Prevention of Future Deaths reports · 2023
Regulation 28 report to prevent future deaths, reference 2023-0521, written 20 Oct 2023. A coroner writes one of these when an inquest reveals a risk that could cause further deaths unless something changes.
| Date of report | 20 Oct 2023 |
|---|---|
| Reference | 2023-0521 |
| Deceased | Michael Hindes |
| Coroner | Mary Hassell |
| Coroner area | Inner North London |
| Category | Suicide (from 2015) |
| Source | judiciary.uk record · original PDF |
| Responses published | 1 |
Text extracted from the PDF text layer. Reproduced verbatim, including the scan's own layout.
Regulation 28: Prevention of Future Deaths report
Michael Joseph HINDES (died 15.05.23)
THIS REPORT IS BEING SENT TO:
1.
Medical Director
South West London & St George’s Mental Health NHS Trust
Trinity Building
Springfield University Hospital
15 Springfield Drive
London SW17 0YF
1
CORONER
I am: Coroner ME Hassell
Senior Coroner
Inner North London
St Pancras Coroner’s Court
Camley Street
London N1C 4PP
2
CORONER’S LEGAL POWERS
I make this report under the Coroners and Justice Act 2009,
paragraph 7, Schedule 5, and
The Coroners (Investigations) Regulations 2013,
regulations 28 and 29.
3
INVESTIGATION and INQUEST
On 17 May 2023, one of my assistant coroners, Edwin Buckett,
commenced an investigation into the death of Michael Hindes, aged 26
years. The investigation concluded at the end of the inquest on 17
October 2023. I made a narrative determination, which I attach.
4
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE DEATH
Michael Hindes killed himself
.
One week before he died, he called 999 because he felt suicidal. This
was late in the evening on Monday, 8 May. Police attended and took
him to St George’s Hospital, where he underwent a half hour mental
health assessment, after which he was discharged in the early hours.
1
5
CORONER’S CONCERNS
During the course of the inquest, the evidence revealed matters giving
rise to concern. In my opinion, there is a risk that future deaths will occur
unless action is taken. In the circumstances, it is my statutory duty to
report to you.
The MATTERS OF CONCERN are as follows.
When Michael was taken to St George’s Hospital, he explained that he
had been back and forth from the railway station, each
He was discharged with a plan for follow up by the community mental
health team (CMHT). I was told that the local CMHT meets at the
beginning of every week, and then there is sometimes a delay before an
appointment is made, so it was likely that Michael would have to wait an
absolute minimum of a week to be seen.
In the meantime, it was not thought necessary to refer him to the crisis
team.
Michael’s family knew nothing of his mental ill health. He declined an
invitation by the nurse assessing him to contact them. He did not want
to worry them. Despite her awareness of the multiple therapeutic
benefits of the input of a patient’s loved ones, the assessing nurse did
not in any way try to persuade Michael to allow her to do this.
The first that Michael’s family heard of Michael’s mental ill health was
when they heard of his death. I am sure that, had they been made aware
of it while he was still alive, they would have done everything in their
power to support him and to engage with the mental health services.
Families very often complain to me at inquest that mental health services
have not done enough to try to bring them in to a patient’s care. In spite
of the frequency of this occurrence, the lesson does not seem to be being
learnt.
When you respond to this letter, I should be grateful to know not just what
you have done to address the issue in your own trust, but also what you
have done to raise national awareness.
6
ACTION SHOULD BE TAKEN
In my opinion, action should be taken to prevent future deaths and I
believe that you have the power to take such action.
2
7
YOUR RESPONSE
You are under a duty to respond to this report within 56 days of the date
of this report, namely by 18 December 2023. I, the coroner, may extend
the period.
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.
8
COPIES and PUBLICATION
I have sent a copy of my report to the following.
• The Hindes family
• The Care Quality Commission for England
• HHJ Thomas Teague QC, the Chief Coroner of England & Wales
I am also under a duty to send a copy of your response to the Chief
Coroner and all interested persons who in my opinion should receive it.
I may also send a copy of your response to any other person who I
believe may find it useful or of interest.
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.
9
DATE SIGNED BY SENIOR CORONER
20.10.23 ME Hassell
3
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.
Chief Executive’s Office South West London and St George’s Mental Health NHS Trust Trinity Building Springfield University Hospital 15 Springfield Drive London SW17 0YF 19 December 2023 Private & Confidential ME Hassell Senior Coroner for Inner West London West London Coroner Service St Pancras Coroner’s Court Camley Street London N1C 4PP Dear Madam Our Reference: Re: Regulation 28 Report to Prevent Future Deaths – Mr Michael Joseph HINDES I am writing to you following receipt of the Regulation 28: Report to Prevent Future Deaths (PFD) dated 20 October 2023, which was issued to the Trust on 13 December 2023, regarding the sad death of Mr Michael Hindes, who died on 15 May 2023. You have requested that South West London and St George’s Mental Health NHS Trust (SWLStG) respond to the matters of concern that you have detailed in your correspondence. I have included your Matters of Concern below and our subsequent response. The MATTERS OF CONCERN are as follows: ‘When Michael was taken to St George’s Hospital, he explained that he had been back and forth from the railway station, each time for the purpose of jumping in front of a train. He was discharged with a plan for follow up by the community mental health team (CMHT). I was told that the local CMHT meets at the beginning of every week, and then there is sometimes a delay before an appointment is made, so it was likely that Michael would have to wait an absolute minimum of a week to be seen. In the meantime, it was not thought necessary to refer him to the crisis team. Michael’s family knew nothing of his mental ill health. He declined an invitation by the nurse assessing him to contact them. He did not want to worry them. Despite her awareness of the multiple therapeutic benefits of the input of a patient’s loved ones, the assessing nurse did not in any way try to persuade Michael to allow her to do this. The first that Michael’s family heard of Michael’s mental ill health was when they heard of his death. I am sure that, had they been made aware of it while he was still alive, they would have done everything in their power to support him and to engage with the mental health services. Families very often complain to me at inquest that mental health services have not done enough to try to bring them in to a patient’s care. In spite of the frequency of this occurrence, the lesson does not seem to be being learnt. When you respond to this letter, I should be grateful to know not just what you have done to address the issue in your own trust, but also what you have done to raise national awareness.’ As you are aware through the Inquest, the clinical risk assessment undertaken at the time by the assessing nurse in the Psychiatric Liaison Team deemed the patient to be of low risk of self-harm and that he was suitable to be discharged home. In addition, with a routine referral to the Community Mental Health Team (CMHT) for ongoing diagnosis/further assessment, as crisis services were not required at that time. The clinical assessment clearly concluded that the patient had capacity to make decisions and the assessing nurse was of the firm view that he was clear that he did not consent to information being shared with his family around his mental health and struggles. In these circumstances it would therefore have been unlawful not to respect the patient’s decision and there is a delicate balance around applying persuasion and respecting someone’s rights and decisions. However, we recognise we should have sought to explore his decision further and to relay the typical benefits of support that can come from positive family engagement and awareness, or explored other support options, such as reaching out to a close friend. We also absolutely recognise that our documentation around this area was not sufficient. We agree with your general view that challenges remain and there is a need for improvements around how to best ensure positive engagement and sharing of information between the healthcare provider, patients, and their families and carers. We are committed to the national ‘Triangle of Care’ initiative that champions the bringing together of carers and relatives, service users and professionals. It aims to promote safety, aid recovery, and sustain the wellbeing of people with mental health issues and their carers and families. This remains a key area of focus for the Trust. The Psychiatric Liaison Team continue to reflect on this and will be changing their local protocols to strengthen the prompts to help remind clinicians how best to approach this subject with patients. As per your request with the PFD to raise awareness of this area, we will take the opportunity to raise awareness within the Trust via a specific newsletter article issued to Trust staff (known as our Monthly Learning Bulletin) to remind and promote how and when to best ensure there are meaningful conversations with patients around sharing information with families. This will focus on the Triangle of Care approach and provide clarity around the delicate balance between encouraging patients whilst respecting their wishes and ensuring this is clearly documented. This will be developed and issued by March 2024. We will share this and our response to the PFD with the CQC and our Commissioners (Integrated Care System) as per your wish to help contribute to improving greater awareness of this area. We thank you for your consideration and commitment to prevention of future deaths and helping us and the wider NHS to learn. I would like to express our deep sympathy to the family and friends of Mr Michael Hindes for their loss. While we seek to learn from this incident, I recognise that this cannot diminish their pain and anguish. The Trust remains committed to continuous learning and improvement and we are very grateful for all those involved in this Inquest. Yours faithfully Director of Nursing and Quality, on behalf of , Chief Executive CC – , Medical Director, SWLStG
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.