“During the evidence there was some confusion amongst staff as to what was required of…”
Dated 14 Dec 2020, from the coroner for West Sussex. 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 8 Feb 2021.
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 dated14 Dec 2020
- Deadline8 Feb 2021
- Published on judiciary.uk6 Jan 2021
- 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 |
|---|---|
| Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust | Response publishedPublished on judiciary.uk in January 2021. |
The coroner’s concerns
– a) During the evidence there was some confusion amongst staff as to what was required of them when carrying out observations patients in their rooms. There were different practices adopted by different staff and there appeared to be a custom of not enteriing a patient’s room on the hourly observations so as not to disturb the patients. Sadly because of this practice it was unclear when Christopher had last been seen alive. Whilst the Trust has indicated that all staff have received further training in respect of this I am still not convinved that it is clear as to what is required by staff. b) Following the evidence the Jury concluded:(a) that during Christopher’s time at Langley Green Hospital no formal review, care plan or adequate risk assessment was carried out in respect of his mental health. (b) that the nursing and clinical records were not kept in accordance with the trust health and record policy. (c) that here was no recorded evidence that any therapeutic engagement has taken place during the period of Christopher’s short stay. Whilst the Trust have indicated that there has been a review of the professional conduct of all staff involved in this case this does not allay my concerns that these practices are limited to just those staff involved in this case. c) Failure to provide staff to accompany a sectioned patient to the emergency department of another Hosptial for treatment for a physical condition. Requesting family member to undertake this role puts the patient and/or the family at risk
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, 2020-0284
- 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