Delay in mental health act assessment
Camden and Islington NHS Foundation Trust received 2 coroners' reports about this hazard between 24 Nov 2014 and 29 Jan 2020.
They came from 2 different coroners in 2 coroner areas. A similar concern was raised again 1 time after the first warning.
A published response was found for 1 of the 1 earlier reports, stating 2 specific actions.
The story, report by report
Spacing grows with the time between reports.
“there seemed to be a general acceptance by the team that they will usually take several days to take place”
Original on judiciary.uk ↗ Camden and Islington NHS Foundation Trust responded, stating 1 specific action.Response (PDF) ↗
“the Clinical Director for the Acute Division has clarified and disseminate the Trust's bed management policy to its employees emphasising that, 'any patient requiring a bed will be offered admission regardless of their Mental Health Act status'”
- 5 years 2 months laterIdentical hazardConfidence 0.90 · higha different coroner
“In evidence the community recovery team indicated that a factor in their inaction was the knowledge that arranging a section 135 mental health act 1983 warrant and assessment would take two weeks.”
Original on judiciary.uk ↗ Repeated from the earlier report:teamtake
Camden and Islington NHS Foundation Trust responded, stating 1 specific action.Response (PDF) ↗
“Any service user of the Crisis Team who is being considered for discharge because of non-engagement must be discussed in the Crisis Service Multi- Disciplinary Meeting with senior overview of the decision to discharge.”
Stated timescale: end of February
- All reports to Camden and Islington NHS Foundation Trust
Each row is one judged link between an earlier and a later report. Open a row to read both quotes, found word for word in the originals.
2014 → 2020Thiago Araujo5 years 2 months after Sandra Bodrozic · different coronerIdentical hazardConfidence 0.90 · high
Identical hazardConfidence 0.90 · highBoth reports highlight delays in obtaining a Mental Health Act assessment due to a lack of urgency and clear timelines. The earlier report notes a general acceptance of multi‑day waits, while the later report describes a known two‑week delay for section 135 warrants.
Sandra Bodrozic · 24 Nov 2014
“there seemed to be a general acceptance by the team that they will usually take several days to take place”
Original on judiciary.uk ↗ Thiago Araujo · 29 Jan 2020
“In evidence the community recovery team indicated that a factor in their inaction was the knowledge that arranging a section 135 mental health act 1983 warrant and assessment would take two weeks.”
Original on judiciary.uk ↗
Stated action
“the Clinical Director for the Acute Division has clarified and disseminate the Trust's bed management policy to its employees emphasising that, 'any patient requiring a bed will be offered admission regardless of their Mental Health Act status'”
Stated action · timescale: end of February
“Any service user of the Crisis Team who is being considered for discharge because of non-engagement must be discussed in the Crisis Service Multi- Disciplinary Meeting with senior overview of the decision to discharge.”
- Each report's concerns were extracted by Nemotron 3 Nano on Nebius Token Factory, each with a quote copied from the report.
- Concerns from reports to Camden and Islington NHS Foundation Trust at least six months apart were compared by meaning (Qwen3 embeddings) and wording (TF-IDF).
- The closest pairs were judged by Nemotron 3 Super with reasoning on. Only identical or closely related, with confidence of at least 0.70, are shown.
- Every quote was checked by code as an exact substring of the original text. Names of staff and family are redacted, and the deceased are named by report title only.
| Link | Meaning | Wording | Judge | Coroner |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2014 → 2020 | 0.82 | 0.18 | Identical · 0.90 | different |
Judge model: nvidia/nemotron-3-super-120b-a12b. How Nemotron did the work · Full methodology.
Next
Other chains for Camden and Islington NHS Foundation Trust
This shows that a similar concern was raised again after an earlier report. It does not say why, and it is not a finding about any organisation or person. To report an error, see the corrections route.