Prevention of Future Deaths reports · 2024
Regulation 28 report to prevent future deaths, reference 2024-0543, written 14 Oct 2024. A coroner writes one of these when an inquest reveals a risk that could cause further deaths unless something changes.
| Date of report | 14 Oct 2024 |
|---|---|
| Reference | 2024-0543 |
| Deceased | Locket Williams |
| Coroner | Richard Travers |
| Coroner area | Surrey |
| Category | Child Death (from 2015) · Suicide (from 2015) |
| Organisation named | Surrey and Borders Partnership NHS Foundation Trust |
| Source | judiciary.uk record · original PDF |
| Responses published | 1 |
Text extracted from the PDF text layer. Reproduced verbatim, including the scan's own layout.
Re : Locket Ure Williams, Deceased
Regulation 28 Report to Prevent Future Deaths
Regulation 28 Report to Prevent Future Deaths
This Report is being sent to:
Partnership NHS Foundation Trust
, The Chief Executive Officer of Surrey and Borders
1 CORONER
I am Richard Travers, HM Senior Coroner for Surrey.
2 CORONER’S LEGAL POWERS
I make this report under paragraph 7 of Schedule 5 to the Coroners and Justice
Act 2009 and regulations 28 and 29 of the Coroners (Investigations) Regulations
2013.
3
INVESTIGATION and INQUEST
I commenced an investigation into the death of Locket Ure Williams. The inquest
concluded on the 31st May 2024 when I found that the medical cause of death
was:
Ia Multiple Injuries
and my conclusion as to the death was that:
Locket Ure Williams died as a result of Suicide.
Their death was more than minimally contributed to by Surrey and Borders
Partnership NHS Foundation Trust’s Children and Adolescent Mental Health
Service’s:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
delay in assessing Locket’s condition and needs,
underestimation of Locket’s risk of suicide, and
failure to deliver necessary therapeutic treatment to Locket in a timely
manner.
I subsequently held a hearing to receive evidence relating to the prevention of
future deaths and this was concluded on the 26th September 2024.
4 CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE DEATH
1
Locket Williams was 15 years of age when they died. They had a history of self-
harm, suicidal ideation, and suicide attempts. This history included a referral to
Surrey and Borders Partnership NHS Foundation Trust’s Children and Adolescent
Mental Health Service, with a report of self-harm and suicidal ideation, in October
2020, and three subsequent suicide attempts, in February, June and July 2021.
Locket was suffering a Depressive Disorder and Emotional Dysregulation and, in
April 2021, they were placed on the waiting list for Cognitive Behaviour Therapy,
which was expected to be effective in treating their conditions and controlling
their suicidal ideation. Although Locket was prescribed medication and received
some monitoring and support from the Children and Adolescent Mental Health
Service, the Cognitive Behaviour Therapy did not commence until very shortly
before their death, and no effective treatment had been provided prior to their
death.
On the night of the 27th September 2021, Locket left their home and walked to
, from where they jumped to the road below. Locket’s
death, from consequential injuries, was recognised at 00:01 hours on the 28th
September 2021.
Full details of the events and failings which lead to Locket Ure Williams’ death
are set out in my “Findings and Conclusions” document, a copy of which is sent
with this report.
5 CORONER’S CONCERNS
The evidence received at the prevention of future deaths hearing showed that a
number of the issues and concerns raised at and following the inquest hearing
have been addressed.
However, in my opinion the following concerns remain and give rise to a
continuing 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 :
Concern 1
The evidence at the inquest hearing revealed that, at the time of Locket’s death,
there were no psychiatric in-patient beds available for children in Surrey. It was
recognised in the evidence that sending children out of the County, and sometimes
to hospitals at a great distance away from their home, may be detrimental to their
overall welfare, including their suicide risk, and may militate against their
admission at all.
2
At the prevention of future deaths hearing, I was told that a new, 12-bedded, unit
named Emerald Place has since been opened by the Trust in partnership with a
private provider. However, a concern about the level of in-county psychiatric in-
patient beds for children continues because (i) the unit is not fully open and there
is no fixed date for such opening, (ii) even when fully opened, it seems that the
unit’s 12 beds will be insufficient to meet the probable need at any one time, and
(iii) even when fully opened, the unit will not be able to treat children with eating
disorders or children needing psychiatric intensive care.
Concern 2
On the basis of the evidence I heard at the inquest hearing, I found that Locket’s
death was contributed to by the Trust’s underestimation of their risk of suicide.
At the prevention of future deaths hearing, I was told that the Trust has introduced
a new risk assessment system. The new system is in accordance with NICE
guidelines and relies on a fuller description of the nature and level of the risk
rather than its classification as low, medium, or high.
It is clear from the evidence that there is good reason to move away from the
three-tier classification, but I am concerned that the new system does not include
any clear and obvious alert, on the medical records, that there is a risk of suicide
in relation to the child in question. Although the intention of the new system is to
encourage each clinician to read the narrative of the fuller risk assessment, there is
currently a risk that, if they do not do so (and it is foreseeable that they will not
always do so or be able to do so), they will be unaware of the risk of suicide.
It was accepted in the evidence that an alert for a risk of suicide could be included
in a child’s record without undermining the move away from the three-tier
classification of that risk as low, medium or high.
Concern 3
I also heard that a child at risk of suicide may now be provided with a document,
called “My Safety Plan”, one purpose of which is to help the child to
communicate with others (including for example family members, teachers, and
social workers) about their condition and risk. I was told that, if a child does not
want to refer in the document to the risk of suicide, other terms such as “distress”
may be used.
To the extent that part of the purpose of the My Safety Plan is to enable the child
to communicate their risk of suicide and thereby receive help to stay safe, I am
3
concerned that by substituting the word “distress” for “suicide”, some plans may
not refer to suicide and may not therefore ensure that the nature of the risk is
clearly conveyed to those from whom the child may seek support, and to the
responsible adults in their life.
Concern 4
From the evidence I heard at the inquest hearing, it was apparent that staff within
CAMHS did not always attend or engage with Core Group Meetings to which
they were invited by children’s services.
At the prevention of future deaths hearing, it was accepted that, for those children
under Children’s Services, active involvement in Core Group Meetings by all
agencies involved with the child was of real importance. This was so, because the
meetings were the means by which information was shared by different agencies
and an informed plan was made to protect the child’s life (including from suicide)
and welfare. Failure by Trust staff to attend or otherwise to engage with the
meetings, and the other agencies involved with the child, may therefore raise the
risk to the child and undermine their protection.
I was also told that there is an expectation that Trust staff should prioritise
attendance / involvement in Core Group Meetings but, it seems, that no
monitoring takes place to assess compliance with that expectation, including no
systematic recording of the receipt of invitations to attend Core Group Meetings
and no systematic recording of the response by the staff who have been invited, or
otherwise.
6
ACTION SHOULD BE TAKEN
In my opinion action should be taken to prevent future deaths by addressing the
concerns set out above and I believe your organisation has the power to take such
action.
7 YOUR RESPONSE
You are under a duty to respond to this report within 56 days of the date of this
report, namely by the 9th December 2024. I, as 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 Chief Coroner and to the following
Interested Persons:
4
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
,
,
, and
Surrey County Council.
I am also under a duty to send a copy of your response to the Chief Coroner.
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 by the Chief Coroner.
9
14th October 2024 Richard Travers
5
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.
5 December 2024 Private and Confidential Mr Richard Travers Senior Coroner for Surrey Sent by email: Chief Executive Chief Executive’s Office Surrey and Borders Partnership NHS Foundation Trust 18 Mole Business Park Randall’s Road Leatherhead KT22 7AD Dear Mr Travers Locket Ure Williams (deceased) Regulation 28 Report to Prevent Future Deaths Response from Surrey and Borders Partnership NHS Foundation Trust (“the Trust”) Thank you for the Regulation 28 Report to Prevent Future Deaths (PFD report) dated 14 October 2024, in relation to the inquest touching upon the death of Locket Ure Williams. I have considered the report carefully, together with the Trust’s Chief Medical Officer, the Chief Nursing Officer and other senior colleagues. I have addressed each of your concerns in turn below. 1. Inpatient mental health beds for children in Surrey Typically, 6-8 General Adolescent Unit inpatient beds are required at any given time within Surrey. Emerald Place was opened by the Trust in partnership with a private provider, Elysium Healthcare, in March 2024. Emerald Place has sufficient bed capacity to meet the demand for GAU inpatient beds within Surrey. In line with best practice for a new service, admissions have been staggered to allow the new team to develop and embed a safe and therapeutic culture on the ward. As part of our ongoing quality review process, a decision was made to pause further admissions. The Surrey Heartlands CAMHS Tier 4 Provider Collaborative is working at pace with NHS England, Elysium Healthcare and the Trust to support quality improvements at the unit with a current expectation that the unit can resume admissions from January 2025. In the meantime, the Trust is accessing GAU beds through independent providers. Page 1 of 3 2. System alerts for risk relating to suicide It is recognised that risk prediction in suicide has been shown repeatedly to be ineffective1. As recognised in your letter to us, the Trust has recently revised its risk assessment approach to align with NICE Guidelines2 and NHS England’s recommendations. This approach emphasises addressing patient needs rather than predicting future risk through the previously used ‘low/medium/high’ categorisation. Risks are identified and mitigated through a comprehensive risk reduction plan, tailored to the individual, and incorporated into every risk assessment and formulation. The needs-based, patient- centred methodology provides a robust, evidence-based approach to managing risks which complies with national guidance. The suggested binary ‘suicidal/not suicidal’ flag system would force clinicians into an overly simplistic model of risk prediction inconsistent with the nuanced and individualised approach recommended by NICE and now implemented by the Trust. As a result, and having carefully considered this, we will not be introducing a binary flag system. The Trust’s risk assessment process is designed on the basis that clinicians are acting in accordance with their professional and regulatory responsibilities. As per the NHS Constitution for England3, our staff have a duty to accept professional accountability and maintain the standards of professional practice as set by the appropriate regulatory body applicable to their profession or role. The Trust works in accordance with the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 20144 in deploying suitably qualified, competent, skilled and experienced persons and ensuring that they receive support, training, professional development, supervision and appraisal. Through induction and training processes, all staff are aware that our Electronic Patient Record, SystmOne is the single source of all written information and that the risk formulation, care plan, and My Safety Plan must all be kept up to date and stored in specific locations of the patient record so that they are readily available. The MDT process enables clinicians to seek additional support, guidance or reflection where these are required to enable them to properly assess and manage risk. All of the above are core activities and expectations for all of our clinicians. During clinical supervision, managers review sample cases with each clinician to support effective risk management and clinical reflection. 3. My Safety Plan My Safety Plan is not a tool for assessing or recording risk of suicide. The document is not written in clinical terms, and it not intended to be a means of sharing information about risk between organisations. Instead, formal documentation of clinical risk (including clear and correct clinical terminology around suicide) is recorded in the Risk Formulation and Care Plan documents which, along with My Safety Plan, form an interlinked suite of documents which are held within a person’s Electronic Patient Record. Clinical risk information is shared with the network around the child including their school and Children’s Services. Information sharing and safeguarding procedures ensure that relevant clinical information including around risk of suicide is shared with other organisations where appropriate regardless of whether a child or young person decides to share their My Safety Plan. 1 Assessment of suicide risk in mental health practice: shifting from prediction to therapeutic assessment, formulation and risk management, Hawton et al, The Lancet, published 8 August 2022 2 NICE Guidance NG225 Overview | Self-harm: assessment, management and preventing recurrence | Guidance | NICE 28056 3 The NHS Constitution for England - GOV.UK 4 The Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014 Page 2 of 3 Designed in collaboration with Surrey County Council’s Consulting Youth Advisers team, My Safety Plan empowers a child or young person to communicate with the network around them about their concerns or triggers. A child or young person is encouraged to use their own choice of words within their My Safety Plan to express how they are feeling, enabling them take ownership of this document. The document is compiled in discussion between the clinician and the child or young person and their family/carer, primarily for the child or young person to hold, and to share with adults around them, if and when they choose. Equally, they may choose not to share it at all. We might share it on their behalf if we are given consent or are requested to do so. It is also incumbent on other agencies around the child or young person to raise concerns of suicidality, for example, teachers and social workers must independently assess their level of concern and seek advice or link with Trust services if they feel this is necessary. 4. Core Group Meetings Attendance at Core Group meetings in respect of those supported by Children’s Services is mandatory. There is also an expectation that clinicians contribute to other safeguarding meetings, and local authority reviews of Education Health and Care Plans (“EHCP”). The Standard Operating Procedure (“SOP”) for our community teams requires that Care Plans include actions flowing from these meetings. Care Plans are recorded on SystmOne and accessible to any Trust clinician involved in the care of the child or young person. This was discussed at the monthly divisional Quality Operations Board on 19 November 2024 attended by managers and senior clinicians where the importance of engagement with Core Group Meetings was emphasised. Managers were tasked with cascading this to their teams and confirmation that this has been actioned will be provided to the Quality Operations Board. The Trust is only able to monitor responses to invitations that are received and we are reliant on those invites being sent to us in a timely manner to enable arrangements for attendance to be made. We have therefore requested that Children’s Services copy each invite into our central Safeguarding team in order to have a greater oversight of these invitations and our responses/attendance. On behalf of the Trust, I would like to offer our sincere condolences to Locket’s family for their loss. Yours sincerely, Chief Executive Page 3 of 3
See every Prevention of Future Deaths report matching Surrey and Borders Partnership NHS Foundation Trust, 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.