Source · Prevention of Future Deaths
Steven Marsland
Ref: 2019-0428
Date: 13 Dec 2019
Coroner: Alison Mutch
Area: Manchester (South)
Responses identified: 0 / 3
View PDF
Inadequate family engagement and a lack of clear policy for it post-discharge compromised patient support. Flawed care transfer procedures between borough teams resulted in no follow-up appointments or consistent community contact.
Date
13 Dec 2019
56-day deadline
24 Feb 2020 est.
Responses identified
0 of 3
Coroner's concerns
Inadequate family engagement and a lack of clear policy for it post-discharge compromised patient support. Flawed care transfer procedures between borough teams resulted in no follow-up appointments or consistent community contact.
View full coroner's concerns
Ia)
: In the circumstances it is my statutory to report to you: _ The inquest heard that his family were supportive and had attended MDT meetings whilst he was an in-patient: Following his discharge there was no attempt t0 engage his family and obtain information from them or work with them to support him in the community. There was no clear policy about how a family could be effectively engaged by the CMHT; The inquest heard that he was treated as an in-patient by the Pennine Care team within Stockport MBC. His consultant whilst he was an in-patient was part of the Stockport Team If he had been a Stockport Resident he would have been discharged under the care of that consultant in the community and had a follow up appointment booked with that Doctor at discharge. However because he was Tameside Resident at discharge his care moved to the Tameside Borough Pennine Care Team: That meant he had to be allocated to a community psychiatrist based there. That did not happen and no follow up appointment was made; The inquest heard that it was recognised as part of his discharge planning that there should be regular contact in the community with the CMHT That did not happen and there was no escalation or discussion about the picture of very limited contact as it evolved post discharge. ACTION SHOULD BE TAKEN In my opinion action should be taken to prevent future deaths and believe you have the power to take such action YOUR RESPONSE You are under a duty to respond t0 this report within 56 days of the date of this report; namely by 7th February 2020. |, 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 have sent a copy of my report to the Chief Coroner and to the following Interested Persons namely Mr Marsland's parents, who may find it useful or of interest: am also under a duty to send 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 duty - very the your response by the Chief Coroner_ Alison Mutch OBE HM Senior Coroner 13.12.2019 AkO
: In the circumstances it is my statutory to report to you: _ The inquest heard that his family were supportive and had attended MDT meetings whilst he was an in-patient: Following his discharge there was no attempt t0 engage his family and obtain information from them or work with them to support him in the community. There was no clear policy about how a family could be effectively engaged by the CMHT; The inquest heard that he was treated as an in-patient by the Pennine Care team within Stockport MBC. His consultant whilst he was an in-patient was part of the Stockport Team If he had been a Stockport Resident he would have been discharged under the care of that consultant in the community and had a follow up appointment booked with that Doctor at discharge. However because he was Tameside Resident at discharge his care moved to the Tameside Borough Pennine Care Team: That meant he had to be allocated to a community psychiatrist based there. That did not happen and no follow up appointment was made; The inquest heard that it was recognised as part of his discharge planning that there should be regular contact in the community with the CMHT That did not happen and there was no escalation or discussion about the picture of very limited contact as it evolved post discharge. ACTION SHOULD BE TAKEN In my opinion action should be taken to prevent future deaths and believe you have the power to take such action YOUR RESPONSE You are under a duty to respond t0 this report within 56 days of the date of this report; namely by 7th February 2020. |, 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 have sent a copy of my report to the Chief Coroner and to the following Interested Persons namely Mr Marsland's parents, who may find it useful or of interest: am also under a duty to send 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 duty - very the your response by the Chief Coroner_ Alison Mutch OBE HM Senior Coroner 13.12.2019 AkO
Report sections
Investigation and inquest
On 11th June 2019 commenced an investigation into the death of Steven Keith Marsland. The investigation concluded on the 18th November 2019 and the conclusion was one of Suicide. The medical cause of death was Hanging CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE DEATH Steven Marsland had a complex mental health background: He was sectioned under the Mental Health Act for bipolar disorder which had led to a manic episode with psychotic symptoms_ On gth April 2019 he was discharged from the Section 3 and was to reside in the community with support from the Community Mental Health Team (CMHT) He was prescribed sodium valproate_ There was one follow up face-to-face meeting with the CMHT on 15th April 2019. There were 4 telephone conversations with the CMHT between discharge and his death on 1Oth June 2019. On 31st May 2019 he cancelled his appointment for a face-to-face meeting: A further meeting was not arranged. The CMHT did not engage with his family following his discharge from his Section 3. A follow up outpatient appointment with a psychiatrist was not made after his discharge. His family felt he was more withdrawn: On 1Oth June 2019 he was found suspended from ligature in a wooded area adjacent to Ashton Golf Club. It was a location known to him through family fishing outings. There were no suspicious circumstances or evidence of third" party involvement:
Similar PFD reports
Related inquiry recommendations
Muckamore Abbey Inquiry
Consultation before patient transfers
Muckamore Abbey Inquiry
Named person approval for transfers
Muckamore Abbey Inquiry
Independent living skills focus
Muckamore Abbey Inquiry
Higher-funded resettlement team for complex needs
Muckamore Abbey Inquiry
Time frame and financial information for families
Muckamore Abbey Inquiry
Continuing community support provision
Muckamore Abbey Inquiry
Key individual for resettlement communication
Vale of Leven Inquiry
Service change continuity plans
Mid Staffs Inquiry
Continuing responsibility for care
Mid Staffs Inquiry
Follow up of patients
Report details
- Reference
- 2019-0428
- Date of report
- 13 December 2019
- Coroner
- Alison Mutch
- Coroner area
- Manchester (South)
Responses identified
Responses identified
0 of 3
3 responses not yet linked
Organisations named in PFD reports are normally expected to respond within 56 days. Deadline: 24 Feb 2020 (estimated).
Sent to
- Department of Health and Social Care
- Pennine Care NHS Trust
- Tameside and Glossop Clinical Commissioning Group