“That following admission to Southgate Ward Henry Curtis-Williams was seen by a number of…”
Dated 19 Dec 2018, from the coroner for West London. 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 publishedOrganisations 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 dated19 Dec 2018
- Deadline13 Feb 2019
- Published on judiciary.uk5 Apr 2019
- 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 |
|---|---|
| Norfolk and Suffolk NHS Foundation TrustNamed in the report as “Norfolk and Suffolk NHS Trust” | Response publishedPublished on judiciary.uk in April 2019. |
Some responses were published as scans, so their text was read automatically. Check the wording against the original before you quote it.
The coroner’s concerns
This report was published as a scan, so its text was read automatically. Check the wording against the original before you quote it.
— (1) That following admission to Southgate Ward Henry Curtis-Williams was seen by a number of different staff members. It became evident that there was a culture of not recording contemporaneous notes. This was very obvious with reference to recording presence or absence of suicidal ideation. (2) There was an acceptance that patients could be discharged by very junior doctors without prior reference to Consultant or Senior colleagues even though Henry had been admitted after being assessed by 2 Section 12 approved doctors and an Approved Mental Health Professional who felt he needed a prolonged inpatient stay. (3) Communication between staff members was very informal with no record kept of important messages relayed. For example, the member of staff who held a one to one meeting with Henry was not present at the ward round where Henry’s case was discussed but said she had verbally passed a message to the ward round nurse. This was normal practice on this ward. There was no record of the message, or of it being passed or that it was considered at the ward round.
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, 2018-0397
- 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