“There was a failure on the part of EPUT nursing and (particularly) support staff to…”

The coroner’s concerns

– 1. There was a failure on the part of EPUT nursing and (particularly) support staff to appropriately undertake and record the required therapeutic engagement and interaction observations. Members of support staff demonstrably misunderstood (and appear to still misunderstand) the nature and purpose of Level 2 ‘intermittent’ (4 to 5 times) hourly observations, apparently routinely conducting such observations every 15 minutes on the hour, the quarter past and so on. Whilst the observations, when made, recorded the location of the patient and (very occasionally) noted what the patient may be doing, nothing was recorded in respect of an interaction or therapeutic engagement, as required by Trust policy. Such a lack of understanding of the basic role of the support worker and/or nursing staff in undertaking such critically important roles disclosed an (on-going) deficit in training. 2. Further, the clear evidence also disclosed an on-going failure in the quality assurance and auditing processes deployed by EPUT. A purported weekly quality assurance check being undertaken by the Ward Manager in December 2021, which claimed “an audit score of 100%”, was entirely at odds with the evidence at inquest which revealed repeated and significant inadequacies in the nature and quality of the observations undertaken and recorded. 3. Of even greater concern is that even after the move from paper to electronic observation records the same Beech Ward Manager (then and now) stated in evidence: “I have no audit tool …. I am not confident that the audits are accurate and complete now … there is no audit process in place to check the quality of observation and engagement documentation.” 4. The Deputy Director of Quality and Safety (Inpatient and Urgent Care) recognised in her written and oral evidence that the available free text box now included on the electronic version of the records relating to observation and engagement is “not a mandatory field” in the recording 3 process and that: “it appears that at some point the Tendable audits were amended to omit the audits of the quality and nature of the observation records.” 5. It remains unclear how (or why) this came about, and I am very concerned that the apparent reliance on staff supervision (as per paragraph 7.1 of the Therapeutic Engagement and Supportive Observation Clinical Guideline (Inpatients)) and staff handovers to rigorously audit the nature and quality of the conduct and recording of therapeutic engagement and supportive observations remains a wholly inadequate mechanism for the purposes of achieving appropriate qualitative compliance monitoring. 6. The lacuna identified above gives rise to a real concern regarding the robustness of EPUT quality assurance and auditing processes generally, and particularly in the context of the on-going issues relating to the nature and quality of the conduct by EPUT staff of such critically important observations including the essential therapeutic engagements and interactions, with highly vulnerable inpatients at risk of suicide. This is a concern, I am told, also shared by the Deputy Director quoted above.

An extract. Read the full report, including the circumstances of the death, on the Courts and Tribunals Judiciary website.

Source

judiciary.uk, Prevention of Future Deaths reports, 2025-0556

Added to Minute Book

8 Oct 2026

Reuse

We show short extracts and link to the original. We don’t host the full report.

Something wrong, such as a date or who it was sent to? Report a mistake

Is this report about someone close to you? You can ask us to remove names from our pages.

Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. Source: Courts and Tribunals Judiciary, judiciary.uk. Open Government Licence v3.0