Minute Book, home
Coroner’s reportPrevention of future deaths · 2017-0203

“CONCERN 1 On The 6th July 2016 a nurse at the Trust contacted Mr Cardwell to find out why…”

Dated 23 Jun 2017, from the coroner for Preston and East Lancashire. 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.

Read the full report on judiciary.uk

How this works

The 56-day response deadline

Deadline passed

Replies were due by 18 Aug 2017. A reply may have been sent and not yet published.

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.

  1. Report dated23 Jun 2017
  2. Deadline18 Aug 2017
  3. Published on judiciary.uk28 Jul 2017
  4. 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.

Next we ask your name, then send a link to confirm and create your free account. Already have an account? Sign in

Responses from each recipient

Responses from each recipient
Sent toResponse
Lancashire & South Cumbria NHS Foundation TrustNamed in the report as “Lancashire Care NHS Foundation Trust”Deadline passedNo response published on judiciary.uk so far. The 56-day deadline was 18 Aug 2017. A reply may have been sent and not yet published.

The coroner’s concerns

– CONCERN 1 On The 6th July 2016 a nurse at the Trust contacted Mr Cardwell to find out why he had not attended his appointment with the Psychiatrist that day. Mr Cardwell told the nurse that he had been unable to attend the appointment because he had no petrol. He also advised that he had no phone credit and had therefore been unable to contact them. Mr Cardwell reported that his ex-partner had stolen his bankcard and that all the money had gone from his account. The nurse advised that this information would be passed to the MDT for their consideration the following day. Mr Cardwell wanted another appointment but he said it would have to be a home visit. Whilst Mr Cardwell was discussed at the MDT meeting on the 7th July and discharged, I found on the evidence that the message explaining his nonattendance and requesting a further appointment was not relayed to the MDT. Had that message been relayed to the MDT, I found that Mr Cardwell would have been offered a further appointment and would not have been discharged at that time. This failure in communication is a matter of concern. I am concerned about the process by which messages are relayed from service users to the MDT team. The nurse explained that the information was passed on to be taken up by the Duty Worker and it should then have been reported to the team. The nurse also recorded the contact in Mr Cardwell’s clinical record but these were not looked at during the course of the MDT meeting. CONCERN 2 On the 6th August 2016 Mr Cardwell was seen in hospital by a member of the liaison team following a significant overdose. He was later discharged from hospital and he queried with the HTT on the 9th August 2016 (on attending West Strand House in person) whether he was due a follow-up with the HTT. Mr Cardwell was told that the MDT would be asked the following day and that someone would contact him from the team to let him know. I found that the message was - on this occasion - relayed by the Duty Practitioner to the MDT on the 10th August 2016. However, the MDT did not discuss Mr Cardwell and nothing was recorded about him. No-one contacted Mr Cardwell back to advise him as to whether or not he would have an appointment with the HTT. I heard evidence that the MDT meeting could be disorganised. I am concerned that Mr Cardwell was not considered by the team, despite the message being handed over to them. I am also concerned about a lack of record keeping during the MDT. Even where patients are discussed, the notes appear to be very brief.

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, 2017-0203
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

AI

Summaries and questions, with page references. Pro and above.

Sign in to use