Source · Prevention of Future Deaths

David Stacey

Date: 28 Dec 2018 Coroner: Dianne Hocking Area: Leicester City and Leicestershire South Responses identified: 1 / 3 View PDF

A statutory requirement to provide beds for mentally disordered patients in special urgency cases is being ignored, leading to a lack of identifiable beds for high-need individuals.

Date 28 Dec 2018
56-day deadline 25 Feb 2019
Responses identified 1 of 3
Road (Highways Safety) related deaths

Coroner's concerns

AI summary
A statutory requirement to provide beds for mentally disordered patients in special urgency cases is being ignored, leading to a lack of identifiable beds for high-need individuals.
View full coroner's concerns
An expert was instructed to advise on the psychiatric aspect of Mr Stacey's death. One of the issues he identified was a failure to identify availability of a bed for cases of special urgency. This is a statutory requirement under section 140 of the Mental Health Act 1983 that the relevant health bodies (local Clinical Commissioning Group and Local Health Board) give advice to every social services authorities within the area of arrangements that are in force for the reception of mentally disordered patients in cases of special urgency. The expert was in no doubt that Mr Stacey would have fulfilled the 'special urgency' category. It transpires from my further communication with the Leicestershire Partnership Trust that there is no such facility in Leicestershire. It would appear to be a statutory requirement that is currently being ignored and I am concerned that another similar situation might arise when there are no beds available to or identifiable by, the local Trust. I. ACTION SHOULD BE TAKEN In my opinion action should be taken to prevent future deaths and I believe you have the power to take such action.

Responses

1 respondent
the Department of Health and Social Care Central Government
16 Apr 2020 PDF
Action Planned

• The Department of Health and Social Care stated it is committed to improving the implementation of requirements under section 140 of the Mental Health Act. • The Department of Health and Social Care is preparing a report to support Clinical Commissioning Groups and local authorities in making these improvements. (AI summary)

View full response
Dear Mrs Hocking As Minister with portfolio responsibility for mental health and patient safety, I am writing in relation to your Prevention of Future Deaths report issued on 28 December 2018 following the inquest into the death of David Stacey. The Department has no record of receiving your report at the time it was issued. However, after officials became aware of your report in February 2020, we feel it is appropriate to provide a response. I would like to begin by conveying my deepest sympathies to Mr Stacey’s family and loved ones. I appreciate how distressing Mr Stacey’s death must be to those who knew and loved him and we must do all we can to prevent future tragedies. While I cannot comment on the specifics of this case, we expect local health and social services to always work in the best interest of their patients and in accordance with the provisions in the Mental Health Act 1983. On the use of section 140 beds, as you identify in your report, clinical commissioning groups (CCGs) have a duty to notify local authorities of the arrangements in place for the reception of patients in cases of special urgency. The Mental Health Act 1983: Code of Practice1, includes guidance on how the use of section 140 beds should be managed locally. The Code makes clear that local authorities, providers, NHS commissioners, police forces and ambulance services should ensure that a clear, joint policy, is in place for the safe and appropriate admission of people in the local area in cases of special urgency. This should be agreed at board level and each party should appoint a named senior lead. 1 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/code-of-practice-mental-health-act-1983

[Page 2] We are committed to improving the implementation of requirements under section 140 of the Mental Health Act and, in response to the findings in Sir Simon Wessely’s Independent Review of the Mental Health Act2, we are preparing a report to support CCGs and local authorities to make these improvements. This will be published as soon as it is possible to do so. We are also committed to ensuring that people subject to the Act receive better care and have a much greater say in that care and we will publish a White Paper setting out the Government’s response to the Independent Review. Our intention is that the White Paper will pave the way for reform to the Mental Health Act and tackle the issues addressed by Sir Simon Wessely’s Review. I hope this response is helpful. NADINE DORRIES 2 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/modernising-the-mental-health-act-final-report-from-the-independent- review

Report sections

Investigation and inquest
On 08 December 2017 I commenced an investigation into the death of David Reginald Bert Stacey The Inquest concluded on 14 December 2018 before a jury. Cause of Death 1a) Chest injuries sustained in a road traffic collision.
Circumstances of the death
The findings of the jury in Box 3 were `Mr Stacey was in his Toyota car on the A4304 Theddingworth Road at 11.02 on the 27th of November 2017, after a road traffic collision. Despite medical treatment he was pronounced dead at the scene. The road traffic collision was attributed to Mr Stacey driving at approximately 78 MPH and crossing the double solid central line into oncoming traffic.' The jury's conclusion in Box 4 was:- `On the 27th of November 2017at 00:23 the police received a 999 call from Mr Stacey's neighbour that Mr Stacey was at his neighbours home and had allegedly been attacked. The police attended and took Mr Stacey back to his own home. Mr Stacey was agitated and worried the I.R.A were after him. The police decided that Mr Stacey needed to be seen by Triage Car to be assessed and they were called. Triage Car arrived and the senior mental health nurse spoke to Mr Stacey and decided he needed to be assessed under section 2 of the mental health act. The mental health act assessment team were contacted and the Triage Car nurse gave a handover to one of the doctors. The doctors agreed he needed to be assessed and said they would attend after they had finished their current assessment. The Triage Car team informed the police the mental health act assessment team were on their way and they could leave when the next mental health act assessment team arrived. The mental health act assessment team arrived and were given a handover by the police. We feel unanimously that the handover was appropriate. After the handover the police left and we feel unanimously that the police officers should not have remained at the property whilst the assessment was taking place. We feel unanimously that there was no further police presence needed, despite the calls made. During the assessment there was concern by the mental health act assessment team, however we feel unanimously that Mr Stacey's behaviour did not warrant the mental health assessment team leaving the premises. The doctors made the recommendation that Mr Stacey should be detained under section 2 of the mental health act and the AMHP acce ted their recommendations. We feel unanimous) that the

AMHP became responsible for Mr Stacey's safety. After the assessment, the mental health act assessment team decided to leave the building and Mr Stacey was left alone. We feel unanimously that the level of risk was assessed appropriately as a high -level of risk. The mental health act assessment team then convened in a car outside to finish paperwork and escalated the case on to their respective line managers. Mr Stacey had no further known contact until 10-12 AM on the 27th November when a 999 call was made by him. In this call he repeatedly used the phrase "violet line", so we unanimously feel, that Mr Stacey was still suffering psychotic symptoms. Mr Stacey was then involved in a fatal road traffic collision at 11.02P;M on 27th November 2017.We accept the admission by the Leicestershire Partnership Trust that a bed was available for Mr Stacey and find that it was not communicated properly due to a serious failure in their process. Additionally we find that Mr Stacey's death was "contributed to by neglect by the mental health act assessment team" due to the team leaving Mr Stacey's property before other safeguards had been put in place.

Similar PFD reports

Shared signals

Related inquiry recommendations

Similar themes

Report details

Date of report
28 December 2018
Coroner
Dianne Hocking
Coroner area
Leicester City and Leicestershire South

Responses identified

Responses identified 1 of 3
2 responses not yet linked

Organisations named in PFD reports are normally expected to respond within 56 days. Deadline: 25 Feb 2019.

Sent to

East Leicestershire Clinical Commissioning Group
Heart of England NHS Foundation Trust
Minister for Health

Source links