Source · Prevention of Future Deaths

Sarah Reed

Ref: 2017-0238 Date: 28 Jul 2017 Coroner: Sir Peter Thornton QC Area: London (City) Responses identified: 2 / 4 View PDF

Prolonged custody awaiting psychiatric reports led to significant deterioration of the deceased's mental health in a prison assessment unit, resulting in her self-inflicted death.

Date 28 Jul 2017
56-day deadline 22 Sep 2017 est.
Responses identified 2 of 4
Hospital Death (Clinical Procedures and medical management) related deaths Mental Health related deaths State Custody related deaths Suicide (from 2015)

Coroner's concerns

AI summary
Prolonged custody awaiting psychiatric reports led to significant deterioration of the deceased's mental health in a prison assessment unit, resulting in her self-inflicted death.

Responses

2 respondents
CNWL NHS Trust NHS / Health Body
5 Sep 2017 PDF
Action Taken

CNWL NHS Trust has clarified report request procedures with HMPPS, ensured report requests are communicated to consultants promptly, updated care plan templates to include release planning, audited CPA meetings to improve attendance, and launched an Offender Care Transformation Board to reduce self-harm and avoid unexpected deaths. (AI summary)

View full response
Dear Mr Thorogood,

Re: REGULATION 28 REPORT TO PREVENT FUTURE DEATHS FOLLOWING THE INQUEST OF MS SARAH REED

I write in response to the Regulation 28 Report, issued by HH Sir Peter Thornton QC, following the inquest into the death of Ms Sarah Reed.

Central and North West London NHS Foundation Trust deeply regret the death of Ms Reed and the distress that this has caused her family.

We have noted the matters of concern raised in the Regulation 28 Report. We accept these and below outline our responses to them, current processes and intended actions we intend to take over the next 12 weeks.

A. Fitness to Plead Reports We have had a discussion with Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) who have agreed to clarify the process and procedure for the provision of psychiatric reports to Courts.

Producing psychiatric reports, including in relation to fitness to plead and sentencing, is not something we do routinely within Offender Care services. Notwithstanding this, we fully accept that there was a delay in the communication to the responsible clinician in this case the request for this to be provided to the Court.

Under normal circumstances, the request should be communicated to the Consultant carrying clinical responsibility for the service, and then a decision is made as to how best to undertake this work. If the Consultant is unable to complete this work, the Court is informed so alternative experts can be instructed.

It now forms part of our Standard Operating Procedures that any requests for reports are communicated to the Consultant as soon as they are received; this includes instructions from the Court, defence solicitors, Crown Prosecution Service and/or any other relevant external agencies including Probation Services.

B. ACCT Reviews and Observations CNWL Offender Care have developed a “Roles and Responsibilities for Attendance at ACCT Reviews” Local Operating Procedure for all of our staff at our prison sites. This has been written in conjunction with NOMS Prison Service Instruction 64/2011 and has been operationalised at all of our prison sites.

The aim of this document is to give clear guidance to all healthcare staff about what is expected before, during and after planned and unscheduled ACCT reviews.

It is part of our procedures that registered healthcare professionals represent healthcare at ACCT reviews. This includes registered nurses, psychologists, social workers, doctors and/or occupational therapists. Where a healthcare professional is not registered, for example a Healthcare Assistant or Mental Health Associate Practitioner, and is familiar with the prisoner, then they can attend in addition to the registered professional.

Our procedures are comprehensive and explain:

 Our response in hours and out of hours;  Who and how to update records both on prison systems and our own electronic patient record;  How we assess risk and complexity; and  What actions we take following a review and our role when making a decision to close an ACCT. Prior to attending an ACCT review it is the responsibility of the Healthcare Professional to review SystmOne notes and fully update themselves of the current situation, relevant history and risk factors in addition to any recent ACCT reviews.

During the ACCT review the attending Healthcare Professional is expected to contribute to the review updating the multi-disciplinary team on any outstanding care map actions.

The Healthcare Professional should be vocal in any concerns they have and ensure that they are documented within the ACCT review. This includes decisions regarding observation levels, which are considered jointly by the ACCT Manager and the attending Healthcare Professionals. Following the ACCT review, the Healthcare Professional is responsible for making an entry onto the medical records using the appropriate template in addition to the ACCT book.

It is expected that all Healthcare Professionals attending ACCT reviews should have attended ACCT training provided by the prison and attend refresher training every three years.

In addition, CNWL Offender Care has developed its own bespoke training for the management of harm and suicide in prison environments. This training forms part of our mandatory training list and is retaken annually by all staff. Across Offender Care,

we are currently 94% compliant with this requirement. Statutory and mandatory training compliance is monitored via internal CNWL quality systems.

C. CPA Meeting

Care Programme Approach (CPA) is the national framework for the mental health services assessment, care planning, review, care co-ordination, and service user and carer involvement focussed on recovery.

The framework includes CPA and Lead Professional Care (LPC) arrangements. CPA is for those who have more complex needs, are at most risk or have severe and enduring mental illness. Lead Professional Care (LPC) is for people who need secondary mental health services but have more straightforward needs, for example, contact with only one professional or one agency requiring a more simple care plan.

There is a lack of guidance specific to CPA in prison and as such, there lacks a consistent approach within prison mental health services nationally, not only in the allocation of cases to CPA, but also in the timing of reviews.

Decisions about whether to allocate a particular case to CPA or LPC must be based on current assessment information and discussion in the care team, including services users and any carers involved. Where a prisoner is referred to the Mental Health Services and is already subject to CPA (from the community or a different prison) then it is expected that their care will continue under CPA. Where a person is awaiting transfer to hospital under Sections 47/49 or 48/49 of the Mental Health Act 1983 (as amended), it is expected that they are managed under CPA.

CNWL Offender Care services align our approach to CPA with current national practice. That is to say, any prisoner subject to CPA would be expected to have had a CPA review within 6 months of reception into custody, and further, a physical health check on an annual basis. We monitor this internally.

Further, our prison services assess new admissions within five days of arrival unless considered emergency, where they would be seen within four hours, or urgent, when they would be seen within 48 hours.

We are aware of the Jury’s conclusions in regards to medication management in the case of Ms Reed. Clinicians who prescribe are autonomous practitioners, making decisions and rationale for medication management. They also use multi-disciplinary team discussions between clinicians to consider alternative when treating individuals who are mentally unwell.

We accept that in this case a CPA meeting should have been arranged sooner. Ms Reed’s mental health and social functioning had deteriorated to the degree that this should have been prioritised. Further, we recognise that a CPA meeting would have allowed more detailed discussion regarding medication management.

As a result of this case CNWL Offender Care has produced prison specific guidance highlighting these requirements which has been disseminated to all prison sites

regarding expectations around CPA management, for comment. We expect this to be formally ratified as a new policy by 1 October 2017.

D. Visits We have had a discussion with HMPPS who have agreed to provide a response regarding the procedure for cancelling visits.

E. Notification of a Prisoner’s Release A new discharge policy – “Continuity of Care on Release/Discharge or Transfer from Prison” has been written by CNWL Offender Care. This has been written in line with the recently published NICE guidance (Physical Healthcare of People in Prison (NG57) 2 November 2016, and will be used across all CNWL Offender Care sites. Once ratified, by 1 October 2017, the below will become standard and expected practice.

In regard to carrying out a pre-release health assessment for people with complex needs, this will be led by primary healthcare and involve multidisciplinary team members and the prisoner. It will take place at least 1 month before the person’s planned release date. For people who may be in prison for less than 1 month, pre- release health assessments will be planned during their second health assessment.

The following is included in the care summary and post-release action plan for all prisoners:

 Any significant health events that affected the person while they were in prison, for example new diagnoses, hospital admissions and instances of self- harm;  Any health or social care provided in prison;  Details of any on-going health and social care needs, including medicines they are taking, mental health and/or substance misuse;  Future health and social care appointments, including appointments with, secondary and tertiary care, mental health services, substance misuse and recovery services, and, social services.

The prisoner will be given a copy of the care summary and plan post-release and help given to those who are being released from prison to find and register with a community GP, if they were not previously registered. Before any individual with diagnosed mental health problems is released, we will liaise with services that will be providing care and support to them after they leave prison, for example referral to community mental health services, if appropriate, on release.

This will include (as needed):

 Primary care;  Secondary and tertiary specialist services (for example, HIV, TB, oncology);  Mental health or learning disability services;  Substance misuse services;

 National Probation Service;  Community Rehabilitation Company (CRC);  Social Services;  Family or carers;  External agencies such as home care.

Finally, there are a number of other areas that CNWL Offender Care continues to work across our estate to ensure the safety, effectiveness and responsiveness of the services we provide across our entire Offender Care estate. These include:

Staffing, recruitment and workforce planning

We have employed a dedicated Recruitment and Retention Lead for the directorate. All advertisements and job descriptions, including bank staff, have been updated. We are investing in recruitment incentives, such as welcome bonuses and enhanced benefits for staff. We monitor recruitment activity weekly and have relationships with regular temporary staff to ensure our units are safely staffed and we provide continuity of care. We continue to develop and innovate workforce planning by implementing new roles such as engaging pharmacists to run pharmacy-led clinics that support medication optimisation.

Benchmarking

Offender Care has been reviewed in line with recommendations set out in the “Learning from PPO investigations – Prisoner Mental Health, January 2016” and we are currently auditing against the recently released NICE guidance for prison primary and mental health service delivery. We are also currently finalising our suicide reduction strategy which will be completed for distribution amongst our prison estates by 1st October 2017.

Training

We have a range of training including statutory and mandatory, suicide and self-harm awareness, and, ACCT and continue to monitor staff compliance with it. Currently our Offender Care Services are 94% compliant with our statutory and mandatory training requirements.

Learning lessons

We have developed a Clinical Oversight Group to review all serious incidents. This group aims to reduce prisoner’s risk to self, while examining, in detail, emerging themes from serious incidents and near misses. The meeting is attended by the Trust’s Lead for Serious Incidents, ensuring lessons can be shared and learning actioned.

The Trust has also recently launched an Offender Care Transformation Board with an ambition to ensure that all patients in a custodial setting have timely access to quality physical and mental healthcare services that meet their needs. The Board will drive strategy to reduce self-harm and avoid unexpected deaths. It will also seek

assurance that learning from inspections and Coroner reports are fully embedded across our entire Offender Care portfolio. The Board meets fortnightly and formally report to the Divisional Board and Trust Executive Board.

Further, we continue to work closely with NHSE Commissioners to ensure that our services are commissioned and resourced appropriately to meet the level of acuity we are currently witnessing, both nationally, and within our service delivery units.

I hope this provides you with sufficient assurance that the Trust has taken appropriate action following the death of Ms Reed, and has accepted the recommendations and continues to work to improve the service we provide. If you have any questions or comments on the above please contact me directly on the numbers above.

I would like to conclude by saying that the Trust is passionate about good health care in prisons. Any failing or omission is taken very seriously and for the sake of future people we care for and in memory of Sarah Reed’s tragic death, we will work tirelessly to make improvements in care.
HM Prison and Probation Service Central Government
25 Sep 2017 PDF
Action Planned

HMPPS is reviewing procedures for fitness to plead reports, developing a framework to support families with prison visits (due in 2018), implementing recommendations from the Farmer Report on family ties, and implementing a new model of offender management in custody by March 2019 to ensure external agencies are notified of a prisoner's release. (AI summary)

View full response
Dear Sir Peter

Inquest into the death of Sarah Reed

Thank you for your Regulation 28 Report of 27 June 2017 following the conclusion of the inquest into the death of Sarah Reed. I am responding to the matters of concern that you have raised for the Ministry of Justice, including Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) and Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS). I understand that the Central and North West London (CNWL) NHS Foundation Trust are responding separately to your concerns about Care Programme Approach (CPA) meetings, notifying the care coordinator of a prisoner’s release, and the recording of ACCT observations on SystmOne by healthcare staff.

I know that you will be sharing a copy of this response with Sarah’s mother,

, and I would like first to express my sincere condolences for her loss. Every death in custody is a tragedy and the safety of those in our care is my absolute priority.

I am grateful to you for bringing these matters of concern to my attention. I will address the issues that you have raised in the order that they appear in your report.

Fitness to Plead Reports Your first concern is about the procedures for obtaining and providing fitness to plead psychiatric reports.

Work to review the procedures for obtaining and providing psychiatric reports is already underway, recognising the particular gap in relation to provision of reports for the purposes of fitness to plead. Following your letter to , Chief Executive HMCTS, I can confirm that in July 2017 HMCTS and the Judicial Office re- issued existing guidance from 2010 on this process, with the caveat that it is recognised that some information may be out of date. The Senior Presiding Judge has asked the Criminal Procedure Rule Committee to look at this issue with a view to providing greater certainty and clarity for the judiciary and court staff when dealing with psychiatric reports. A working group under the Committee, involving a number of agencies, including representatives from HMPPS and operational staff from HMCTS, has been set up to consider the issues further and is scheduled to meet for the first time in October.

The working group will consider new practice directions, and in view of your concerns, it may decide to suggest new rules to govern the procedure on obtaining assessments of fitness to plead, and psychiatric reports for sentencing purposes. Even though listing is a judicial function, the working group may also recommend that new practice directions, or rules, should prescribe default time limits for steps to be taken and progress reviewed, subject to judicial adjustment in individual cases.

I should add that the Criminal Procedure Rule Committee is an independent statutory body chaired by the Lord Chief Justice, and that the issue of practice directions is a matter for the Lord Chief Justice himself (who, with the Senior Presiding Judge, has convened the working group to assist and advise them). Therefore, nothing I say should be interpreted as prejudging what the Rule Committee or the Lord Chief Justice may decide; but I am confident that they will act with your report firmly in mind.

ACCT Reviews and Observations Your next concerns are about ACCT reviews and observations. You have first suggested that HMPPS may wish to look afresh at improving the ACCT process by introducing a single sheet listing ongoing risk and assessment; by considering whether all those attending a review should be required to read the ACCT document in full; and by considering whether ACCT reviews should always be multidisciplinary and more consistently attended by the same personnel.

The ACCT document is currently being redesigned with a view to its nationwide re- introduction in early 2018. As part of this redesign, we will consider your suggestion that a summary sheet of ACCT observations and conversations be included.

Whilst national policy acknowledges that in certain circumstances it may be preferable to hold a review and make any necessary decisions promptly, rather than

delaying simply to allow a specific person to attend or contribute, it makes clear that there must be continuity of membership of the ACCT multidisciplinary team. The basis for this is that team members can make a meaningful contribution only if they are fully briefed and familiar with the prisoner’s situation. In order to reinforce this message, a learning bulletin (ACCT - Case Reviews, CAREMAPs and Levels of Conversations and Observations) was issued to all prisons in July this year. The bulletin reminded staff that ACCT review meetings must be multidisciplinary and must take place within the specified timescales. It further stated that that where any individual involved in the prisoner’s management cannot attend the review, they must submit written contributions.

You have also raised the issue of access to the non-confidential information in the healthcare records on SystmOne, and I understand that the CWNL NHS Foundation Trust response to your report explains how their staff are expected to share this information with prison staff.

You ask whether it is acceptable that a prison should be permitted to develop a local policy which is at variance with national policy. I can confirm that it is not. As you rightly state, under national policy, observations should be recorded immediately, or as soon as possible thereafter. I can confirm that this was reiterated in a learning bulletin (ACCT - Conversations and Observations) published in July this year, to which you refer in your report.

Care Programme Approach (CPA) Meetings Your next concern is about the scheduling of CPA meetings and attendance at them. Whilst you have directed this concern to HMPPS, CPA meetings are controlled by healthcare providers, and whilst we stand ready to assist where appropriate, we would not necessarily expect to be involved in these meetings. I am aware that the CNWL NHS Foundation Trust has responded to you separately on this point.

Prison visits You have also raised some concerns about visits. Specifically, you have asked whether the decision to cancel visits should be made at Duty Governor level; whether there should be better recording of cancelled visits and the reason for the cancellation; whether better information should be given to prospective visitors when a visit is cancelled; and whether special visiting arrangements could be made more often for prisoners who have exhibited problem behaviour.

The national policy on visits, Prison Service Instruction (PSI) 16/2011 Providing Visits and Services to Visitors, and its annexes, provides guidance on the cancellation of visits, stating that visitors must be informed at the earliest opportunity if a visit cannot be facilitated.

The PSI also states that unconvicted prisoners, such as Sarah Reed, must be allowed more frequent visits, and that establishments with a large number of unconvicted prisoners will require a more flexible system to enable rebooking of cancelled visits.

Our current policies on visits do not provide specific guidance on the issues that you have raised. They are being reviewed and the issues raised will be considered when the new policy framework, due to be launched in the summer of 2018, is being developed. In accordance with our general approach the framework will include less detailed prescription than the current policy, but it will provide guidance on how best to support families and friends with prison visits, including in relation to the points that you have raised.

We are also working to ensure that the recommendations arising from the Farmer Report, The Importance of Strengthening Prisoners’ Family Ties to Prevent Reoffending and Reduce Intergenerational Crime, published in August 2017, are implemented. Work has already commenced on the development of a strategy, which will take forward the recommendations, and arrangements have been put in place to discuss progress with Lord Farmer on a regular basis.

Notification of Prisoner’s Release. Your final concern is that external agencies with responsibility for the provision of care and support are not routinely informed of a prisoner’s release. I understand that the CNWL NHS Foundation Trust has also responded to you on this point.

Our service specification ‘Manage the Custodial and Post Release Periods’ is clear that all individuals in custody must have a resettlement plan and that the offender manager must ensure that external agencies are notified of a prisoner’s release. All prisons are expected to adhere to this specification, but I know that it is not fully in place across the estate, and we are currently implementing a new model of offender management in custody. This includes making available additional resources to ensure that there are dedicated staff in each establishment who can provide support to prisoners, including by facilitating their engagement with services prior to release. This is scheduled to be in place in all prisons by March 2019.

Thank you again for bringing these matters of concern to my attention. I trust that this letter has provided you with assurance that they are being addressed.

Report sections

Investigation and inquest
On 11 January 2016 a coroner's investigation was commenced into the death of SARAH LYNNE REED who died in HMP Holloway on that date, 32 years_ The investigation concluded at the close of the inquest on 19 July 2017 The inquest, which was held with a jury, ended with a narrative conclusion. The medical cause of death was given as ligature compression of the neck: The jury concluded that Sarah Reed took her own life at a time when the balance of her mind was disturbed to which a failure in management of her medication contributed. The jury was not sure that Sarah intended to take her own life. The jury also concluded that the failure to finish the fitness to plead assessment process in a sufficiently timely manner contributed to her death: The jury also concluded, amongst other things, that there was (a) failure by the mental health staff at HMP Holloway to act in a timely manner on the recommendation of a community health team psychiatrist that anti-psychotic medication be considered, despite specifically requesting his input; (b) failure in the management of her medication, including failing to provide an anti-psychotic medication as a safer alternative to Quetiapine (which had to be stopped for good medical reasons) , particularly pending transfer to hospital, and a lack of a contingency plan to manage her psychosis or the recurrence of it, with the result that Sarah was not receiving adequate treatment for her deteriorating mental health state, leaving her in a distressed state; (c) inappropriate reduction of the frequency of observations at Assessment Care in Custody and Teamwork (ACCT) Review No.4 on 5 January 2016, six days before her death, with the decision made by a review team that was not multi-disciplinary; (d) failure by some of those attending ACCT Reviews to read and review the whole ACCT document before making a decision; (e) unacceptable delay before holding a Care Programme Approach (CPA) meeting for long-term planning and inappropriate quality of the meeting when held; and an unacceptable number of cancelled visits including a solicitor's visit, which contributed significantly to Sarah's isolation. aged being
Circumstances of the death
The deceased took her own life on 11 January 2016 in a single occupancy cell in C1, the mental health assessment unit, of HMP Holloway, North London. She strangled herself with tight ligature made from bed linen: She had been remanded in custody by the Inner London Crown Court on 14 October 2015 solely for the purpose of obtaining one or more reports on her fitness to plead and stand trial on a charge of alleged serious assault upon a nurse at a psychiatric hospital. She had previously been on bail, but while on bail she had failed to attend two appointments in the community with psychiatrists for the purpose of their assessment of her fitness to plead. According to the Case the Judge at the Crown Court expressed the view on 14 October 2015 that can't see any way these reports will be prepared whilst the defendant remains on bail: At the hearing on 14 October 2015 the Judge therefore ordered the Court to obtain these reports and remanded Sarah in custody. She was taken to HMP Holloway By the time of Sarah's death on 11 January 2016, three months later, one report had been obtained_ It was dated 11 January 2016. A second report was due on 15 January 2016. No date had been fixed by the Crown Court for a hearing to determine the issue of her fitness to plead. There was agreed evidence that Sarah's mental condition deteriorated in HMP Holloway for the last three weeks of her life, particularly from 5 January 2016 when she was moved to the mental health assessment unit (C1). She had been on observation watch under an ACCT procedure (the second procedure since reception), which had been opened on 28 December 2015 and was still open at the time of her death On reception, it was noted that Sarah had been assessed as previously suffering variously from Emotionally Unstable Personality Disorder (EUPD); schizophrenia, psychosis, bipolar affective disorder, alcohol and substance abuse, and bulimia nervosa She had been admitted to HMP Holloway and other prisons since 2005 and had been 'sectioned' on a number of occasions The deterioration of her mental health and appearances before criminal courts dated in the main from the period after the death in September 2003 of her six month old daughter from spinal muscular atrophy:
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:

Similar PFD reports

Shared signals

Related inquiry recommendations

Similar themes

Report details

Reference
2017-0238
Date of report
28 July 2017
Coroner
Sir Peter Thornton QC
Coroner area
London (City)

Responses identified

Responses identified 2 of 4
2 responses not yet linked

Organisations named in PFD reports are normally expected to respond within 56 days. Deadline: 22 Sep 2017 (estimated).

Sent to

Central and North West London NHS Trust
HM Courts and Tribunals Service
HM Prison and Probation Service
Ministry of Justice

Source links