“(brief summary of matters of concern) In the words of the Jury: “Initial and all…”

The coroner’s concerns

(brief summary of matters of concern) In the words of the Jury: “Initial and all subsequent assessments seriously fail to recognise that Paul’s prolonged choice not to eat or drink were in fact indications of ‘action’ to end his own life and therefore he should have been considered as a suicide risk.” Action is needed to prevent future failure to recognise (a) when the prolonged choice of a patient detained under the Mental Health Act not to eat or drink should be regarded as an action to end their own life; and (b) when such a patient’s prolonged choice not to eat or drink should be recognised as elevating that patient’s suicide risk (including of suicide by means other than malnourishment). At the conclusion of the Inquest, after the Jury had returned the completed Record of Inquest, I asked the Norfolk & Suffolk NHS Foundation Trust (‘NSFT’) to assist me with written information to inform me of what action is being taken to prevent future deaths related to the “serious failures” in risk assessment as to suicide risk identified by the Jury within their answer to how Mr Templeton died. I am grateful for the letter addressed to me, dated 29th February 2024, from the Deputy Chief Executive & Chief People Officer of NSFT. However, the contents of this letter did not allay my concern in this regard. The letter reiterated factual points that were substantially placed before the Jury in evidence. The letter then set out what appears in my view to be the central point that NSFT wished to make: “At no point prior to or during Mr Templeton’s admission, did he present as a risk of selfharm or suicide other than through food or fluid restriction and on that basis there was no evidence to include previous history, recorded thoughts, ideation or plans to identify a risk of ligature. To implement a more restrictive environment upon Mr Templeton without evidence to do so would amount to a blanket restriction in breach of Regulations 13 and 17 of the Health and Social Care Act…” This response does not grasp, engage with, or show reflection in light of the Jury’s finding. It therefore does not allay my concern that circumstances creating a risk of further deaths will occur, or will continue to exist, in the future. The Jury’s finding was precisely that Mr Templeton did present as a risk of self-harm or suicide other than through food or fluid restriction – and that NSFT failed to recognise this risk as it was expressed by way of Mr Templeton choosing not to eat or drink. Although NSFT’s letter argues that implementing a more restrictive environment without evidence to do so would amount to an impermissible blanket restriction, the Jury’s finding was precisely that there was evidence (namely the prolonged choice not to eat and drink) that should have been recognised as being action taken to end his own life and therefore implying an elevated suicide risk. NSFT’s letter goes on to draw my attention to three actions for improvement that are underway or in process. Firstly, “The inpatient clinical team to improve the quality and consistency of their psychological, food and fluid recording and discussions of the same within MDT recording.” While improved discussions regarding food and fluid recording might conceivably trigger recognition of when a refusal to eat or drink indicates suicidal ideation and action, merely recording and discussing food and fluid intake does not necessarily entail recognising when refusal to eat or drink reflects greater suicide risk. This action on its own does not appear to raise awareness among those conducting suicide risk assessments that a prolonged refusal to eat or drink may reflect an elevated suicide risk, as recognised by the Jury. It may be that review is required on the learning, training, and / or guidance given to assist those undertaking suicide risk assessments in relation to how they should interpret a prolonged refusal to eat or drink and the risk of suicide arising from such action. Regulation 28 – After Inquest Document Template Updated 30/07/2021 Of course, it is not for the Coroner to recommend what action is required or to make specific remedial recommendations. Secondly, “The Community and Crisis team were identified as requiring improvement by ensuring routine weighing of patients to provide baseline and discussing and sharing the same…”. Thirdly, “The Crisis team was identified as requiring improvement in respect of ensuring physical health is monitored and considered within assessments…” Neither of these actions address the particular concern highlighted by the Jury’s finding, not least as the serious failures identified by the Jury took place in Woodlands and not in the Community or Crisis teams.

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, 2024-0188

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