“There continues to be a chronic lack of resources to treat seriously mentally ill…”
Dated 14 Jul 2023, from the coroner for Birmingham and Solihull. Sent to 6 organisations or people.
A coroner wrote this report after an inquest, to warn the organisations below about a risk of further deaths.
The 56-day response deadline
Deadline passedReplies were due by 8 Sep 2023. 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.
- Report dated14 Jul 2023
- Deadline8 Sep 2023
- Published on judiciary.uk18 Jul 2023
- 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 |
|---|---|
| Department of Health and Social Care | Response publishedPublished on judiciary.uk in July 2023. |
| NHS England | Response publishedPublished on judiciary.uk in July 2023. |
| NHS EnglandNamed in the report as “NHS Digital” | Deadline passedNo response published on judiciary.uk so far. The 56-day deadline was 8 Sep 2023. A reply may have been sent and not yet published. |
| NHS Birmingham and Solihull Integrated Care BoardNamed in the report as “Birmingham and Solihull Integrated Care Board” | Response publishedPublished on judiciary.uk in July 2023. |
| Birmingham and Solihull Mental Health NHS Foundation TrustNamed in the report as “Birmingham and Solihull Mental Health NHS Trust” | Response publishedPublished on judiciary.uk in July 2023. |
| Birmingham City Council | Response publishedPublished on judiciary.uk in July 2023. |
The coroner’s concerns
1. There continues to be a chronic lack of resources to treat seriously mentally ill patients in Birmingham and Solihull. In the summer of 2022 Birmingham and Solihull Mental Health Trust (‘BSMHFT’) wanted to admit the deceased to an inpatient psychiatric unit, however, no bed was available, and he remained in the community. Shortly before his death, the deceased had been detained by the police under section 136 of the mental health act. There was no available ‘place of safety’ and he had to be taken to an emergency department. The police, BSMHFT, and hospital Drs agreed the deceased needed to be assessed under the mental health act, however Birmingham City Council could not provide an approved mental health practitioner (‘AMPH’) to attend in a 24-hour period. When the section 136 lapsed the deceased was discharged home after a review by a mental health nurse. At the time of his death the deceased was on BSMHFT’s waiting list for a carecoordinator. The lack of care-coordinators, mental health inpatient beds, ‘place of safety’, and AMHPs, presents a risk seriously mentally ill people are not receiving necessary treatment. The evidence is that these issues are a consequence of a chronic lack of resources at a local and national level. The Birmingham and Solihull coroners have been repeating identical concerns in Prevention of Future Death Reports for many years. 2. BSMHFT utilizes self-contained specialist teams. The deceased was treated by (a) crisis team/home treatment team, (b) community mental health team, and (b) psychiatric liaison team. The evidence demonstrated communication between the specialist teams was not effective and this caused delays. For example, the psychiatric liaison team nurse that reviewed the deceased updated the community mental health team. However, the GP could not prescribe the deceased’s medication in October 2022 because it had not been approved by the community mental health team consultant via an ESCA and the deceased went without his medication. The deceased’s GP had to contact the community mental health team directly notwithstanding the psychiatric liaison nurse’s involvement. The deceased cited this delay as making his mental health worse shortly before his death. My concern is communication between the specialist teams is not effective enough. BSMHFT’s RCA action plan is to seek assurance from the CCG/ICB that communication between the specialist teams is being strengthened. My concern is that this does not go far enough and there should be consideration of a formal process or policy. 3. Carbamazepine management was proposed in 2012 to manage the deceased’s mental health however this was not picked up by his GP and was only noted by a BSMHFT consultant in August 2022. Therefore, the deceased went 10 years without this medication. BSMHFT could not explain at the inquest why this omission had not been identified sooner. BSMHFT’s RCA action plan does not have any action to avoid a repeat occurrence. My concern is this issue indicates a problem with process and systems and further consideration is required to avoid a repeat occurrence. 4. The deceased’s GP raised concerns that different health organisations use different digital systems that do not communicate with each other. Further, GPs often do not get important patient updates from primary care organisations for many days or weeks. (See examples above: the GP did not pick up the carbamazepine prescription, and could not prescribe the medication in October 2022). My concern is communication between different health organisations is not as effective as it could be and important information is being missed, and consequently a material delay in treatment is occurring. 5. The deceased’s GP raised concerns that current resources do not allow GPs to proactively check patients are collecting prescribed medication due to excessive patient lists. My concern is that this is a consequence of lack of resources at a national level. In my opinion there is a risk that future deaths will occur unless action is taken. In the circumstances it is my statutory duty to report to you.
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, 2023-0244
- 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