“Some staff at the Trust were so focussed on 'process' that they lost sight of the need…”
Dated 1 Dec 2025, from the coroner for Kent and Medway. Sent to 1 organisation or person.
A coroner wrote this report after an inquest, to warn the organisations below about a risk of further deaths.
The 56-day response deadline
All responses publishedReplies were due by 26 Jan 2026.
Organisations that receive a report must reply to the coroner within 56 days, saying what they will do or why they will do nothing. We show whether a response is published on judiciary.uk; a reply may have been sent and not yet published.
- Report dated1 Dec 2025
- Deadline26 Jan 2026
- Published on judiciary.uk21 Jan 2026
- Today23 Oct 2026
Watch this report
We’ll email you when a response is published on judiciary.uk, or when the 56 days to reply end with none published there yet. Free, and you can stop with one click.
Responses from each recipient
| Sent to | Response |
|---|---|
| Kent and Medway Mental Health NHS TrustNamed in the report as “Kent and Medway NHS Mental Health Trust” | Response publishedPublished on judiciary.uk in January 2026. |
The coroner’s concerns
(1) Some staff at the Trust were so focussed on 'process' that they lost sight of the need for patient centred care. This was accepted within the Trusts PSII report. I was insufficiently reassured that action has been taken to address this matter. (2) The process in place for triaging and considering referrals to the Rapid Response Team is reliant, for the most part, on call handlers working through a script and there is a total lack of clarity regarding clinical decision making in this regard. The Trust acknowledged in its PSII report that there was "no evidence of senior clinical oversight of the decision making or clarity as to where the final clinical decision sits regarding accepting or declining referrals". A senior manger from the Trust told me, in evidence, that there is still work to be done to address this concern. (3) Evidence I considered showed that some risk factors, such as the masking of symptoms, were well documented. However, the HTT clinician still appeared not to acknowledge the extent of such risks. This raises the risk of a repeat of this concern in the future. (4) I heard evidence that the decision to discharge Mark from the HTT was made at a multidisciplinary team (MDT) meeting prior to the HTT nurse visiting Mark on 6 May 2025. This raises the concern that the decision was pre-determined. I heard no evidence that this situation has changed. (5) Both the nurse from MHT+ and the consultant psychiatrist gave evidence that the MHT+ were not included, as the receiving team, in the MDT decision on 6 May 2025. They considered that this would have been useful and is something that can and has happened in the past. I was told that this left Mark 'in limbo' following the his discharge from HTT and I was told that this is something that has not changed since. (6) I heard evidence that the Trust does not have care co-ordinators and the clinician felt that this could lead to similar situations arising in the future. (7) The Collaborative Assessment and Management of Suicidality (CAMS) work undertaken by the Trust lacks "dedicated resource in place to manage or support implementation" (quote taken from Trust PSII report). I also heard that the CAMS programme cannot currently be integrated with the Trust's computerised records system, due to copyright issues. This matter was due to be resolved by June 2025; however, it remains unresolved with a current target date of June 2026. I was told that there is no system in place to safety net the use of both paper and computerised records in the meantime. (8) I heard evidence that as a result of the referral to the Rapid Response Team being declined, Mark's mental health care technically rested with the MHT+ team, which only works until 17:00. As a result, the Approved Mental Health Practitioner service (responsible for arranging MHA assessments) would have been unable to speak to the referrer. While this was not an issue in the specific circumstances of this case, I consider that it raises risks for others in the future. 6. 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. 7. YOUR RESPONSE You are under a duty to respond to this report within 56 days of the date of this report, namely by 9 March 2026. I, the coroner, may extend the period.
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, 2026-0023
- 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
Ask about this report
AISummaries and questions, with page references. Pro and above.
Sign in to use