Skip to content
recurance

Terence Adams

26 Jul 2016 · Coroner ME Hassell · London Inner (North)

The coroner's concerns

  1. 1. prison escort record not checked for required attachments

    “I heard at inquest that the prison escort record (PER) that accompanies each prisoner to HMP Pentonville (and which in the future will be forwarded to healthcare staff), is not checked on arrival and thereafter to ensure that, as it progresses through the prison, it includes the attachments described within the document, for example the risk assessment conducted by the police. This seems an unhelpful omission.”
  2. 2. GP unaware of mandatory admission advice for high risk scores

    “The general practitioner (GP) who saw Mr [name redacted] when he first arrived at HMP Pentonville did not have the key for the first night reception template when she considered the information contained therein. Mr [name redacted] scored 8. The GP did not know that the advice on the template for scores of 6 and over was to admit the prisoner to inpatient healthcare.”
  3. 3. unclear status of first night reception template

    “Neither the nurse nor the GP conducting the first night reception interviews was clear about the status of the first night reception template. The nurse, particularly, talked about it being a document referring to historical matters, whereas the reality is that it encompasses both past and relevant current issues. The document did not give any indication on the face of it that its instructions are advisory rather than mandatory.”
  4. 4. GP failed to explore suicide triggers including incarceration

    “Mr [name redacted] told the GP that he had been suicidal on and off for twenty years, but she did not explore with him the potential triggers for this. In fact, one such trigger was incarceration.”
  5. 5. nurse did not follow up missed second reception screen

    “On the morning he died, Mr [name redacted] should have attended his second reception screen, also known as the well man clinic. When he did not arrive, the healthcare nurse did not attempt to find out why or to secure his attendance.”
  6. 6. RCA not shared with relevant parties in timely manner

    “The root cause analysis (RCA) conducted by Care UK after Mr [name redacted]' death in November 2015, and finalised in February 2016, was not shared with HM Coroner until part way through the inquest, and then only following the accidental discovery of its existence by two of the inquest advocates. It had not been shared with HMP Pentonville's head of safer custody governor; nor even with the deputy head of healthcare of Care UK itself. Its existence had not been disclosed to HM Coroner.”

Responses

2016-0274-Response-from-Care-UK.pdf ↗· Care UK

Stated action

“so far as this concern relates to healthcare, in order to allow healthcare professionals to make the best possible assessment of a person's risk of serious self-harm and/or suicide, staff will be reminded to check they have had sight of the core record and carev any accompanying information including the PER, relating to history, index offence, sentence status, clinical history and possible warnings”
  • 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

Terence Adams · Recurance