Skip to content
recurance

Andrew Wells

19 Nov 2019 · Coroner James Bennett · Birmingham and Solihull

The coroner's concerns

  1. 1. inadequate root cause analysis process

    “The Trust's Internal Root Cause Analysis investigation reviewed the decision making of the clinicians including the role of the treating consultant psychiatrist, the unit's Responsible Clinician. However, on one on the investigation team was a psychiatrist, or of a similar status to the Responsible Clinician. The RCA report agreed with the Responsible Clinician that the decision making around Mr [name redacted]' informal status and observation levels was appropriate. The draft RCA report went through a g”
  2. 2. misapplication of Mental Health Act powers

    “The expert witness also stated the Mental Health Act was not applied appropriately. Namely, whilst Mr [name redacted] was technically an informal patient, the clinicians recognised that he would be detained if he tried to leave i.e. he was 'de-facto' detained without the additional resources and safeguards applicable to a detained patient being put in place. The expert witness said 'de-facto' detention was contrary to the Code of Practice to the Mental Health Act and Mr [name redacted] should have been detained.”

Responses

No published response was found on judiciary.uk.

  • Built with
  • NVIDIA Nemotron Nano, Super and Ultra
  • Nebius Token Factory inference
  • Qwen3 Embedding 8B on Token Factory
  • Tavily follow-up web search
  • Postgres and pgvector search
  • Next.js site

Source: Prevention of Future Deaths reports and responses published by the Courts and Tribunals Judiciary at judiciary.uk. Crown copyright, used under the Open Government Licence v3.0. Data updated 26 Oct 2026.

A link shows that a similar concern was raised again, not why. It is not a finding about any organisation or person. Methodology and responsible use · Report an error

Andrew Wells · Recurance