust  hospital  discharge  arrangements  were  in 
place. An action plan was created to evidence implementation of the recommendations and to provide 
assurance of learning. We shared a copy of this action plan with your Coroners Officer, 
, 
on Thursday 9 March 2023 and I attach it as an appendix to this response. The Senior Management 
Team at PHR were satisfied prior to the Inquest that the necessary improvements had been made and 
were therefore particularly upset and disappointed to receive a Regulation 28 Report in respect of this 
matter.  

Please find the below responses to the matters of concern that you have raised.  

1.  Contacting next of kin / emergency contacts at the point of hospital discharge 

You have raised a concern that staff did not contact Ms Findlay’s next of kin / emergency contact 
at the point of her discharge from hospital. 

Whilst we understand the concern, we believe that in the circumstances appropriate steps were taken 
by the hospital.  Ms Findlay was an informal patient and she was considered to be at low risk at the 
point of her discharge i.e. she had made plans for the future and she was prepared to engage with staff 
following  her  discharge.  It  is  also  important  to  note  that  Ms  Findlay  had  mental  capacity  to  make 
decisions  and  had  withdrawn  consent  for  staff  to  share  information  with  her  family.  Ms  Findlay  had 
provided  Priory  with  the  contact  details  for  a  friend  but  had  specifically  asked  that  confidential 
information was not divulged.  

However, in the interest of learning, the PHR Hospital Director, 
, has shared a reminder 
with hospital colleagues of the requirement to notify the next of kin or emergency contact of a patient, 
when self-discharge is taken against medical advice, where a patient consents to this information being 
shared. This was discussed during a Consultants’ meeting held on Thursday 6 April 2023 and during a 
Clinical Governance meeting held on Thursday 20 April 2023.   

Registered Office: Priory, Fifth Floor, 80 Hammersmith Road, London, W14 8UD 

Tel: 020 7605 0910 Fax: 020 7605 0911 info@priorygroup.com www.priorygroup.com 
Registered in England No. 09057543 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 2.  Booking follow-up appointments 

You  have  raised  a  concern  that  a  follow-up  outpatient  appointment  was  not  booked  for  Ms 
Findlay prior to her discharge from hospital. 

This matter had already been identified as an improvement action as part of the internal learning review 
which took place before the inquest. The improvement action has been taken forward by the hospital 
management  team  and  consequently,  two  reminders  have  been  circulated  to  all  relevant  medical 
colleagues at PHR to ensure that any required outpatient follow-up appointments are booked prior to a 
patient’s discharge. A third reminder will be shared during April 2023. We have continued our monthly 
audit  of  this  arrangement  and  will  continue  to  do  so  until  we  reach  100%  compliance  for  three 
consecutive months. This requirement was also reiterated to staff during the Consultants meeting and 
Clinical Governance meeting referenced above.   

3.  Contacting patients following hospital discharge 

You have raised a concern that Ms Findlay was not contacted until 10 days after she discharged 
herself from hospital 

This  matter  was  also  identified  as  an  improvement  action  as  part  of  the  internal  learning  review 
referenced above. Nursing and medical colleagues at the hospital have since been reminded about the 
requirement to make telephone contact with a patient 48 hours after discharge (unless the patient has 
a confirmed community mental health team/crisis recovery home treatment team appointment within 72 
hours of discharge). The purpose of the telephone call is to check on the patient’s welfare and respond 
to any issues identified. We have already audited the provision of post-discharge telephone calls and 
identified significant progress: we  will continue  to  audit this monthly, until  we have  three successive 
months of 100% compliance.   

I trust that the actions outlined above will provide the assurances you seek in respect of this matter. 

Yours sincerely, 

________________ 

Chief Executive Officer 
Priory  

2

Related reports

More reports categorised “Suicide (from 2015)”

See all →

Track Suicide (from 2015)

See every Prevention of Future Deaths report matching Suicide (from 2015), and how often a new one appears.

What would an alert for this have sent me? Search the full text

Free to try — the preview shows the real matches and how many arrived in the last 12 months. Your first email alert is free.

These reports are published by the Chief Coroner's office at judiciary.uk and are © Crown copyright. The text here is reproduced from the published PDF so it can be searched. If something on this page is wrong, or you are a person named in it and want it reviewed, email drcjar@gmail.com and we will act promptly.