Prevention of Future Deaths reports · 2026
Regulation 28 report to prevent future deaths, reference 2026-0130, written 27 Feb 2026. A coroner writes one of these when an inquest reveals a risk that could cause further deaths unless something changes.
| Date of report | 27 Feb 2026 |
|---|---|
| Reference | 2026-0130 |
| Deceased | Louis Saunders |
| Coroner | Laura Bradford |
| Coroner area | East Sussex |
| Category | Mental Health related deaths |
| 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: REPORT TO PREVENT FUTURE DEATHS
NOTE: This form is to be used after an inquest.
REGULATION 28 REPORT TO PREVENT DEATHS
THIS REPORT IS BEING SENT TO:
1
2
3
4
1 NHS England
CORONER
I am Laura BRADFORD, Senior Coroner for the coroner area of East Sussex Coroners
Service
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 10 October 2024 I commenced an investigation into the death of Louis Robert
SAUNDERS aged 23. The investigation concluded at the end of the inquest on 25 February
2026. The conclusion of the inquest was that:
Louis Robert Saunders was diagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
(“ADHD”) in October 2022. Louis was under the care of a private ADHD clinic and was
started on medication and once stabilised, his care was transferred to his NHS GP. Louis
experienced negative side effects from his medication, including suicidal ideation and in
June 2024 he mentioned that he had thoughts of travelling to cliffs in East Sussex. It is
understood following this, Louis stopped taking his medication and there was no medication
found in his system following his death. On 31 July 2024, Louis contacted his health insurer
to be referred for further therapy (having previously found it beneficial) and he was
awaiting assessment. In the months following, Louis continued to receive privately funded
therapy and during this time his behaviour was noted to be changeable. On 8 October,
Louis made a further call to his insurer to query about therapy and a follow-up appointment
was arranged. On 9 October 2024, Louis travelled from his home address in London to the
East Sussex coast, arriving at 09:30. Later that evening his car was found parked in a
layby. The following morning, a backpack was found on the cliff edge which contained
Louis’ belongings and a search was undertaken. Louis’ body was found at the base of the
cliff below the area where the backpack was found and his death was confirmed at the
scene (on 10 October 2024 at 10:21).
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE DEATH
Louis was diagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (“ADHD”) in October
2022. He was diagnosed by a private ADHD clinic and was started on medication by that
clinic. Once stabilised, his care was transferred to his NHS GP under a shared care
agreement. Louis experienced negative side effects from his medication, including suicidal
ideation and in June 2024 he mentioned that he had thoughts of travelling to cliffs in East
Sussex. It is understood following this, Louis stopped taking his medication and there was
no medication found in his system following his death. Between July 2024 and October
2024, Louis had contact with both his NHS GP and multiple private therapy providers, he
received Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing ("EMDR") treatment and
contacted his health insurer to seek talking therapy during this time. On 9 October 2024,
Louis travelled from his home address in London to the East Sussex coast, arriving at
09:30. Later that evening his car was found parked in a layby. The following morning, a
Regulation 28 – After Inquest
Document Template Updated 30/07/2021
backpack was found on the cliff edge which contained Louis’ belongings and a search was
undertaken. Louis’ body was found at the base of the cliff below the area where the
backpack was found and his death was confirmed at the scene.
5
CORONER’S CONCERNS
During the course of the investigation my inquiries 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:
(brief summary of matters of concern)
Whilst it is understood that Louis had stopped taking his medication due to a perceived
increase in suicidal ideation, and no medication was found in his system following his death,
the evidence identified that he was being prescribed ADHD medication by both his NHS GP
and the private ADHD clinic. Neither organisation was aware of the other’s ongoing
prescribing until the time of the inquest.
After Louis’ ADHD treatment was transferred to his GP, the plan was for the surgery to
continue issuing his medication. Accordingly, on 6 November 2023, the surgery issued a
prescription for Lisdexamfetamine ([REDACTED]). However, Louis had attended an
appointment
at the ADHD clinic the previous day, on 5 November 2023, and the clinic’s notes record that
he was to continue on Dexamfetamine ([REDACTED]). Although the medications
have similar names, they are distinct drugs with different dosing requirements. Effective
management and titration are understood to be essential to ensure therapeutic benefit and
limit adverse effects.
The concern that has arisen relates to continuity of care between private providers and the
NHS once a patient has been diagnosed with ADHD, commenced on medication, and
subsequently transferred to GP care. In Louis’ case, communication between the private
sector and the NHS was insufficiently clear, and the situation became more complex when
he continued to be seen by both the ADHD clinic and his GP. This created opportunities for
key information to be missed.
Although medication was not directly implicated in Louis’ death, there remains a risk that a
patient may inadvertently obtain duplicate prescriptions or become confused about which
medication to take. Such scenarios may pose a risk of future deaths. As increasing numbers
of patients are receiving ADHD diagnoses and commencing treatment in the private sector
due to long NHS waiting times, I am concerned about the robustness of current processes
to ensure safe and continuous care following transfer to a GP.
ACTION SHOULD BE TAKEN
In my opinion action should be taken to prevent future deaths and I believe you (and/or
your organisation) have the power to take such action.
YOUR RESPONSE
You are under a duty to respond to this report within 56 days of the date of this report,
namely by April 24, 2026. 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.
COPIES and PUBLICATION
I have sent a copy of my report to the Chief Coroner and to Louis’ family and the following
6
7
8
Interested Persons:
[REDAC
TED]
Regulation 28 – After Inquest
Document Template Updated 30/07/2021
Nuffield Health Wellbeing Service
I have also sent it to the following who may find it useful or of interest:
[REDACTED]– ADHD Taskforce
Royal College of Psychiatrists
Royal Pharmaceutical Society
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 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
Dated: 27/02/2026
Laura BRADFORD
Senior Coroner for
East Sussex Coroners Service
Regulation 28 – After Inquest
Document Template Updated 30/07/2021
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.
Ms Laura Bradford Senior Coroner East Sussex Coroner's Court and Office Westfield House St Anne's Crescent Lewes BN7 1UE Medical Director for Mental Health & Neurodiversity NHS England Wellington House 133-155 Waterloo Road London SE1 8UG 17th April 2026 Dear Coroner, Re: Regulation 28 Report to Prevent Future Deaths – Louis Robert Saunders, who died on 10 October 2024 Thank you for your Report to Prevent Future Deaths (hereafter “Report”) dated 27 February 2026 concerning the death of Louis Robert Saunders on 10 October 2024. In advance of responding to the specific concerns raised in your Report, I would like to express my sincere condolences to Louis’ family and loved ones. NHS England are keen to assure the family and the coroner that the concerns raised about Louis’ care have been listened to and reflected upon. ADHD services are a complex landscape. They are commissioned locally by Integrated Care Boards (ICBs) with significant national variation existing in pathways and provision, including independent sector providers operating under the Right to Choose framework. Your report highlights the potentially serious patient safety risk created by ineffective sharing of clinical information between care providers, in this case between a private care provider and NHS primary care. I note your reference to a shared care agreement (SCA) being put into place between the private provider and Louis’ GP, following his diagnosis in October 2022 (“his care was transferred to his NHS GP under a shared care agreement”). SCAs are formal arrangements supporting the safe sharing or transfer of elements of a patient’s ongoing care between, or from, a specialist provider to primary care, where this is clinically appropriate and agreed by all parties. Their purpose is to enable patients to receive continuing care in the community, while ensuring appropriate specialist oversight is maintained. Under an SCA, the specialist (in this case the private provider) initiates treatment and remains responsible for the overall treatment plan, including diagnosis, treatment initiation, and specialist review. The primary care prescriber (in this case Louis’ GP) may agree to take on responsibility for routine prescribing and agreed monitoring requirements, in line with locally agreed arrangements and any national guidance. Effective shared care relies on clear communication between the specialist and the primary care prescriber. The specialist is responsible for providing sufficient clinical information to support safe prescribing and for promptly communicating any changes to the treatment plan, including the outcome of scheduled reviews. The primary care prescriber may seek specialist advice as required, including where concerns arise regarding treatment efficacy or adverse effects. For medications that require ongoing specialist oversight, such as those used in the management of ADHD, SCAs are typically time-limited and subject to regular specialist review. Overall clinical accountability for the patients care remains with the specialist, while specific elements of care are delivered under shared care arrangements: the specialist retains responsibility for diagnosis, treatment initiation, specialist review and any material changes to the treatment plan, and the GP undertakes agreed aspects of prescribing and monitoring in line with the SCA. The patient therefore remains under the care of both the specialist and the GP throughout. Where a material change to treatment is proposed, a revised or new SCA would normally be required, subject to the agreement of the GP. I understand from your report that the SCA was established for the provision of Lisdexamfetamine (30mg) to Louis, and the first prescription issued by his GP, in November 2023. However, concurrently, Louis was reviewed by his specialist and his pharmacological treatment changed to Dexamfetamine (5mg, 3 times daily), resulting in simultaneous prescriptions. It is not unusual for a brief overlap in prescribing to exist when a treatment change occurs in the background of an existing SCA. Normally we would anticipate that the private provider (as the responsible specialist) would have discussed with Louis that this change of medication meant he should no longer take the Lisdexamfetamine prescribed previously and communicated the change in treatment plan to Louis’ GP, in order that they could discontinue the existing Lisdexamfetamine prescription. We understand the concern that has arisen relates to continuity of care and robustness of process between private providers and the NHS once a patient has been diagnosed with ADHD, commenced on medication, and subsequently transferred to GP care. However, I want to reassure you that it is entirely appropriate for a patient receiving ADHD medication via an SCA to remain under the care of their responsible specialist alongside their primary care prescriber, due to the need for the responsible specialist to retain oversight and manage treatment in line with the evolving needs of the patient. I have fed your concerns back to NHS England’s National ADHD Programme and Primary Care Teams, who will ensure that the risks you have raised of duplicate prescriptions and confusion between current and previous medication regimes, and actions you have identified, including the need for continuity of care and timely and effective communication of treatment changes, are highlighted to both specialist providers and primary care prescribers wherever possible in their ongoing work. NHS England is committed to working with system partners, including commissioners and providers of ADHD support, to improve health-related experience and outcomes for those with ADHD. We recently published non-mandatory guide prices for ADHD assessments and treatment pathways, alongside detailed commissioning guidance, that will set clear expectations for assessment standards, data quality, clinical governance, shared care and follow-up. More fundamentally, the government has commissioned an Independent review into mental health conditions, ADHD and autism to look at the issues relating to assessment and diagnosis you have raised. In parallel to the Review, we are also conducting an internal exercise to understand current NHS clinical and operational practice and spend on mental health, autism and ADHD services. In addition to identifying unwarranted variation in service models, we will explore how we can improve access, productivity and quality of NHS services with a range of experts. To inform local commissioning and provision of care, we will use our findings to set out clear proposals for the future of mental health, autism and ADHD services. It is also important to reaffirm the national commitment to suicide prevention. NHS England and the Department of Health and Social Care continue to prioritise improvements in early identification of suicide risk, safe prescribing, timely access to psychological support and joined-up communication across organisations. These priorities are reflected in the national suicide prevention strategy, which places particular focus on young adults and people with neurodevelopmental conditions, groups recognised as facing disproportionately high risks. Regional Response The South East Regional NHS England Team have liaised with the NHS GP practice and the private ADHD clinic regarding this case. The NHS GP practice have held multiple practice meetings looking at their in-house systems around SCAs for their patients with ADHD. Through this they identified difficulties with communication between themselves and the private provider which meant that the practice were not fully aware of what treatment Louis was receiving. They also noted difficulties in being able to contact the private clinics due to problems both with finding a point of contact and receiving a response. The NHS GP practice highlighted that with SCAs used for other medications there is a clear standardisation of what is expected from general practice and secondary care. They would welcome improved communication with private providers and greater clarity around the specifics of an ADHD shared care agreement. The Region have liaised with the private ADHD clinic who have advised that they have held a formal preventing future deaths review meeting for this case. The result of the review was that they did not identify any deficiencies in their processes, nor any changes required to their current clinical practice. They highlighted their current systems ensure continuity of care and safer prescribing which included that following every clinical interaction, including titration, medication reviews, and shared care reviews, detailed written correspondence is issued to the patient’s GP to ensure continuity, transparency, and clarity of care. They clarified that they do not initiate medication without first obtaining a Summary Care Record or equivalent clinical information from the patient’s GP. The Region will be sharing the responses from the NHS GP with the private provider and the private providers response with the NHS GP so they are aware of each other’s response. If you have any further questions we would advise you address those to the private provider directly. I would also like to provide further assurances on the national NHS England work taking place around the Reports to Prevent Future Deaths. All reports received are discussed by the Regulation 28 Working Group, comprising Regional Medical Directors, and other clinical and quality colleagues from across the regions. This ensures that key learnings and insights around events, such as the sad death of Louis, are shared across the NHS at both a national and regional level and helps us to pay close attention to any emerging trends that may require further review and action. Thank you for bringing these important patient safety issues to my attention and please do not hesitate to contact me should you need any further information. Yours sincerely, Medical Director for Mental Health and Neurodiversity NHS England
See every Prevention of Future Deaths report matching Mental Health related deaths, 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.