← Back to the chain

Recurance · prevention of future deaths reports

Pre-inquest brief

Inadequate assessment before remote psychotropic prescribing

Organisation: General Medical Council · Generated: 27 Oct 2026

Recurance · recurance.com/chains/02a33019e107859b

The earlier warning

Laurence Boyens · 22 Apr 2015 · Andrew Harris, London (Inner South)

“He prescribed Citalopram, Tramadol, Methadone, Diazepam and Sodium Valproate on 10th to a new patient without seeing him, although probably in possession of old medical records from previous stay in prison, but not those from his GP related to the period before detention in prison”

judiciary.uk/prevention-of-future-death-reports/laurence-boyens

What was promised

Stated action 1 · response to Laurence Boyens (22 Apr 2015) · stated timescale: 8 January 2015

“we decided to commence a review of our decision to close the case on the ground that there is new information which may have led to a different decision”

judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/2015-0156-Response.pdf

Stated action 2 · response to Laurence Boyens (22 Apr 2015) · stated timescale: none stated

“We will provide you with details of who you can contact in respect of your case.”

judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/2015-0156-Response2.pdf

What recurred

  • 21 Oct 2021 · Jamie O'Connor · Dianne Hocking · Closely related · confidence 0.85 (high)

The clearest link, quoted from both reports:

Earlier · Laurence Boyens · 22 Apr 2015

“He prescribed Citalopram, Tramadol, Methadone, Diazepam and Sodium Valproate on 10th to a new patient without seeing him, although probably in possession of old medical records from previous stay in prison, but not those from his GP related to the period before detention in prison”

Later · Jamie O'Connor · 21 Oct 2021

“There was no necessity for a face to face consultation with the person requesting the drugs and the prescriber before drugs were dispensed;”

What happened next

No web check of the stated actions has been published for this chain.

Every quote is verified word for word against the original report on judiciary.uk. A link shows that a similar concern was raised again, not why. It is not a finding about any organisation or person.

Source: Courts and Tribunals Judiciary, Open Government Licence v3.0.