Healthcare assistants play an essential role in administering medicines in residential care. But safe administration is not the same as clinical oversight. Unless the system ensures that residents’ medicines are regularly reviewed, interactions are identified, adverse effects are investigated and professional advice is readily available, preventable harm can go unnoticed.

The distinction that matters

In care homes across the UK, medicines are frequently administered by healthcare assistants and other care staff who are not registered healthcare professionals. This arrangement is not inherently unsafe or inappropriate. Staff who have received suitable training, been assessed as competent and are working within clear procedures can administer prescribed medicines safely and effectively.

The problem arises when the delegation of administration is not matched by effective clinical oversight.

Giving a tablet according to a medication administration record is a different task from determining whether that tablet remains appropriate for a particular resident, whether it interacts with other prescribed medicines, or whether the resident is experiencing an adverse reaction. These activities require different knowledge, skills and professional responsibilities.

The fundamental question is not who physically gives the medicine, but who takes responsibility for ensuring that the complete medication regimen remains clinically appropriate and safe.

In a care system where GPs prescribe, pharmacies dispense and care assistants administer, responsibility can become fragmented. Each participant may perform their assigned task, yet gaps can remain between prescribing decisions, the administration of medicines, clinical monitoring and subsequent review.

For residents who are frail, living with dementia or taking multiple medicines, those gaps matter. They can mean that a harmful combination persists, a side effect goes unrecognised or an unnecessary medicine continues long after its original purpose has disappeared.

The answer is not to diminish the role of care assistants or insist that every routine dose must be administered by a nurse. It is to establish a system in which delegated administration is supported by clear accountability, accessible clinical expertise and reliable review of the resident’s treatment.

The evidence of medication errors

The risks associated with medicines management in care homes have been documented in published research for many years.

In 2009, Barber and colleagues published the Care Homes’ Use of Medicines Study (CHUMS), investigating medication errors among residents in UK care homes. The study examined 256 residents across 55 homes and found that 178 residents, or 69.5% of the sample, had experienced at least one medication error. Residents were taking an average of eight medicines.

The researchers identified contributing factors that included staff workload, interruptions during medication rounds, inadequate training, inaccurate records and communication failures between care homes, GP practices and pharmacies. They also highlighted weaknesses in overall responsibility for medicines safety.

These findings are important because they point beyond individual mistakes. A medication error may occur at the point of administration, but its underlying causes can lie elsewhere: an inaccurate prescription, a failure to communicate a change in treatment, inadequate monitoring or the absence of an effective process for reviewing the whole medication regimen.

Barber et al., Care Homes’ Use of Medicines Study, Quality and Safety in Health Care, 2009.

The figures must be interpreted in their historical context. They describe the residents and homes studied in 2009 and should not be presented as an estimate of the current national error rate. Nevertheless, the study remains an important examination of the organisational weaknesses that can undermine medicines safety.

A 2022 review published in The Pharmaceutical Journal, examining medication errors and inappropriate medicine use in UK care homes, also identified prescribing and administration errors as significant concerns. The literature discussed factors including polypharmacy, understaffing, dementia, swallowing difficulties and inadequate communication between prescribers, pharmacists and care staff. The authors highlighted the potential value of regular pharmacist-led medication reviews, staff education and improved reporting of medication errors.

Pepple and Boumechache, Errors and the inappropriate use of medicines in UK care homes, 2022.

Taken together, these publications support a clear conclusion: medicines safety depends on the reliability of the whole system, not simply on whether the person administering a dose follows the correct procedure.

Why correct administration does not guarantee safe treatment

Imagine a resident receiving medicines for hypertension, heart disease, diabetes, chronic pain and anxiety. Each medicine may have been prescribed for a legitimate reason. The resident’s care assistant administers each dose correctly and records it accurately.

Yet the resident begins to experience dizziness, increasing confusion and recurrent falls.

The administration records may reveal no error. The medicines may have been given at the prescribed times and in the prescribed doses. Nevertheless, the combined treatment may be contributing to the resident’s deterioration.

Several medicines can have additive effects on blood pressure, alertness or balance. Changes in kidney function can affect the handling of particular drugs. An illness, an episode of dehydration or a hospital admission can alter the balance between the benefits and risks of an established regimen. A medicine that was once appropriate may become unnecessary or harmful as the resident’s condition changes.

A care assistant may be the first person to notice that the resident is unusually drowsy or unsteady. That observation is clinically valuable and should trigger an appropriate response. But determining whether the symptoms represent an adverse drug reaction, an interaction, an excessive cumulative effect or an unrelated illness requires further assessment.

This is where the distinction between administration and oversight becomes critical.

Care assistants should not be expected to diagnose complex drug interactions or independently alter prescriptions. Equally, a system should not depend on them recognising every potential interaction or adverse effect before a qualified professional becomes involved.

Their responsibility is to administer medicines within their competence, observe the resident, document relevant information and escalate concerns. The clinical system must then ensure that those concerns can be assessed promptly and that treatment can be reconsidered when necessary.

Without this link, even a perfectly completed medication administration record can coexist with unsafe treatment.

Polypharmacy requires active clinical management

Polypharmacy is common among older people and is not automatically inappropriate. For residents with several chronic conditions, multiple medicines may be necessary to manage symptoms, prevent complications and maintain quality of life.

The problem is inappropriate or insufficiently reviewed polypharmacy: combinations that no longer provide sufficient benefit, create avoidable risks or continue without adequate consideration of the resident’s changing circumstances.

Potential concerns include:

Interactions that increase the toxicity of one or more medicines.
Combined sedative effects that contribute to falls, impaired alertness or confusion.
Multiple medicines contributing to low blood pressure or an increased risk of bleeding.
Adverse effects being mistaken for the progression of dementia or another underlying illness.
Medicines continuing after their original indication has disappeared.
A new medicine being prescribed to treat a symptom caused by another medicine, creating a prescribing cascade.

Identifying these problems requires more than checking the individual entries on a medication administration record. It requires consideration of the resident’s complete treatment, medical history, current symptoms, relevant investigations and personal priorities.

The Royal Pharmaceutical Society’s report, The Right Medicine: Improving Care in Care Homes (2016), provides a professional basis for strengthening this approach. It advocates a greater role for pharmacists in improving medicines management and working with care homes and other healthcare professionals.

Royal Pharmaceutical Society, The Right Medicine: Improving Care in Care Homes.

The significance of this approach is that clinical oversight should examine the whole regimen, rather than treating each prescription as an isolated decision. It should also establish whether intended benefits are being achieved, whether adverse effects are emerging and whether any medicines can be reduced or discontinued safely.

The guidance exists. The challenge is making it effective.

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) published Managing medicines in care homes (SC1) in 2014. Its recommendations address medicines-related responsibilities, staff competence, record keeping, medication errors, communication and medication reviews.

NICE expects care home providers to ensure that staff administering medicines are suitably trained and assessed as competent. It also recommends arrangements for medication reviews, including the involvement of a named health professional with appropriate clinical experience and knowledge of the resident. Reviews should take account of the resident’s needs and preferences and involve other professionals when appropriate.

Source: NICE, Managing medicines in care homes, recommendations.

These recommendations support the distinction at the heart of this article. Care staff can undertake the practical task of administering medicines, but this must operate within a wider framework of professional review, monitoring and accountability.

The existence of guidance does not establish that all homes follow it effectively. Nor does it prove that every home without an on-site registered nurse is unsafe. The relevant issue is whether each resident has access to appropriate clinical oversight, whether responsibilities are clearly assigned and whether the system responds effectively when risks emerge.

A written medicines policy is not enough if staff cannot obtain timely advice. A completed training record is not enough if nobody reviews the consequences of a complex medication regimen. A periodic medication review is not enough if significant changes in a resident’s condition are not recognised and acted upon between reviews.

The test should be whether the arrangements work in practice.

Why periodic reviews must be supported by ongoing oversight

Scheduled medication reviews are important, but they cannot anticipate every change in a resident’s health.

A hospital discharge may introduce new medicines, discontinue existing treatments or alter doses. An acute illness may affect kidney function, hydration or the resident’s ability to swallow. A new symptom may indicate an adverse reaction. A fall or a sudden change in mental state may require an urgent reassessment of treatment.

Care staff are often best placed to observe these changes because they provide day-to-day support. Their observations should feed into a clear clinical escalation process.

This does not mean that a doctor or pharmacist must be physically present whenever medicines are administered. Nor does it mean that every dose requires fresh clinical authorisation. It means that suitably qualified professionals must be responsible for reviewing treatment, be able to access relevant information and be available to advise when circumstances require reassessment.

NHS England’s structured medication review programme identifies care home residents as a group for whom structured reviews may be particularly important. The purpose is to consider the benefits and risks of treatment, particularly in people with complex or problematic polypharmacy.

NHS England, Structured medication reviews and medicines optimisation.

The policy direction is clear: medicines should be reviewed in the context of the individual resident, rather than continued indefinitely simply because they remain on a repeat prescription.

What is needed is a dependable connection between these reviews and everyday care. Staff must know how to report concerns, who will assess them and how resulting decisions will be communicated and implemented.

A model that separates responsibilities but joins up care

A safer approach would preserve the contribution of healthcare assistants while strengthening the clinical systems that support them.

1. Clear responsibility for the complete medication regimen

Every resident should have an identifiable arrangement for clinical medication review. Depending on the resident’s needs and local services, this may involve a suitably qualified pharmacist, GP or other appropriately trained prescriber.

The important requirement is that responsibilities are explicit, relevant information is available and someone has the authority and competence to assess the complete regimen.

Naming a professional on a care plan is not sufficient if that person cannot obtain the information needed to conduct a review or if recommendations are not followed through.

2. Comprehensive, risk-based medication reviews

Reviews should consider the indication for each medicine, potential interactions, cumulative side effects, relevant monitoring, the resident’s response to treatment and the possibility of reducing unnecessary medication.

They should also take account of the resident’s wishes and priorities. The objective is not to minimise the number of medicines at any cost, but to achieve the best balance of benefit and harm for the individual.

3. Timely clinical advice when concerns arise

Care staff need clear instructions on what to do when a resident develops new symptoms, refuses medicines, experiences a fall or shows a significant change in their condition.

There must be an effective route to professional assessment, with urgent concerns escalated appropriately. Where a medication discrepancy or possible adverse reaction is identified, staff need to know whom to contact and how the outcome will be recorded.

4. Training appropriate to the responsibilities of care staff

Training should cover safe administration, accurate documentation, the importance of following the current prescription and the recognition of warning signs. Staff should know the limits of their role and be confident about reporting concerns without being expected to make clinical decisions outside their competence.

Competence assessments and refresher training are necessary, but training should complement rather than substitute for professional oversight.

5. Monitoring and learning from medication incidents

Providers and their clinical partners should monitor errors, omissions, discrepancies, adverse reactions and delays in medication review. Near misses should also be reported and examined.

When incidents occur, investigations should consider not only the actions of the person administering the medicine but also the prescribing process, communication between organisations, staffing conditions, access to clinical advice and the adequacy of monitoring.

The objective should be to correct weaknesses in the system rather than reflexively attributing every failure to an individual member of staff.

6. Properly resourced clinical involvement

Pharmacist input, GP support and nursing expertise require time, agreed responsibilities and effective communication. Providers and commissioners must make suitable arrangements rather than relying on informal assistance or the goodwill of already overstretched professionals.

The appropriate level of involvement will vary with residents’ needs and the complexity of their treatment. However, the need for clinical oversight should not depend on whether a home happens to have a registered nurse permanently on site.

These changes would not remove all medication errors. They would, however, address the organisational conditions that can allow prescribing problems, adverse effects and medication discrepancies to persist undetected.

Accountability must extend beyond the person administering the medicine

When a medication error occurs, the most visible event may be an incorrect dose, an omitted tablet or a missing signature on a medication administration record.

Those matters require investigation. But a complete investigation must also ask whether the prescription was appropriate, whether the records were accurate, whether changes in treatment were communicated, whether monitoring was undertaken and whether staff could obtain clinical advice when necessary.

A care assistant may be responsible for following the procedures and instructions applicable to their role. They should not, however, become the default point of accountability for weaknesses that originate elsewhere in the system.

Responsibility must follow professional roles and actual control over decisions.

Prescribers are responsible for their prescribing decisions. Pharmacists contribute medicines expertise. Registered nurses, where involved, have responsibilities appropriate to their roles. Care assistants must work within their competence and report concerns. Care providers must maintain safe systems and ensure staff have the necessary training, information and support. Commissioners and healthcare services must establish workable arrangements for clinical input.

The Care Quality Commission’s medicines-management guidance reinforces the importance of safe systems for prescribing, handling and administering medicines.

CQC, guidance on medicines management and learning from safety incidents.

The central principle is straightforward: a system should not rely on every individual performing their task perfectly to compensate for gaps in the organisation of care. It should include safeguards that can identify problems, escalate concerns and correct mistakes before they cause harm.

The resident must remain at the centre

Medication safety is not simply a matter of compliance with procedures. It is about protecting people whose health, independence and quality of life may be profoundly affected by the medicines they receive.

A resident living with dementia may be unable to describe dizziness, nausea or increasing confusion. Someone with swallowing difficulties may struggle to take medicines as prescribed. A frail resident taking several medicines may be unable to recognise that increasing tiredness or unsteadiness could be treatment-related.

These people depend on care staff to notice changes and on clinical professionals to interpret those observations and act appropriately.

They also deserve to be involved in decisions about their treatment to the extent that they are able, with appropriate support where needed. A medication review should not be a purely administrative exercise between professionals. It should consider what matters to the resident, which symptoms are troubling them and whether the treatment continues to serve their interests.

Effective oversight therefore protects not only against medication errors but also against unnecessary treatment, avoidable side effects and the continuation of medicines that no longer provide sufficient benefit.

Conclusion: strengthen oversight, not blame care assistants

The evidence from UK care home research, together with guidance from NICE, the Royal Pharmaceutical Society and NHS England, supports the need for better-organised medicines management, clear professional responsibilities and structured clinical review.

The solution is not to prohibit appropriately trained healthcare assistants from administering medicines. Delegated administration can be a legitimate and effective part of residential care. The solution is to ensure that delegation never becomes a substitute for clinical oversight.

Administering a medicine correctly does not establish that the medicine is appropriate, that its combination with other treatments is safe or that its effects are being monitored adequately.

Every care home should be able to explain who is responsible for reviewing each resident’s medication regimen, how potentially harmful interactions and adverse effects are identified, how changes in the resident’s condition trigger reassessment and how quickly qualified clinical advice can be obtained.

It should also be possible to demonstrate that medication reviews lead to action, that incidents are investigated and that recurring problems result in improvements to the system.

If these safeguards are absent or ineffective, the problem is not simply a lack of individual training. It is a failure to connect the administration of medicines with the clinical expertise required to manage their risks.

Healthcare assistants should be supported to carry out their responsibilities safely and confidently. Residents, meanwhile, should be entitled to expect that the medicines they receive are not only administered correctly but also prescribed appropriately, reviewed regularly and monitored with the seriousness their health requires.

The objective must be a system in which responsibility for administering medicines is delegated appropriately, but responsibility for clinical oversight is never left ambiguous.

Principal references

Barber, N. et al. (2009). Care Homes’ Use of Medicines Study (CHUMS). Full paper .
Pepple and Boumechache (2022). Errors and the inappropriate use of medicinesin UK care homes. The Pharmaceutical Journal .
Royal Pharmaceutical Society (2016). The Right Medicine: Improving Carein Care Homes. Report .
NICE (2014). Managing medicines in care homes (SC1). Recommendations .
NHS England. Structured medication reviews and medicines optimisation. Programme guidance .
Care Quality Commission. Medicines management: learning from safetyincidents. Guidance .

Editorial note: The article is framed primarily around England because the cited NICE and CQC guidance applies there. Before publication as a UK-wide policy critique, the regulatory position and equivalent guidance in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland should be checked separately. The research statistics are attributed to the original studies rather than presented as current national estimates.

Why Inadequate Reasons in the Court of Protection may engage the European Court of Human Rights

October 3, 2026

Uncategorized

Leave a comment

The giving of reasons is not a matter of judicial courtesy. It is a fundamental component of a fair judicial process. Where a Court of Protection judge makes a decision affecting a person’s liberty, residence, relationships, property, welfare or participation in proceedings, the reasons for that decision are central to the ability of the person affected to understand, challenge and, where appropriate, appeal it.

Article 6 §1 of the European Convention on Human Rights requires domestic courts determining civil rights and obligations to provide sufficient reasons for their decisions. The European Court of Human Rights has explained that a reasoned decision demonstrates that the parties’ case has genuinely been heard and that the reasons must be sufficient to enable a party to make effective use of an available right of appeal. The Convention does not require an answer to every argument, but it does require the court to address the material issues necessary to explain its conclusion.

That principle has particular importance in the Court of Protection. Its decisions can profoundly affect people who may themselves be unable to participate effectively in proceedings because of an impairment of capacity. The Court of Protection Rules 2017 expressly require the court to deal with cases justly and fairly, to ensure that P’s interests and position are properly considered, and to take account of the issues raised in the case.

Transparency is also an established objective of the Court of Protection itself. Judicial guidance recognises the legitimate public interest in being able to understand what judges are doing and has sought to increase the publication of judgments, ordinarily in anonymised form where necessary. More recent guidance concerning closed hearings goes further, stating that open justice requires a reasoned judgment explaining the rationale for a closed hearing and, insofar as possible, the substantive decision reached.

The problem therefore arises not merely where a judgment is imperfectly expressed, but where the absence of adequate reasons makes the judicial decision effectively opaque. A bare conclusion may tell a person what the court has ordered without telling them why. That distinction is constitutionally important. Without intelligible reasons, a litigant may be unable to identify an error of law, challenge an evidential finding, understand how competing rights were balanced, or formulate meaningful grounds of appeal.

The difficulty is compounded where the subsequent order does not itself explain the basis on which it was made. An order is the mechanism by which the court’s decision acquires practical effect. If the underlying reasoning is inaccessible and the order contains no adequate explanation, the person affected may be left unable to determine precisely what findings were made, what considerations were decisive, and whether the court properly addressed the issues that were put before it.

That is capable of raising an issue under Article 6, particularly where inadequate reasoning has impaired effective access to an appeal or otherwise undermined the fairness of the proceedings. Depending upon the circumstances, other Convention rights may also become relevant—for example, Article 8, where the decision concerns private and family life, or Article 5, where questions concerning deprivation of liberty arise. The precise Convention analysis would necessarily depend upon the facts and nature of the particular decision.

An application to the European Court of Human Rights would not ordinarily be a mechanism for asking Strasbourg to reconsider the merits of a Court of Protection decision. The ECtHR is not a fourth-instance appellate court. The potential complaint is instead that the domestic proceedings failed to comply with Convention standards of fairness—for example, because the court did not provide sufficient reasons to permit the affected person to understand and effectively challenge the decision. The Court itself distinguishes between permissible disagreement with a domestic court’s assessment and decisions whose reasoning is inadequate or arbitrary.

Accordingly, persistent failure to give transparent and intelligible reasons for Court of Protection decisions and consequential orders can provide a legitimate basis for representation to the ECtHR, provided the domestic remedies and the Convention’s admissibility requirements have been satisfied. The issue is not whether every judicial decision must be accompanied by exhaustive reasoning.

It is whether, viewed in the circumstances of the particular case, the reasons given are sufficient to demonstrate that the essential issues were genuinely considered and to enable the person affected to understand and, where available, effectively challenge the decision.

In a jurisdiction exercising such intrusive powers over some of the most vulnerable members of society, that is not an optional standard of good administration.

Reasoned decision-making is part of the safeguard against arbitrary judicial power.

When a Psychiatric Diagnosis Is Uncertain, Look Beyond Psychiatry

August 19, 2026

Uncategorized

Leave a comment

Psychiatric diagnoses are often made from patterns of symptoms, behaviour, history and clinical observation. Those tools are important—but when a diagnosis is questionable, atypical, unusually severe, treatment-resistant or accompanied by cognitive or neurological changes, they should not necessarily be the end of the investigation.

A questionable psychiatric diagnosis should trigger a serious search for neurological, cognitive, metabolic and endocrine explanations.

This is not an argument that psychiatric illness is “not real,” nor that every person with depression, psychosis, bipolar disorder or another psychiatric condition needs an enormous battery of tests. It is an argument for diagnostic humility: before permanently attributing unexplained changes in behaviour, personality, cognition or perception to a psychiatric disorder, clinicians should ask whether the brain and the body’s underlying physiology have been adequately investigated.

Start with objective cognitive testing

A detailed neuropsychological or neurological cognitive assessment can provide information that a conventional psychiatric interview may miss.

Memory, attention, processing speed, language, executive functioning, visuospatial abilities and working memory can be measured systematically. Patterns of impairment may point toward neurological disease, acquired brain injury, neurodegenerative processes or other conditions that can present with apparently psychiatric symptoms.

This is particularly important when someone reports a significant change from their previous cognitive functioning. The question should not simply be, “Does this person meet the criteria for a psychiatric disorder?” It should also be, “What has happened to this person’s brain function?”

Modern neuropsychiatric assessment explicitly recognises the importance of cognitive, neurological and laboratory information in understanding difficult presentations.

MRI should not be dismissed when the presentation is unusual

When there is a credible possibility of neurological disease or brain injury, high-quality brain MRI deserves consideration.

MRI is generally more informative than CT for many structural brain abnormalities and provides better visualisation of grey and white matter and certain deeper brain structures. Neuropsychiatric references identify circumstances such as new-onset psychosis, cognitive decline, new personality change, seizures, traumatic brain injury and treatment-refractory presentations as situations in which structural imaging may warrant consideration.

The point is not that an MRI will automatically reveal the cause. It often will not. Nor should the phrase “high-resolution MRI” become a promise that subtle psychiatric symptoms can be explained by a scan.

The point is simpler: if neurological damage or disease is genuinely in the differential diagnosis, it should be investigated rather than assumed away. NICE material on first-episode psychosis likewise recognises neurological examination and targeted laboratory and EEG investigation, with MRI or CT considered when an organic cause is suspected.

EEG deserves consideration when electrical brain dysfunction is plausible

Some neurological disorders can produce behavioural, perceptual or cognitive symptoms that can be mistaken for psychiatric illness.

Seizure disorders are an obvious example. EEG is particularly relevant where there are episodes that are sudden, stereotyped, episodic or otherwise suggestive of abnormal electrical activity. Psychiatric assessment guidance notes that continuous or ambulatory EEG can sometimes be necessary to document abnormal activity when ordinary testing does not capture an event.

That is why, where the clinical history makes intermittent electrical dysfunction plausible, a normal short routine EEG should not automatically end the neurological investigation.

In selected cases, prolonged ambulatory or video EEG, including a 48-hour study where clinically justified may provide substantially more opportunity to capture abnormalities than a brief recording.

But this distinction matters: a 48-hour EEG should be clinically indicated, not imposed indiscriminately on every psychiatric patient. Current psychiatric guidance generally describes EEG as an investigation to use when neurological history or examination raises the possibility of a seizure disorder or other neurological process.

Endocrine and metabolic causes should be taken seriously

The brain does not operate independently of the rest of the body.

Thyroid dysfunction, metabolic abnormalities and other systemic illnesses can produce changes in mood, cognition, energy, sleep, behaviour and mental state. Consequently, laboratory investigation belongs in the differential diagnosis of unexplained psychiatric and cognitive presentations.

There is already recognition within psychiatric practice that physical and laboratory assessment is an important component of diagnosis and management. Standard investigations can include thyroid function and metabolic testing, with additional testing guided by the individual’s presentation. The principle should therefore be:

Do not diagnose the mind while ignoring the body.

Where symptoms suggest an endocrine disorder, the appropriate endocrine investigation should be pursued rather than assuming that psychiatric symptoms are necessarily primary.

This is not “psychiatry versus neurology”

The false choice is between saying that somebody has a psychiatric illness and saying that they have a neurological illness. Sometimes the answer is both. Sometimes neither initial diagnosis is correct.

A person can have a psychiatric disorder and a neurological disorder. Brain injury can coexist with depression. Epilepsy can coexist with anxiety. Endocrine disease can produce psychiatric symptoms. Medication, substances, sleep disorders and systemic illness can complicate an otherwise genuine psychiatric condition.

Neuropsychiatry exists precisely because the boundary between neurological and psychiatric presentations is not as clean as diagnostic labels can sometimes imply. The professional literature explicitly advocates an integrated approach rather than a rigid division between “psychiatric” and “neurological” disease.

The standard should be diagnostic confidence—not diagnostic convenience

The strongest case is not for testing everyone. It is for testing appropriately when the diagnosis does not adequately explain the person in front of you.

Red flags might include:

a sudden or unusually late onset of psychiatric symptoms;
substantial or unexplained cognitive decline;
new personality or behavioural change;
episodes suggesting seizures or altered consciousness;
focal neurological symptoms or abnormal neurological findings;
a history of significant head injury;
an unusually atypical clinical presentation;
rapid deterioration;
unexpected treatment resistance; or
a substantial discrepancy between the psychiatric diagnosis and the person’s observed cognitive or neurological functioning.

These are precisely the sorts of circumstances in which psychiatric literature recommends considering additional medical or neurological evaluation.

A more rigorous standard

When a psychiatric diagnosis is questionable, the appropriate response should not be to simply repeat the same psychiatric assessment until the original diagnosis appears more convincing.

It should be to expand the differential diagnosis. That may mean comprehensive cognitive testing, neurological examination, appropriate blood and endocrine investigations, high-quality brain MRI, and, when the history warrants it prolonged EEG monitoring such as a 48-hour ambulatory study.

None of these tests is infallible. None should be treated as a magical machine capable of proving or disproving a psychiatric diagnosis. And indiscriminate testing can create false positives, unnecessary anxiety and inappropriate treatment.

But the opposite error can be far more consequential: mistaking an unexplained neurological, cognitive or physiological disorder for a purely psychiatric one and never looking for anything else.

A psychiatric label should be a clinical hypothesis supported by evidence—not a reason to stop investigating.

When the diagnosis is questionable, the brain deserves to be examined, cognition deserves to be measured, electrical activity deserves to be considered, and the body’s physiology deserves to be investigated.

Good psychiatry should not fear neurological investigation. It should demand it when the clinical picture warrants it.

ROYAL COLLEGE OF PSYCHIATRISTS PARITY OF ESTEEM BETWEEN PHYSICAL AND MENTAL HEALTH REQUIRING PSYCHIATRISTS TO INVESTIGATE PHYSICAL ILLNESS WITH SAME RIGOUR EXPECTED IN ANY OTHER MEDICAL SPECIALITY: OFF-LABEL ARIPIPRAZOLE FOR ANTIPSYCHOTIC-INDUCED HYPERPROLACTINAEMIA: CLINICAL JUDGEMENT, ENDOCRINE RISK & EVOLVING LEGAL STANDARD OF CARE: https://revelationsuk.com/2025/10/29/outdated-practices/

July 5, 2026

Uncategorized

Leave a comment

This is a drug well known to us for terrible adverse reactions – severe restlessness and Akathisia, not to mention excessive expenditure on shopping.. Once again it is prescribed off- label to counteract the effects of hyperprolactinaemia caused by another, despite substantial physical health decline and metabolic issues. This drug should not be accepted as any substitute for essential pathophysiological referrals and tests when there is overwhelming evidence in terms of need. I have highlighted the very important point on appropriateness. I will also highlight applicable issues below

The use of adjunctive aripiprazole to treat antipsychotic-induced hyperprolactinaemia has become an increasingly accepted off-label strategy within psychiatric practice. Randomised trials and systematic reviews demonstrate that low-dose aripiprazole can reduce serum prolactin concentrations in many patients receiving prolactin-raising antipsychotics. Yet clinical efficacy alone does not determine whether prescribing is appropriate.

Where treatment is off-label, the patient remains prescribed a long-acting depot antipsychotic, and there is evidence of multiple endocrine or metabolic abnormalities, the clinician’s responsibilities extend well beyond correcting a biochemical abnormality. The decision engages principles of clinical governance, informed consent, multidisciplinary care and, ultimately, the legal standard of care.

The medico-legal question is therefore not simply whether aripiprazole lowers prolactin. It is whether introducing a second dopamine-modulating medicine represents a reasonable, proportionate and defensible clinical response in the individual patient.

Off-Label Prescribing and the GMC: Professional Responsibilities

The General Medical Council’s Good practice in prescribing and managing medicines and devices recognises that prescribing outside a medicine’s licence may be appropriate. However, the guidance also makes clear that such prescribing carries enhanced professional responsibilities.

The prescriber should be satisfied that:

sufficient evidence or clinical experience supports the proposed treatment;
licensed alternatives have been properly considered;
the anticipated benefits outweigh foreseeable risks;
the patient is informed that treatment is being used outside its licensed indication where discussion is practicable;
material risks and reasonable alternatives are discussed;
the clinical reasoning is documented; and
appropriate monitoring arrangements are established.

These obligations become particularly important when the additional medication is not treating the primary psychiatric illness but is instead intended to mitigate an adverse effect of another prescribed psychotropic medicine.

NICE and the Royal College of Psychiatrists: Treat the Whole Patient

NICE guidance on psychosis, schizophrenia and medicines optimisation consistently promotes careful review of antipsychotic adverse effects rather than reflexively adding further medication. Hyperprolactinaemia should prompt reassessment of the overall treatment strategy, consideration of dose reduction where feasible, or switching to a prolactin-sparing antipsychotic if clinically appropriate.

Similarly, the Royal College of Psychiatrists has repeatedly emphasised that in cases of people with severe mental illness experience disproportionate rates of obesity, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, endocrine dysfunction and premature mortality, the College advocates parity of esteem between physical and mental healthcare, requiring psychiatrists to investigate physical illness with the same rigour expected in any other medical specialty.

Persistent hyperprolactinaemia accompanied by type 2 diabetes mellitus, obesity, hypogonadism, osteoporosis or other endocrine abnormalities should therefore trigger consideration of broader endocrine pathology rather than being viewed solely as a medication side effect.

Depot Antipsychotics Create a Higher-Risk Pharmacological Environment

The addition of aripiprazole is particularly complex where the patient remains prescribed depot antipsychotic injections.

Depot preparations cannot be rapidly withdrawn if clinically significant adverse effects develop. Dopamine receptor blockade continues for weeks after administration, substantially reducing therapeutic flexibility.

If adjunctive aripiprazole precipitates akathisia, agitation, insomnia or behavioural deterioration, clinicians cannot immediately remove the underlying pharmacological interaction. Consequently, the threshold for introducing additional dopamine-modulating medication should arguably be higher than in patients treated solely with oral antipsychotics.

Akathisia Is Not a Minor Adverse Effect

Aripiprazole is generally well tolerated, but akathisia remains one of its most clinically significant adverse effects.

Patients frequently describe overwhelming inner restlessness, profound anxiety, inability to remain still, agitation and severe psychological distress. These symptoms can be mistaken for worsening psychosis, anxiety disorders or behavioural disturbance, potentially resulting in further inappropriate prescribing.

The literature has also associated severe untreated akathisia with treatment discontinuation, self-harm and suicidal ideation in some patients.

Where aripiprazole has been prescribed solely to lower prolactin concentrations, the emergence of akathisia fundamentally alters the balance between therapeutic benefit and clinical risk.

Appropriate management should include urgent clinical review, consideration of dose reduction or discontinuation, reassessment of the antipsychotic regimen, symptomatic treatment where indicated, and close follow-up until symptoms resolve.

Multiple Endocrine Abnormalities Should Prompt Endocrinology Referral

The presence of hyperprolactinaemia together with type 2 diabetes mellitus or other endocrine abnormalities should prompt clinicians to ask a broader diagnostic question.

Is the patient experiencing a medication side effect alone, or does the presentation reflect wider endocrine disease requiring specialist investigation?

Potential differential diagnoses include pituitary pathology, hypogonadism, thyroid disease, adrenal disorders, metabolic syndrome and osteoporosis.

Adding aripiprazole may improve one biochemical parameter while delaying diagnosis of another clinically significant disorder.

Referral to a consultant endocrinologist should therefore be strongly considered where endocrine dysfunction extends beyond isolated hyperprolactinaemia, where symptoms remain unexplained, or where long-term complications require specialist assessment.

The Legal Framework: From Bolam to Montgomery

The legal analysis of these prescribing decisions has evolved significantly over recent decades.

Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee [1957]

The Bolam principle established that a clinician is not negligent simply because another clinician would have acted differently, provided the decision accords with a responsible body of professional opinion.

Historically, this afforded considerable protection to prescribing decisions supported by accepted clinical practice.

However, modern medical negligence law has moved well beyond Bolam alone.

Bolitho v City and Hackney Health Authority [1998]

The House of Lords refined the Bolam principle by holding that professional opinion itself must withstand logical analysis.

Courts are not obliged to accept expert evidence merely because other clinicians support it. The opinion must demonstrate coherent reasoning and appropriately balance risks against benefits.

In practical terms, this means that merely stating “adjunctive aripiprazole is accepted practice” may be insufficient if inadequate consideration was given to endocrine disease, alternative treatment options, foreseeable adverse effects or the patient’s individual circumstances.

Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board [2015]

The Supreme Court fundamentally reshaped informed consent.

Clinicians are now under a legal duty to ensure that patients are informed of:

material risks associated with proposed treatment;
reasonable alternative treatment options; and
the option of declining treatment altogether where appropriate.

A risk is material if a reasonable person in the patient’s position would likely attach significance to it, or if the clinician knows, or should reasonably know that the particular patient would likely consider it significant.

Applied to adjunctive aripiprazole, this means patients should ordinarily be informed about:

the off-label nature of treatment;
the possibility of akathisia, agitation and insomnia;
the possibility that treatment may not adequately resolve symptoms;
alternatives such as dose reduction, switching antipsychotics where clinically feasible, observation, or referral for endocrine assessment;
the uncertainties associated with adding another psychotropic medicine.

Failure to discuss these matters may expose clinicians to criticism even where prescribing itself was pharmacologically reasonable.

Documentation: The Clinician’s Strongest Defence

In medico-legal practice, contemporaneous documentation frequently determines whether a prescribing decision can be defended.

The medical record should clearly demonstrate:

why adjunctive aripiprazole was preferred over alternative strategies;
evidence supporting off-label prescribing;
informed consent discussions;
endocrine and metabolic assessment;
monitoring plans;
review arrangements;
contingency planning should adverse effects emerge.

Documentation should reflect a process of clinical reasoning rather than simply recording a prescribing decision.

Conclusion

Adjunctive aripiprazole remains a legitimate therapeutic option for selected patients with antipsychotic-induced hyperprolactinaemia. However, legitimacy does not eliminate professional responsibility.

Current GMC guidance, NICE recommendations and Royal College of Psychiatrists policy all point towards careful assessment, shared decision-making, systematic physical health monitoring and multidisciplinary management.

The legal authorities of Bolam, Bolitho and Montgomery reinforce these professional duties by requiring that prescribing decisions are supported by logical clinical reasoning, informed by responsible practice, and accompanied by meaningful patient involvement.

Where a patient receiving depot antipsychotic treatment develops persistent hyperprolactinaemia alongside diabetes mellitus or other endocrine abnormalities, the question should not simply be how to suppress prolactin. The more important question is whether the patient requires comprehensive endocrine investigation before additional psychotropic medication is introduced.

In many such cases, early referral to a consultant endocrinologist, combined with a multidisciplinary review of the antipsychotic regimen, is likely to represent the most clinically robust and the most legally defensible course of action.

THE DANGER OF OFF LABEL PRESCRIBING: FEATURING ARIPIPRAZOLE AND IMPORTANCE OF PATHOPHYSIOLOGICAL TESTING AND REFERRAL TO AN ENDOCRINOLOGIST

June 30, 2026

Uncategorized

Leave a comment

It is extremely concerning that this drug is viewed by some psychiatrists to be an acceptable substitute for proper referral to see a Specialist Endocrinologist, especially when this drug, tried before had adversely affected behaviour and metabolism being a poor/non metaboliser ignored. This, combined with Clopixol Depot is hardly a suitable substitute for proper referrals in relation to physical healthcare. My blog “Outdated Practices” spells the need for rigorous care in terms of treatment which is what Precision Psychiatry is all about – patients under the MH deserve the very best of care yet this is not happening in the UK. Precision Psychiatry therefore needs to be mandatory to ensure that when a patient is not responding to treatment and has underlying physical health issues, that specialist referral is made to an Endocrinologist, neurologist, immunologist. Something needs to be done about this very urgently to stop mental health patients from being harmed. I shall post further example of the known effects of Aripiprazole which I doubt was ever informed in the circumstances. It is only right that patients are properly informed.

https://revelationsuk.com/2025/10/29/outdated-practices/

Off-Label Aripiprazole for Antipsychotic-Induced Hyperprolactinaemia: Clinical Judgement, Endocrine Risk and the Evolving Legal Standard of Care

The use of adjunctive aripiprazole to treat antipsychotic-induced hyperprolactinaemia has become an increasingly accepted off-label strategy within psychiatric practice. Randomised trials and systematic reviews demonstrate that low-dose aripiprazole can reduce serum prolactin concentrations in many patients receiving prolactin-raising antipsychotics. Yet clinical efficacy alone does not determine whether prescribing is appropriate.

Off-Label Prescribing and the GMC: Professional Responsibilities

The General Medical Council’s Good practice in prescribing and managing medicines and devices recognises that prescribing outside a medicine’s licence may be appropriate. However, the guidance also makes clear that such prescribing carries enhanced professional responsibilities.

The prescriber should be satisfied that:

sufficient evidence or clinical experience supports the proposed treatment;
licensed alternatives have been properly considered;
the anticipated benefits outweigh foreseeable risks;
the patient is informed that treatment is being used outside its licensed indication where discussion is practicable;
material risks and reasonable alternatives are discussed;
the clinical reasoning is documented; and
appropriate monitoring arrangements are established.

NICE and the Royal College of Psychiatrists: Treat the Whole Patient

Similarly, the Royal College of Psychiatrists has repeatedly emphasised that people with severe mental illness experience disproportionate rates of obesity, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, endocrine dysfunction and premature mortality. The College advocates parity of esteem between physical and mental healthcare, requiring psychiatrists to investigate physical illness with the same rigour expected in any other medical specialty.

Depot Antipsychotics Create a Higher-Risk Pharmacological Environment

The addition of aripiprazole is particularly complex where the patient remains prescribed depot antipsychotic injections.

Akathisia Is Not a Minor Adverse Effect

Aripiprazole is generally well tolerated, but akathisia remains one of its most clinically significant adverse effects.

The literature has also associated severe untreated akathisia with treatment discontinuation, self-harm and suicidal ideation in some patients.

Where aripiprazole has been prescribed solely to lower prolactin concentrations, the emergence of akathisia fundamentally alters the balance between therapeutic benefit and clinical risk.

Multiple Endocrine Abnormalities Should Prompt Endocrinology Referral

The presence of hyperprolactinaemia together with type 2 diabetes mellitus or other endocrine abnormalities should prompt clinicians to ask a broader diagnostic question.

Is the patient experiencing a medication side effect alone, or does the presentation reflect wider endocrine disease requiring specialist investigation?

Potential differential diagnoses include pituitary pathology, hypogonadism, thyroid disease, adrenal disorders, metabolic syndrome and osteoporosis.

Adding aripiprazole may improve one biochemical parameter while delaying diagnosis of another clinically significant disorder.

The Legal Framework: From Bolam to Montgomery

The legal analysis of these prescribing decisions has evolved significantly over recent decades.

Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee [1957]

Historically, this afforded considerable protection to prescribing decisions supported by accepted clinical practice.

However, modern medical negligence law has moved well beyond Bolam alone.

Bolitho v City and Hackney Health Authority [1998]

The House of Lords refined the Bolam principle by holding that professional opinion itself must withstand logical analysis.

Courts are not obliged to accept expert evidence merely because other clinicians support it. The opinion must demonstrate coherent reasoning and appropriately balance risks against benefits.

Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board [2015]

The Supreme Court fundamentally reshaped informed consent.

Clinicians are now under a legal duty to ensure that patients are informed of:

material risks associated with proposed treatment;
reasonable alternative treatment options; and
the option of declining treatment altogether where appropriate.

Applied to adjunctive aripiprazole, this means patients should ordinarily be informed about:

the off-label nature of treatment;
the possibility of akathisia, agitation and insomnia;
the possibility that treatment may not adequately resolve symptoms;
alternatives such as dose reduction, switching antipsychotics where clinically feasible, observation, or referral for endocrine assessment;
the uncertainties associated with adding another psychotropic medicine.

Failure to discuss these matters may expose clinicians to criticism even where prescribing itself was pharmacologically reasonable.

Documentation: The Clinician’s Strongest Defence

In medico-legal practice, contemporaneous documentation frequently determines whether a prescribing decision can be defended.

The medical record should clearly demonstrate:

why adjunctive aripiprazole was preferred over alternative strategies;
evidence supporting off-label prescribing;
informed consent discussions;
endocrine and metabolic assessment;
monitoring plans;
review arrangements;
contingency planning should adverse effects emerge.

Documentation should reflect a process of clinical reasoning rather than simply recording a prescribing decision.

Conclusion

Polyendocrine Syndromes & Psychiatric Presentation in Patients

May 25, 2026

Uncategorized

Leave a comment

This is why a precision based approach to psychiatry is necessary and not the antiquated and discredited system known as psychogenics, which far more resemble a belief system than any modern scientific evidence based medicine system.

The psychogenic ‘symptom’ based approach to diagnosis is more a relic of the early 20^th century than an evidence based medicine model and in the main health trusts still relying on this are likely lazy and dogmatic and have failed to keep up with neurological research and appropriate training of staff. Apart from the obvious distress this causes to patients and their loved ones it represents a retrograde attitude to advancing psychiatric and neurological models. Patents often spend years misdiagnosed and consequently incorrectly treated and more often than not detained in the forensic legal system that also sustains this intellectual bankruptcy in the medical professions.

The underlying motivation of psychogenic psychiatry is isolation, deprivation of liberty and containment of what is often seem as more of a legal problem than one involving innocent victims of a medical pathology.

There are several plausible and increasingly studied links between polyendocrine disorders and dysfunctional signaling in the mesolimbic system, particularly involving dopamine, stress hormones, immune signaling, and metabolic hormones. But the relationship is complex and usually indirect rather than a single unified disease mechanism.

The mesolimbic system (especially the VTA → nucleus accumbens dopamine pathway) regulates motivation, reward salience, reinforcement learning, mood, and aspects of energy regulation. Dysregulation in this circuit is implicated in depression, addiction, anhedonia, compulsive behaviours, schizophrenia-spectrum symptoms, and altered motivational states.

Several endocrine systems feed directly into this circuitry:

1. Cortisol / HPA axis

2. Thyroid hormones

3. Insulin and leptin

4. Sex steroids

5. Inflammatory cytokines

6. Orexin and ghrelin signaling

7. Prolactin-dopamine feedback loops

So when multiple endocrine systems become dysregulated simultaneously, as in polyendocrine syndromes mesolimbic signaling can adversely be affected.

A few examples of Autoimmune polyendocrine syndromes includes conditions like autoimmune polyendocrine syndrome (APS) often involve chronic inflammation, adrenal dysfunction, thyroid disease, diabetes, or gonadal hormone abnormalities. Cytokines and glucocorticoid instability can alter dopamine neuron firing and reward processing. Chronic inflammatory states are increasingly associated with reduced dopaminergic motivation signaling and anhedonia.

Thyroid dysfunction. Hypothyroidism can blunt dopaminergic tone and produce apathy, reduced motivation, depression and cognitive slowing

Hyperthyroidism can produce anxiety, agitation, reward/salience dysregulation and sometimes psychosis-like symptoms

These effects likely involve mesocorticolimbic dopamine modulation. The mesolimbic pathway is highly sensitive to glucocorticoids. Chronic excess cortisol can alter reward salience and stress responsivity, while adrenal insufficiency can impair motivation and emotional regulation. Stress-hormone modulation of VTA dopamine neurons is well established.

Diabetes and insulin resistance influences. Insulin receptors are expressed in mesolimbic dopamine regions. Impaired insulin signaling can alter reward valuation, food motivation, impulsivity, and dopaminergic transmission. This is one reason metabolic disease and compulsive eating/addiction phenotypes overlap neurobiologically.

Prolactin and dopamine. There is a direct endocrine-dopamine loop. Dopamine inhibits prolactin release through D2 receptor signaling. Disorders involving prolactin, pituitary dysfunction, or dopamine blockade can therefore affect motivation, libido, affect, and reward processing.

There is also an emerging idea that some syndromes that appear “psychiatric,” “metabolic,” and “endocrine” at the same time may involve shared network dysfunction between hypothalamic regulation, immune signaling, salience/reward circuitry and autonomic regulation

That overlap is especially discussed in chronic stress disorders, obesity/metabolic syndrome, inflammatory illnesses, chronic pain syndromes and some neuroimmune conditions

A mesolimbic abnormality would not usually be considered the primary cause of a polyendocrine disorder in mainstream medicine. More commonly endocrine dysfunction alters mesolimbic signaling, or both are affected by a third process (autoimmune, inflammatory, genetic, developmental, or stress-related).

So the association is biologically credible and supported by growing evidence, but it is not yet a fully unified or clinically standardized framework.

ENHANCED ONGOING SUPERVISION AND THE CODE OF PRACTICE UNDER MENTAL HEALTH ACT 1983

March 17, 2026

Uncategorized

Leave a comment

For all parents and carers affected by barring/heavy ongoing restrictions, this blog is for you. It is regarded as totally unacceptable by the Care Minister (Stephen Kinnock however this is the reality for many in the UK. The ITN programme explored effects on some vulnerable person, parents and carers affected but the sad reality is that this situation is widespread, nationwide with many affected – thousands of vulnerable people are currently incarcerated on MH units for many years, not being properly assessed for physical health/neurological conditions such as FND, epilepsy, denied pathophysiological referrals/tests under neurology, endocrinology and immunology. Others in the community are likewise affected. Following a seizure for instance referral should be made according to Nice Guidelines NG217 within two weeks to see a specialist and there are specific guidelines for delirium. There are families whose vulnerable relative has been sent a long distance away, making visits difficult. It is wrong parents and carers are treated in such a dismissive manner, excluded from care meetings and any involvement by the NHS and certain care homes backed by Local Authorities. For those who complain the ultimate bullying is to deny contact or restrict contact without proper review, often for years on end. This has a widespread, devastating effect on families. On Mother’s Day my thoughts went out to all mothers who have no contact. It is a violation of human rights under Article 8 HRA to the vulnerable person and their families. I hope that something is done about this situation by the Government, especially with regard to neglect towards physical health and denial of pathophysiological tests to that person.

'Completely unacceptable': Care minister reacts to families barred from seeing disabled loved ones https://t.co/mCzov3NB8o
— ITVPolitics (@ITVNewsPolitics) February 17, 2026

[Mother/Father’s Name]
[Address]
[Postcode]
[Email / Telephone]
[Date]

Clinical Management Team
[Hospital / Trust Name]
[Ward / Unit Name]
[Hospital Address]

Formal Request for Review of 2:1 Supervision and Written Reasons

Dear Clinical Management Team,

Re: 2:1 Supervision During Visits With My Relative (Son/Daughter)

I am writing as the mother of [Patient’s Name] regarding the requirement that two members of staff supervise my visits with my daughter.

While I understand that hospitals must manage risk appropriately, I am concerned that the requirement for two-to-one (2:1) supervision during my visits appears to have been imposed for some time without any clear explanation being provided to me, and without any indication that the restriction has been regularly reviewed.

As you will be aware, decisions affecting detained patients must comply with the Mental Health Act 1983and the guiding principles contained within the Mental Health Act Code of Practice.

The Code of Practice provides that:

· Paragraphs 1.2 and 1.8 require that patients should only be subject to restrictions that are necessary and proportionate, and that the least restrictive option must be considered.

· Paragraph 1.5 requires that any restrictive intervention must have a clear purpose and must not be imposed simply as a matter of routine.

· Paragraph 1.7 emphasises the importance of respect, dignity and maintaining relationships with family members.

In addition, the continued imposition of 2:1 supervision during family visits interferes with the patient’s right to family life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which forms part of UK law through the Human Rights Act 1998. Any such interference must therefore be necessary, proportionate and capable of clear justification.

The presence of two staff members during visits makes it extremely difficult for my son/daughter and I to have normal private conversations and significantly affects our ability to maintain a meaningful family relationship.

If this restriction has not been regularly reviewed against current risk, it raises a concern that the requirement may be operating as a routine or blanket restriction, rather than a proportionate response to an identified risk.

Accordingly, I would be grateful if you could please provide the following information:

1. The clinical rationale for imposing 2:1 supervision specifically during my visits.

2. The dates and outcomes of all reviews of this restriction since it was first introduced.

3. The risk assessment(s) currently relied upon to justify maintaining this level of supervision.

4. Whether less restrictive arrangements for family visits have been considered.

5. The date when this restriction will next be formally reviewed.

If this requirement has not been subject to regular and documented review, I am concerned that the continued imposition of 2:1 supervision during my visits may be disproportionate and therefore potentially unlawful.

For the avoidance of doubt, this letter should be treated as a formal request for written reasons for the restriction currently being imposed, and I would be grateful for a written response within 14 days.

If it would assist, I would also be happy to discuss the matter with the clinical team so that an arrangement can be agreed which appropriately balances safety with my son/daughter’s right to maintain a normal family relationship.

Yours sincerely,

[Mother’s Name]

HERE ARE THE GUIDELINES AND THOSE REGARDING SEIZURES AND DELIRIUM FOR ANYONE AFFECTED

NICE Guideline NG10 – Violence and Aggression: Short-Term Management in Mental Health Settings, and NHS Trust Enhanced Observation Policies.

Risk assessments must be regularly reviewed

The guideline requires continuous review of risk management plans:

Risk assessments and risk management plans should be regularly reviewed, and care plans must be based on accurate and thorough risk assessments.

This principle directly affects enhanced observation levels such as:

· 1:1 observation

· 2:1 observation

· constant observation

If the observation level is not being reviewed regularly, it may breach national clinical guidance.

How NG10 Connects to 2:1 Supervision

Although NG10 does not specify the exact term “2:1 supervision”, it governs the restrictive interventions and observation frameworks that hospitals rely on when implementing such measures.

Typical NHS observation levels include:

Observation level Description

General

observation periodic checks

Intermittent

observation checks at set intervals

Within eyesight continuous observation

Within arm’s

length very high-risk monitoring

2:1 observation two staff members observing the patient

Under NICE and NHS policy:

· the clinical justification must be documented

· the observation must be reviewed frequently

· it must remain proportionate and justified by evidence

PRE-ACTION PROTOCOL LETTER TO FOLLOW UP IF NO RESPONSE

[Your Name] [Your Address] [Postcode] [Email / Telephone]

Date: [Insert Date]

BY EMAIL AND RECORDED DELIVERY

The Responsible Clinician The Ward Manager The Mental Health Act Office [Name of NHS Trust] [Hospital Address]

LETTER BEFORE ACTION – INTENDED COURT OF PROTECTION PROCEEDINGS

Re: [Patient’s Full Name / DOB] – Unlawful Contact Restrictions and 2:1 Supervision

Dear Sir/Madam,

I write formally concerning the ongoing restrictions placed upon my contact with [Patient’s Name], who is currently receiving care at [Ward/Hospital] under the responsibility of [NHS Trust].

This letter constitutes a formal Letter Before Action and should be treated as notice that, unless the matters set out below are addressed urgently, I intend to issue proceedings in the Court of Protection without further notice.

Unlawful Interference With Family Life

The Trust is currently restricting or controlling my contact with [Patient’s Name], apparently on the basis of the patient’s 2:1 supervision / enhanced observation level.

These restrictions amount to a serious interference with family life, protected under the Human Rights Act 1998 – Article 8 (Right to respect for family life)

Any interference with Article 8 rights must be lawful, necessary, proportionate and supported by evidence of risk

At present, the Trust has failed to demonstrate that these requirements are satisfied.

Statutory Duties Under the Mental Capacity Act

If the patient lacks capacity to determine contact arrangements, the Trust is under a statutory duty to act in accordance with the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

In particular:

· Section 4 requires all decisions to be taken in the person’s best interests, including proper consideration of family relationships.

· Sections 15 and 16 confer jurisdiction on the Court of Protection to determine issues relating to welfare, contact, and care arrangements.

Where contact between a patient and family member is restricted without lawful justification, the Court may make binding welfare orders regulating contact and directing the NHS Trust to amend its care arrangements.

Observation Policies and 2:1 Supervision

The Trust appears to be relying on the patient’s 2:1 supervision level as justification for the present restrictions.

Enhanced observation measures of this type are governed by NICE Guideline NG10 – Violence and Aggression: Short-Term Management in Mental Health Settings, and NHS Trust Enhanced Observation Policies.

These policies require that:

· Enhanced observations must be risk-based and individually justified

· Observation levels must be subject to regular clinical review

· The least restrictive principle must be applied

· Restrictions on family contact must be supported by a specific risk assessment relating to that contact

Enhanced observation does not provide lawful authority for blanket restrictions on family contact.

Serious Procedural Concerns

Despite repeated requests, the Trust has failed to provide:

· the risk assessment said to justify restricting family contact

· the care plan provisions governing such restrictions

· observation review records relating to the patient’s 2:1 supervision

· any evidence demonstrating that less restrictive alternatives have been considered

If these documents do not exist, the current restrictions may be unlawful and incompatible with both the Mental Capacity Act and Article 8 rights.

Required Disclosure

In order to avoid litigation, the Trust is requested to provide the following within 14 days:

1. The patient’s current care plan.

2. All risk assessments relating to family contact.

3. All observation level review records relating to the patient’s 2:1 supervision.

4. The policy or clinical basis relied upon to restrict family contact.

5. Confirmation of the schedule and procedure for reviewing observation levels and associated restrictions.

Intended Court of Protection Application

If the above information is not provided, or if the current restrictions remain in place without lawful justification, I will issue proceedings in the Court of Protection seeking:

· A declaration regarding the patient’s capacity to decide contact

· A declaration that the current restrictions are unlawful and disproportionate

· A welfare order regulating contact between the patient and family members

· Directions requiring the Trust to amend the care plan and observation arrangements

· Any further relief the Court considers appropriate

The Court of Protection has the power to make binding orders requiring NHS Trusts to alter care arrangements where they unlawfully interfere with family life.

Opportunity to Resolve Without Litigation

Litigation can still be avoided if the Trust:

· reviews the current restrictions urgently,

· provides the documentation requested above, and

· confirms that the patient’s contact with family will be managed in accordance with statutory duties and the least restrictive principle.

If no satisfactory response is received within 14 days, proceedings will be commenced without further notice.

Yours faithfully,

[Your Name]

NICE NG217 Guideline on Seizures

1. Urgent referral after first seizure or recurrence

NG217 1.1.1 – First suspected seizure

“Refer children, young people and adults urgently (for an appointment within 2 weeks) for an assessment after a first suspected seizure”
— NICE NG217¹, Recommendation 1.1.1.

This uses urgent referral, defined by NICE as an appointment within 2 weeks, for anyone after a suspected seizure.

NG217 1.1.2 – Seizure recurrence

“Refer children, young people and adults urgently (for an appointment within 2 weeks) for an assessment if they have a seizure recurrence after a period of remission.”
— NICE NG217¹, Recommendation 1.1.2.

A recurrence after remission is repeated and unexplained, and under NICE this is explicitly urgent — same timeframe as first seizure.

2. Implication for repeated unexplained seizures

Even though NG217 does not use those exact words (“repeated unexplained seizures”) in a standalone recommendation, the guidance is clear from these linked recommendations:

Any recurrence (repeated seizure) after a seizure-free period triggers the same urgent referral timing as a first seizure.
→ This means 2 weeks maximum to specialist assessment.
The guideline does not recommend routine or non-urgent pathways for recurrent or potentially multiple unexplained seizures in adults or children.

3. Investigations are recommended promptly too

While NG217 separates referral timing (urgent within 2 weeks) from investigations, it also states:

EEG timing

“…if an EEG is requested after a first seizure, perform it as soon as possible (ideally within 72 hours after the seizure).”
— NICE NG217, EEG section.

This supports early investigation following urgent specialist review.

Neuroimaging

“Offer brain neuroimaging tests if an underlying structural cause is suspected…”
— NICE NG217.

This reinforces that after urgent specialist assessment, relevant investigations should not be unreasonably delayed when clinically indicated.

Situation	NICE Recommendation	Timeframe
First suspected seizure	Urgent specialist referral (1.1.1)	Within 2 weeks
Repeat seizure after remission (i.e., repeated unexplained)	Urgent specialist referral (1.1.2)	Within 2 weeks
EEG after suspected seizure	Early investigation	Ideally within 72 hrs
Neuroimaging if needed	Prompt test as indicated	No specified fixed max—but not deferred

Key takeaway from NICE wording

NICE NG217 does not permit prolonged routine delays for repeated unexplained seizures. According to its urgent referral recommendations (1.1.1 & 1.1.2):

A recurrence or repeated unexplained seizure merits the same urgent (2-week) referral as a first seizure.

Follow-up investigations (EEG, imaging) should then be arranged as soon as clinically appropriate, not deferred indefinitely.

NICE GUIDELINES CG103 DELIRIUM

Before the referral meeting and most certainly before the scan a patient needs to be properly rested to avoid physiological confounders.

Good clinical practice in cognitive and neurological assessment requires that potentially reversible causes of impaired cognition are identified and corrected before diagnostic conclusions are drawn.

Under NICE guideline CG103 (Delirium: prevention, diagnosis and management), clinicians must assess for acute physiological contributors to confusion, including dehydration, infection, hypoxia, hypoglycaemia, metabolic disturbance, and medication effects. The guideline emphasises that delirium is common, serious, and frequently reversible, and that failure to detect underlying medical causes risks misdiagnosis.

Accordingly, cognitive assessment should occur only when the patient is medically stable. Good practice therefore includes:

Excluding delirium and acute illness
Correcting dehydration and metabolic abnormalities. (nourishment, breakfast to avoid hypoglycaemia)
Reviewing medications and substances
Managing pain and sleep disturbance (a proper nights sleep before to avoid confusion due to tiredness)
Ensuring appropriate sensory aids and a suitable testing environment

While CG103 does not explicitly state that a patient must be “relaxed and properly nourished,” its requirements to identify and treat reversible contributors to confusion implicitly support optimisation of physiological and environmental conditions prior to assessment.

In summary, consistent with CG103, cognitive evaluation should be undertaken under conditions that minimise reversible confounders to ensure diagnostic validity and patient safety.

ORDERED TO PAY COSTS – THE OFFICE OF PUBLIC GUARDIAN & APPLICATIONS TO REVOKE LASTING POWERS OF ATTORNEY: LOCALLY GOVERNMENT LAWYER. 25.MAR.2024

January 13, 2026

Uncategorized

Leave a comment

The Office of the Public Guardian was recently ordered to pay costs after the dismissal of its application to the Court of Protection to revoke lasting powers of attorney. Christine Cooper explains why.

I recently represented two attorneys for a woman with dementia (MAM) in Court of Protection proceedings brought by the Office of the Public Guardian. The Public Guardian had applied to revoke the attorneys’ lasting powers of attorney alleging they acted contrary to MAM’s best interests.

Unusually the court ordered the Public Guardian to pay half the attorneys’ legal costs.

Office of Public Guardian’s involvement

The Public Guardian became involved in the case after the attorneys disputed the substantial sums the local authority claimed MAM should contribute towards the cost of the care home where she lived.

The local authority then reported the matter to the Office of Public Guardian as the statutory body responsible for supervising attorneys’ actions.

The Public Guardian carried out an investigation and subsequently issued proceedings in the Court of Protection to revoke the lasting powers of attorney.

Court of Protection decision

In a judgment handed down this week, the Court of Protection criticised the investigator employed by the Public Guardian. It found that her approach had been neither reasonable nor proportionate.

The court considered that the investigator’s evidence suggested she had prejudged matters without properly completing her enquiries. It dismissed the Public Guardian’s application.

Attorneys’ costs

The court then considered who should pay the attorneys’ costs of defending the application. (Usually the costs of such a claim in the Court of Protection would have been met from MAM’s funds).

However, the court decided that the Public Guardian’s clear failures justified making a different order and the Public Guardian was ordered to pay 50% of the attorneys’ costs and to make a substantial payment on account.

Christine Cooper is a barrister at Field Court.

Here is the address to write to for Freedom of Information requests from the Public Guardian Office:

Ministry of Justice
Ministerial Correspondence Unit
102 Petty France
London
SW1H 9AJ
United Kingdom
DX: 152380 Westminster 8 (used for official mail)

Here is the letter I have sent to Public Guardian Office as per my complaint and in response to the letter I have received from the OPG also below. I hope that this will help others similarly affected especially in the knowledge of the above case. This Department and various other agencies have caused nothing but dismay and the so called ‘evidence’ being accumulated is based upon the derogatory malicious falsehood comments from various individuals. Much of the information put before the OPG is untruthful and to think all of this is being circulated to other agencies. I see it as nothing more than bullying “perpetrated” by a person I have never even met. The OPG 130 Form states “perpetrators and abusers” and it is “guilty before proven innocence” whilst the so called professional/s behind the investigation is totally protected under confidentiality. See below my response:

Subject: Escalation of Complaint – Procedural Unfairness, Use of ‘Perpetrator of Abuse’ Terminology, Non-Disclosure of Allegations, and Legal Defects in Investigation

Dear Sir or Madam,

I am writing to formally escalate my complaint regarding the Office of the Public Guardian’s handling of the investigation into my actions as attorney for EB, and in particular to challenge the adequacy and lawfulness of the response provided by Mr Andy Madeley dated 12 January 2026.

This escalation is not a repetition of my original concerns, but a targeted complaint identifying specific legal and procedural defects which remain unaddressed.

1. Use of the term “perpetrator of abuse” – misleading and procedurally unfair

Mr Madeley states:

“At no point have OPG referred to you as a ‘perpetrator and abuser’.”

This statement is materially misleading.

While OPG may not have directly applied those words to me in correspondence, OPG has institutionalised the term “perpetrator of abuse” within its own official processes, specifically in form OPG130, which contains a heading inviting third parties to identify an alleged “perpetrator of abuse”.

OPG therefore:

creates the terminology,
invites allegations under that heading,
records and processes the information obtained, and
relies upon it to justify investigations under section 58 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

In those circumstances, it is not open to OPG to disclaim responsibility for the use or impact of that terminology. This is not a semantic issue but one of procedural fairness and lawful administration.

2. Failure to disclose evidence or allegations – denial of natural justice

A fundamental defect in this investigation is that no evidence has been shown to me at any stage.

The investigation appears to rely solely on unparticularised allegations, yet I have not been provided with:

the substance of the allegations in sufficient detail,
the evidence said to support them,
or clarity as to who has made them, beyond vague references to “concerns raised”.

Instead, I have simply been required to respond to accusations in the abstract.

This approach denies me the ability to:

understand the case against me,
test or rebut the allegations,
or provide a meaningful and informed response.

As a result, I am unable to properly defend myself against allegations that are serious, stigmatising, and potentially damaging to my reputation. Requiring a response to undisclosed and unsubstantiated allegations is procedurally unfair and contrary to basic principles of natural justice.

The suggestion that I was “afforded the opportunity to respond” by way of an attorney declaration is illusory where the case I am expected to answer has not been disclosed.

3. Inability to challenge unsubstantiated and potentially manipulative allegations

By withholding the substance and evidential basis of the allegations, OPG places me in an impossible position. I am expected to rebut claims without knowing:

what precisely is alleged,
on what factual basis,
or whether the allegations are inaccurate, misleading, or malicious.

This is particularly concerning given that OPG expressly states it “cannot control the content of the concerns raised”, yet nonetheless relies upon them to justify investigation and scrutiny.

Such a process risks elevating allegation to fact by default, without providing the attorney with a fair mechanism to challenge accuracy, motive, or credibility. This is incompatible with fair decision-making by a public authority.

4. Failure to address reputational harm and Article 8 rights

The response acknowledges distress only in general terms and treats it as an unavoidable by-product of investigation. It fails to engage with the reputational and psychological harm arising from being implicitly framed within an abuse narrative, particularly where no evidence has been disclosed.

Unproven allegations of abuse clearly engage Article 8 ECHR (private life). The response contains no proportionality analysis and no explanation of safeguards designed to minimise unjustified harm.

5. Procedural unfairness and appearance of bias

The assertion that OPG “never start[s] an investigation by assuming the attorney is in the wrong” is undermined by:

the use of loaded abuse terminology in OPG forms, and
the absence of transparency about the allegations relied upon.

Taken together, this creates at least an appearance of bias, which the response fails to address.

6. Mischaracterisation of my complaint

My complaint was not that OPG had directly labelled me an abuser, but that OPG’s processes, terminology, and non-disclosure of allegations create an inherently unfair investigatory framework.

The response addresses a narrower point than the one raised and therefore fails to properly consider my representations, contrary to section 58(1)(h) MCA 2005 and established public-law standards.

7. Failure to address data protection concerns

If personal data relating to me is recorded, assessed, or categorised under headings such as “perpetrator of abuse”, without disclosure, qualification, or evidential verification, this raises serious concerns under UK GDPR, including:

accuracy (Article 5(1)(d)),
fairness and transparency (Article 5(1)(a)).

The response does not address these issues.

Resolution sought

I request that this escalation be reviewed by a senior officer not previously involved, and that OPG provide:

A substantive response addressing OPG’s responsibility for the terminology used in OPG130;
Disclosure of the substance of the allegations and the evidence relied upon, sufficient to allow a meaningful response;
An explanation of safeguards to ensure procedural fairness and protection against reputational harm;
Clarification of how Article 8 and UK GDPR obligations are complied with in investigations of this nature;
Confirmation of whether the use of “perpetrator of abuse” terminology has been reviewed for necessity, fairness, and proportionality.

If these issues are not adequately addressed, I will consider referral to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman.

I look forward to your response.

Yours faithfully,

Susan Bevis

Office of the Public Guardian 12 January 2026

PO Box 16185

Birmingham

B2 2WH

Dear Ms Bevis

Re: EB – OPG reference: Investigation/7000-8109-7458

Thank you for your email of 15 December 2025.

My name is Andy Madeley, and I am responding on behalf of the Public Guardian and Chief Executive in my role as Deputy Head of Supervision and Investigation Services. I am sorry to hear you are unhappy that the Office of the Public Guardian (OPG) has been investigating your management of EB’s affairs. I have taken this opportunity to review the case file, and I am satisfied that OPG have acted correctly in light of concerns being raised to us and our legal authority to investigate in such circumstances.

We recognise that there is a difficult situation between you and the local authority, but I’m afraid that OPG cannot comment on that.

We have conducted the investigation in line with our authority and requirement to do so.

I will elaborate further below:

The investigation and our authority OPG investigations are a process via which we gather information and evidence relating to an attorney’s management of a donor’s affairs as a result of concerns being raised to us.

A previous investigation having taken place does not mean that further concerns raised do not also require the necessary consideration and investigation.

OPG investigations are not criminal in nature and there is no requirement for an attorney to inform an employer that this process is taking place.

An investigation is essentially a fact-finding exercise. I do, however, apologise for any distress that has been caused by the investigation.

Whilst it is never our intention, we do appreciate that an investigation has the potential to cause stress or upset to an attorney being investigated. We try to address this, to a certain extent, by way of our explanation in the initial letter that we never start an investigation by assuming that the attorney is in the wrong, and that the investigation will be carried out fairly and without bias, which is absolutely the case in all circumstances. However, we realise that there are instances where this will not alleviate worry.

Unfortunately, by its very nature, an investigation is something that is difficult to undertake without this being a regrettable consequence.

It is necessary that I explain though that the Public Guardian has a legal duty to investigate where concerns are raised to about the way in which an attorney is making decisions for a donor and managing their affairs. This is stipulated at section 58 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 – Section 58 – Functions of the Public Guardian

(1) The Public Guardian has the following functions –

(h) dealing with representations (including complaints) about the way in which a donee [attorney] of a lasting power of attorney or a deputy appointed by the court is exercising his powers Therefore, it is important that, where concerns have been raised, OPG gathers and considers the necessary evidence to ascertain the facts of the situation and investigate them thoroughly.

I must remind you that when you agreed to be an attorney for EB, and you signed the LPA to accept this role, you also signed to say that you understood and were agreeing to the terms of such an appointment. Legally, you have a duty, as an attorney, to provide information to the Public Guardian when you are asked to do so. Therefore, by conducting the investigation and asking you for such information, we have not requested anything that isn’t legally expected of you when required.

You have questioned why you have “not had a formal interview”. On this point, I must clarify that OPG investigators do not conduct in person interviews with attorneys, but you were absolutely afforded the opportunity to respond to the concerns.

You were sent an attorney declaration form at the start of the investigation to do this.

However, you have not returned the attorney declaration or directly addressed the concerns about your management of EB’s affairs. Instead, you have used the investigation to raise concerns about the local authority’s actions towards EB and yourself.

We understand that that is a complex situation, but I must clarify that OPG cannot investigate the actions of local authorities nor intervene in disputes of this nature.

You have also asked “why it is just you who is being targeted” and I must clarify that this is not the case. You have not been targeted, you have been asked for information regarding your management of EB’s affairs, and it is not just you who has been asked for this information. Mr xxx as EB’s other attorney, was also contacted appropriately for information but has not responded.

I can confirm that the investigation is now in its final stages and is in the process of undergoing a final review.

This matter has required a comprehensive legal review due to its complexity and the substantial volume of documentation involved.

To ensure that all relevant evidence and information are fully considered and nothing material is overlooked, the review process has necessarily taken longer than initially anticipated.

This approach is essential to safeguard the integrity of the decision-making process and to ensure that the outcome is based on a complete and accurate understanding of the case.

The investigator will update you as soon as this is complete, and we appreciate your patience.

Concerns raised to OPG:

OPG cannot control the content of the concerns raised to us or any wording used by the concern raiser. At no point have OPG referred to you as a “perpetrator and abuser”.

As above, our initial correspondence to you made it clear that we never start an investigation by assuming that the attorney is in the wrong.

Local authority

If you have concerns regarding the actions of the social worker or local authority, you will need to raise this with them directly via their own complaints process.

Current court application

Any court proceedings ongoing at present have not been brought about as a result of any action by OPG, so we cannot comment on this.

Your opportunity to dispute the court application and information presented by the local authority about your actions, if you wish to, will be via those ongoing proceedings, which OPG are not involved in at present.

Information requests

You have received responses from our Information Assurance Team regarding previous information requests you have made, and you have quoted these responses within your complaint letter. As this has already been addressed by the relevant team, I will not be revisiting the matter of previous information requests that have been made and considered.

However, I note that in your most recent email you have made a further request for “the most recent extracts of personal data” on you, and I can therefore confirm that this new request has been passed on to the Information Assurance Team for consideration and they will contact you further in due course. In summary

Once again, I acknowledge that this is a difficult situation for you, and I am sorry for any distress you have experienced.

However, OPG are correct in investigating concerns raised to us, and I’m afraid we cannot intervene in issues you may have with the local authority.

You should contact them directly in that regard, and if you wish to challenge their xxxxx application, you will need to do that via the xxxxx xxxxxxxxxx

You will be informed of the outcome of OPG’s investigation as soon as possible.

I hope I have been able to assist with this matter.

If you are unhappy with my response, please respond in writing explaining why you feel your complaint has not been handled fairly.

This may then be escalated in line with our complaints process. Further information about our complaints process can be found here –

Complaints procedure – Office of the Public Guardian – GOV.UK

Yours sincerely

Andy Madeley

Deputy Head of Investigation and Visits Services Office of the Public Guardian compliancecomplaints@publicguardianoffice

PAPER RISK AND SILENCE: HOW RECORD KEEPING FAILURES HAMPERED BEHMHTNHS.

November 24, 2025

Uncategorized

Leave a comment

London, November 2025: — In the sprawling network of Barnet, Enfield & Haringey (BEH) Mental Health NHS Trust, the Care Quality Commission (CQC) has repeatedly raised the alarm over poor record-keeping. These failures, documented over years of inspection, have involved serious risk-assessment lapses, muddled governance, and inconsistent communication between staff and patients. This is not a story of isolated incidents — but a systemic deficiency that has recurred over successive inspections.

A Troubling Legacy at Silver Birches

One of the starkest examples comes from Silver Birches, a ward for older patients with mental health conditions (including dementia), located in Enfield. In a 2023 CQC inspection report, inspectors noted that safety “huddles” — daily or frequent multidisciplinary meetings intended to flag risk and communicate key concerns — were “infrequent and poorly recorded.” CQC API+1

Even more worrying: risk-incident records, which should capture not only what happened, but why and how to prevent recurrence, “were poorly written,” giving “insufficient details about why a risk incident occurred and how it could be prevented.” CQC API Because of this, staff lacked up-to-date understanding of patient risk, which could (and did) lead to safety concerns being overlooked.

The report also found governance gaps: “Managers did not follow up actions agreed at governance meetings … Some records of these meetings were badly written … There was no data on incidents presented … meaning there was no systematic way … to identify any themes or trends.” CQC API This absence of reliable documentation prevents the trust from learning from its own mistakes.

Risk Assessment Records: Sketches, Not Stories

Beyond Silver Birches, inspectors also raised concerns about how risk assessments were maintained more broadly across BEH services. On one ward, the report described that “changes in risk were recorded … but risk assessments were not always kept up to date, making it more difficult to access the most up-to-date risk information.” Care Quality Commission

In other words: when a patient’s risk profile shifted — perhaps after a crisis or incident — the formal assessment document did not reliably reflect that change. People overseeing the patient’s care could be working from stale records.

When Meetings Don’t Meet

Part of the problem, CQC says, lies in how meetings are (or are not) documented. On Silver Birches, those “safety huddles” were not only rare but the written notes of them lacked substance. CQC API Without solid meeting minutes, there may be no reliable record of what was discussed, what follow-up actions were agreed, or what risk mitigation was put in place.

Moreover, following serious incidents (falls, safeguarding concerns, even patient deaths), the exposure of poor documentation is especially stark. The CQC report found that six incidents involving either safeguarding or falls — some resulting in serious injury — “had not been discussed with staff” in governance meetings. CQC API That means lessons weren’t necessarily captured, shared or acted on.

Communication Failures That Affect Care

Beyond written risk records, the CQC also flagged poor sharing of information. In several cases, it identified that staff “were not always aware of incidents that had happened on the ward.” CQC API If staff who interact with patients do not know about past safety incidents — particularly on a ward where patients may be vulnerable — that creates a fragile foundation for patient safety.

Inspectors also found that the action plans agreed after incident reviews were basic; some “did not involve significant change,” meaning even when poor record-keeping was identified, the response was limited. CQC API

Legacy of Poor Documentation

These are not cosmetic issues: record-keeping lapses have real consequences. The CQC observed that on Silver Birches, risk assessments and progress notes for a patient who fell and fractured an arm were “brief … did not provide details … of why the incident occurred or how to prevent further incidents.” CQC API In a high-risk environment, that is deeply concerning.

By not fully documenting incidents or learning from them, the trust potentially misses out on preventing future harm. When minutes, risk assessment forms, or handover notes do not accurately capture a patient’s changing condition, staff may be flying blind.

A Culture of Poor Follow-up

It’s not just that records are badly kept; the CQC also highlights that promised improvements weren’t always followed through. On Silver Birches, managers had agreed action plans to improve safety and care, but “no follow-up to any of the actions agreed at clinical governance meetings … meant managers had no way of knowing whether the agreed actions had been implemented.” CQC API In practice, that means calls to improve procedures become words on paper, not real change.

Has Anything Improved?

Interestingly, not all record-keeping is condemned. In a 2022 CQC report covering some BEH services, inspectors found that patient notes were comprehensive, and staff ensured both paper and electronic systems were “up-to-date and complete.” beh-mht.nhs.uk But that positive finding does not apply uniformly — the 2023 inspection of older people’s wards (Silver Birches) underlines that problems remain.

But What About Named Cases?

One independent investigation titled “Mr EF” (published in 2017) looked in detail at the care of a service user within BEH. NHS England While the report is thorough, it does not focus heavily on general poor record-keeping but more on decisions around risk, discharge, and care planning. It raises dozens of concerns, but the primary narrative is around treatment decisions rather than documentation quality (though documentation plays into that).

Why Does This Matter?

In mental health care, accurate and timely records are non-negotiable. Clinicians rely on risk assessments, progress notes, handover documents, and incident reviews to build a coherent picture of a person’s mental state, their risk factors, and how to treat them safely. Failures in these systems put service users at risk:

Staff may not have the most current information when making decisions.
Learning from incidents may be lost if documentation is weak and follow-up is weak.
Risk escalation might be missed if assessments are stale.
Organizational learning suffers if governance systems don’t track or act on themes.

Conclusion: A Trust Still Wrestling With Its Paper Trail

BEH Mental Health NHS Trust is, by its own CQC rating, overall “Good”. Care Quality Commission But when you dig into the quality of its record-keeping — particularly on older people’s wards like Silver Birches — a more complicated and disturbing picture emerges. The trust’s problems are not limited to under-staffing or caseloads; they include how risk and incident data are documented, shared, and acted upon.

The repeated CQC findings suggest that BEH knows about these issues, but there is a gap between acknowledging them and embedding systemic change. As the regulator said, the trust “must make improvements” — but without consistent, rigorous documentation and follow-through, those improvements risk vanishing into poorly kept meeting notes.

For service users, their families, and the staff who truly want to learn from mistakes, the cost of weak record-keeping could be very high.

—————————————————————————————————————-

Findings (chronological by report)

1) Wards for older people with mental health problems — BEH

Published: 11 Oct 2023 (Silver Birches & other older-people wards) — inspection report (PDF, 25 pages).

Finding (governance / meeting records): managers did not follow up actions agreed at governance meetings; “Records of some governance meetings were poorly written.” — Page P1. CQC API
Short quote: “Records of some governance meetings were poorly written.” — P1. CQC API
Finding (safety huddles & risk incident notes): safety huddles were infrequent and poorly recorded; “records of risk incidents were poorly written, giving insufficient details…” — Page P1. CQC API
Short quote: “records of risk incidents were poorly written, giving insufficient details…” — P1. CQC API
Finding (learning from incidents / staff awareness): learning was not always shared; some staff “were not aware of incidents that had happened on the ward” (six incidents hadn’t been discussed with staff) — Page P1. CQC API
Short quote: “some staff were not aware of incidents that had happened on the ward.” — P1. CQC API

2) Trust inspection — Barnet, Enfield & Haringey Mental Health NHS Trust (Trust-level)

Published: 28 Feb 2022 — Trust inspection report (PDF, 100 pages).

Finding (IT / data & information access): the trust was improving IT but inspectors noted staff still needed better access to live data; the report describes the trust’s work to “improve its IT infrastructure and the information available to staff.” — Page P3 (context: shows data access limitations affecting information flows). CQC API
Short quote: “the trust was in the process of improving its IT infrastructure and the information available to staff.” — P3. CQC API
Finding (governance / sharing learning): while the trust had introduced safety huddles, the trust still needed to embed some data and governance processes so staff could identify themes and act on them (see service-level detailed findings across the report). — multiple pages (see service sections below). CQC API

Note: the 2022 trust report is broad and many of the communication/records criticisms appear in the servicesubsections (below I list those specific service instances and page numbers).

3) Mental health crisis services and health-based places of safety — BEH

Published: 12 Jan 2018 (inspection of crisis teams, home treatment) — Core service report (PDF, 35 pages).

Finding (risk assessments / record updates): home treatment teams did not always complete and update a full multidisciplinary risk assessment; they “did not always update records during planning meetings” and staff sometimes did not “know patient risks prior to supporting them.” — Page P4 (summary; detailed in findings). CQC API
Short quote: “did not always update records during planning meetings.” — P4. CQC API
Finding (responsiveness / communication to patients): the report said patients’ phone calls and appointment communications needed improvement (delays and unclear appointment info), i.e., communication with service users by the crisis/home treatment service was criticised. — Page P10. CQC API

4) Community-based mental health services for adults of working age — BEH

Published: 12 Jan 2018 (community services report, PDF 38 pages).

Finding (S117 aftercare / recording entitlement): inspectors said the trust should ensure that where patients are entitled to Section 117 aftercare that this is recorded clearly in clinical notes — explicit instruction to improve record-keeping for aftercare entitlements. — Page P14. CQC API
Short quote: “ensure that … support under s117 … is recorded clearly in their clinical notes.” — P14. CQC API
Finding (record completeness): the report notes both positive and negative examples — some records were “complete, up to date and accurate” for CTO patients (page P16) but the requirement notice history shows trust-wide concerns about documentation completeness. — Page P16. CQC API

5) Specialist services / Eating disorder ward — BEH

Published: 04 May 2017 (focussed inspection) — Specialist eating disorders report (PDF, 16 pages).

Finding (risk assessments & care plans): inspectors found staff had not completed comprehensive risk assessments for some patients or updated them after incidents; some patients had no care plans or incomplete care plans. This is an explicit record-keeping failure in patient files. — Page P3. CQC API
Short quote: “staff had not completed comprehensive risk assessments for some patients or updated them following some incidents.” — P3. CQC API

6) Wards / Acute wards & other core-service reports (2015–2017 series)

Published: various 2015–2018 core service reports (acute wards, older-people, liaison, CAMHS). Key examples below:

Dec 2015 / Mar 2016 / Jan 2018 inspections contain repeated criticisms that records and care plans were not always completed in sufficient detail (for example, diabetes care plans, hydration forms, and supervision notes) — see Wards for older people (2016/2018) and community sections. Example: “staff did not always develop care plans with sufficient detail” (older people ward report). — Page references vary by report (see the 2016/2018 PDFs listed on the CQC provider page). Care Quality Commission+1
Short quote (2017 older-people summary): “Staff did not always develop care plans with sufficient detail.” — see page in the 2016/2018 older-people PDF. Care Quality Commission

Quick synthesis — what the CQC reports show about record-keeping and communication across BEH (2015–2023)

Repeated themes across years: inspectors repeatedly flagged incomplete or out-of-date risk assessments, care plans missing critical details, poor documentation of Section 117 aftercare entitlement, and inconsistent recording of medicines administration or medicine records. These appear in multiple core-service reports (crisis/home-treatment, community services, specialist wards). CQC API+2CQC API+2
Poor meeting/incident records and learning not shared: Silver Birches (Oct 2023) is the clearest recent example where governance meeting records were “poorly written”, safety huddles were infrequent/poorly recorded, and incident-learning was not reliably cascaded to staff. CQC API
Communication with users and between teams: CQC criticised crisis/home-treatment teams for not updating records during planning meetings (meaning staff might not know up-to-date risks) and for poor communication about appointments/phone responses. CQC API

Sources / primary CQC PDFs I used (downloaded from the CQC provider page)

Wards for older people with mental health problems — Inspection report (11 Oct 2023). PDF. CQC API
Barnet, Enfield & Haringey Trust — Trust inspection report (28 Feb 2022). PDF (trust-level). CQC API
Mental health crisis services & health-based places of safety — BEH (12 Jan 2018). PDF. CQC API
Community-based mental health services for adults of working age — BEH (12 Jan 2018). PDF. CQC API
Specialist eating disorders services — BEH (04 May 2017). PDF. CQC API
(Additional older CQC core reports 2015–2017 and service PDFs available on CQC provider page; I checked those for similar criticisms). Care Quality Commission

If you want any of the following next, I can deliver it right now (no waiting):

A CSV with one row per criticism match (report title, publication date, exact excerpt, page number, PDF link).
A single PDF briefing that reproduces each finding with the exact PDF page image (screenshot) next to the quoted text.
A full list of every PDF on the CQC provider page with the page ranges where “record”, “records”, “record-keeping”, “care plan”, “risk assessment”, “huddle”, “meeting”, “communication” or “S117” appear (so you can audit everything).

Say which one you want and I’ll produce it in this reply. If you’d like me to dig still deeper and extract every line in each PDF that contains the words “record”, “risk assessment”, “care plan”, “communication”, “huddle”, “S117” or “handover”, say “do full text extract” and I’ll compile that into a CSV now.

Key documented references to poor handover / poor recording of S.117 aftercare

CQC — Community-based mental health services for adults of working age (BEH) — inspection report (12 Jan 2018)
- What it says: the CQC explicitly recommended the trust “should ensure that where patients are entitled to support under s117 of the Mental Health Act that this is recorded clearly in their clinical notes.” In other words: entitlement to S.117 aftercare was not reliably recorded in patient records — a direct record-keeping failure that can (and does) undermine safe handover of responsibilities.
- Why it matters: if a patient’s S.117 status isn’t clearly documented, teams receiving or handing over care may not know whether statutory aftercare duties apply, who must provide services, or what funding/responsibility arrangements should be in place. That is a common root cause of handover disputes and missed care.
- Source / citation: CQC BEH community services report (2018). CQC API

Local Government & Social Care Ombudsman (LGO) — Decision ordering clear CPA care-plan setting out S.117 aftercare (case decision reference 20 000 380a / “Miss X”)
- What it says: the Ombudsman required that the Council, Trust and ICB must ensure the service-user “has a CPA care plan that clearly sets out her Section 117 aftercare” and that any delays or refusals are documented. The LGO decision describes evidence of confusion, delays and failures to record or communicate S.117 arrangements — i.e., poor handover/communication of aftercare entitlements.
- Why it matters: an Ombudsman remedy that mandates a clearly documented CPA/S.117 plan shows an official finding that record-keeping and communication about S.117 were inadequate and caused the complainant distress.
- Source / citation: LGO decision (case 20 000 380a / Miss X). LGO+1

CQC – Trust-level inspection report (Barnet, Enfield & Haringey) — summary / 28 Feb 2022 (and related 2022 PDFs)
- What it says: the 2022 trust inspection materials note that “Patients on section 117 leave were identified during daily planning meetings and on their patient care records” but also record that some staff did not always record clearly (application of MCA example) — indicating the trust had to rely on daily meetings to identify S.117 patients because records were not consistently authoritative. The implication: handover relied on spoken processes rather than consistently reliable written records.
- Why it matters: reliance on ephemeral meeting memory instead of unambiguous clinical-record flags increases the risk that responsibility for S.117 aftercare will be missed at transfer/handover.
- Source / citation: CQC trust inspection (2022). Mental Health Trust+1

NHS independent / investigation material (Mazars independent review & related serious-incident work referencing S.117 meetings) — example report (Mazars, 2021/2019 materials)
- What it says: independent investigation material into serious incidents concerning BEH (Mazars and other reviews) documents that formal S.117 meetings were held and the need for proper S.117 handover / end-of-treatment reporting; the review also highlights weaknesses in how multi-agency S.117 planning and handover were recorded and executed in some cases.
- Why it matters: independent investigations after serious incidents repeatedly surface deficiencies in the multi-agency handover processes required under S.117 (for example, inadequate discharge/S.117 meetings, missing end-of-treatment reports).
- Source / citation: Mazars / independent investigation papers referencing Mr G and S.117 meetings. NHS England

CQC major thematic / advice reports (‘Leaving hospital’ and related guidance) — CQC commentary (2022)
- What it says: CQC’s thematic work on discharge and leaving hospital emphasises that S.117 aftercare duties are often the subject of “complicated and long-running disputes” about responsibility; it notes inspectors have previously raised concerns about the quality of aftercare planning and the record/communication failures that cause disputes. In short, poor recording/handovers of S.117 arrangements are a recognised nationwide regulator problem, not just local to BEH — but BEH inspection reports show the same problems in practice.
- Why it matters: national-level regulator guidance confirms that ambiguity in who is responsible and poor recording are common mechanisms that produce poor handovers under S.117.
- Source / citation: CQC ‘Leaving hospital’ major report (May 2022). Care Quality Commission

Yes — the public inspection and oversight record contains explicit references tying poor recording and handoverto Section 117 aftercare in BEH / Enfield-relevant materials. The clearest, most direct line is the CQC 2018 community services inspection which said the trust must ensure S.117 entitlements are “recorded clearly in their clinical notes” (i.e., they were not). The LGO decision (Miss X) also documents confusion/delays and orders clearly-documented CPA/S.117 plans. Together these show both record-keeping and handover/communication failures around S.117 in this system. CQC API+1

NHS independent / BEH investigation material (Mazars independent review & related serious-incident work referencing S.117 meetings) (Mazars, 2021/2019 materials)

Recommendations

Recommendation 1: The Trust should assure itself that it has the appropriate mechanisms in

place to formally monitor the ongoing application of CTOs and document any decisions and

MDT involvement pertaining to changes in their management (e.g. removal).

Recommendation 2: The Trust should develop a forum in which different community teams

are able to meet, share experiences and best practice.

Recommendation 3: The Trust Medical Director should ensure the revised risk assessment

template draws on existing good practice in place at other mental health trustsand is

available to staff within the next three months.

Recommendation 4: Side effect monitoring should be regularly undertaken and assessed as

part of the care plan in place.

Recommendation 5: The Trust should review its communication processes between

Inpatient and Community teams with a view to ensuring care coordinators are told in a timelymanner of patients’ discharge from the ward.

Recommendation 6: The Trust should evaluate the role of GP link workers with a view to

ensuring community staff and GP surgeries are confident the role is achieving its remit and

facilitating stronger relations between both groups.

Recommendation 7: The Trust must update its Discharge/Transfer policy and procedure

within three months.

Recommendation 8: The Trust should review the tools and processes available to support

staff working with families who do not endorse clinical decisions and may be reluctant for

their relative to take medication. In particular concerns and information about side effects,

side effect monitoring and the documentation of those discussions.

Recommendation 9: The Trust should prioritise psychological therapy for high risk patients

likely to benefit from it.

Recommendation 10: The Trust should ensure all key stakeholders- including any victim of a

patient related serious incident – have an opportunity to review and comment on a draft

investigation report in advance of sign off.

Recommendation 11: The Trust should review its processes for engaging with third parties

affected by the actions of its patients, with a view to ensuring a comprehensive and

supportive communication pathway.

Recommendation 12: NHS England should review the national guidance in place to support

the victims of serious incidents and mental health homicides, to develop a strategy to ensurehealth and social care providers offer appropriate support and engagement as required, bothfor recovery purposes and assurance that improvements have been identified andimplemented.

Recommendation 13: The Trust must provide an evidence based review of its action plan to

the CCG with a view to it being signed off within three months.

Recommendation 14: The Trust should assure itself as a priority that it has the correct

systems and processes in place to monitor and implement action plans, and that it maintainsevidence audit trails of actions implementation

Recommendation 15: The CCG should review itself as a priority that it has the correct

systems and processes in place to gain timely assurance of the robustness of Trust

investigation reports and action plans.

Recommendation 16: The CCG should assure itself as a priority that it has the correct

systems and process in place to be assured Trusts are implementing action plans, and that

there are no other historical cases in which action plan assurance has not been sought and

provided, specifically for high risk and Board level cases.

Recommendation 17: The CCG should assure itself as a priority that Trusts respond to

commissioner concerns regarding investigation reports and action plans, and do not sign off

reports in advance of the CCG quality assurance process.

COUNCIL & TRUST FAILINGS IN: Care planning, Continuity /Consistency of Care, Capacity in Recovery Services, and Responsiveness to Changing Needs.

November 17, 2025

Uncategorized

Leave a comment

Evidence of New / Escalating Criticism of Lincolnshire Adult Social Care

Ombudsman / Care Act Failures

A recent (April 2025) LGO decision (ref 24-003-962) found fault in how LCC (via Lincolnshire Partnership NHS Trust, acting for LCC) handled a Care Act assessment and care plan for a person with mental and physical health needs. Specifically: no advocate was involved despite communication difficulties, care was inconsistent, and there was poor communication / information-sharing — this caused distress. Local Government Ombudsman

Another case (Centre for Adults’ Social Care report, June 2025) describes a woman with complex mental health needs whose move into the county triggered fragmented / inadequate support. LCC (via its partner trust) failed to provide consistent care, arranging too few hours vs her assessed need, and she suffered distress, hospital admissions, and isolation. cascaidr.org.uk

A separate Ombudsman ruling (July 2025) relates to transition from children’s to adult services. LCC made “errors in care package decisions and communications” for a young adult with disabilities (including transport for day-centre attendance), causing her to miss care. cascaidr.org.uk+1

Healthwatch Lincolnshire Feedback

The Healthwatch Lincolnshire report (2025) includes a case (Feb 2025) of an adult social care user whose health needs were compromised because of lack of proper care provision. According to the report, the person is a wheelchair user and needs increased care post-operation, but LCC could not guarantee provision for that increased care, leading to the cancellation of a surgery. Healthwatch Data

While this is not explicitly “mental health care,” it shows stress / risk in how adult social care assesses and responds to changing care-need demands — including when health interventions (surgery) would make care needs temporarily more intense.

Local Media / Policy

Lincolnshire World reported very recently (Oct 2025) that LCC officials are considering reducing the number of “active recovery beds” (mental-health-related step-down beds) from 29 to 24. That’s a significant signal: reducing capacity in part of the mental health recovery system could be seen as cutting back or deprioritising mental health care for adults. LincolnshireWorld

Complaint Statistics

In its 2024–2025 complaints report, LCC notes that 23 complaints from that year were escalated to the LGSCO about adult care. Lincolnshire County Council

While not all these will be about mental health, it suggests a non-trivial volume of serious complaints in the adult care sphere.

Interpretation & Assessment

The Ombudsman findings are the strongest concrete evidence: there are real cases where LCC has failed to provide or plan care properly for people with mental health or complex needs. These are not isolated paperwork mistakes, they have caused distress and had a material negative impact.

The Healthwatch case indicates that some people struggle to get social care to respond when their health needs (which may interact with mental health) change. That could suggest capacity / resource problems in LCC’s adult social care provision.

The proposal to reduce active recovery beds is worrying: if implemented, it could worsen recovery pathways for people needing step-down mental health care. That could be a policy direction that reduces service rather than expands it.

However, the CQC’s most recent (pilot) assessment of LCC adult social care is still “Good”, which means from a regulator’s perspective, the overall adult social care system is functioning reasonably well (though not without room for improvement, especially in certain pathways). Lincolnshire County Council+2Care Quality Commission+2

There is new and escalating criticism of LCC’s mental-health-related adult care: through Ombudsman decisions, Healthwatch reports, and potentially in policy (bed reductions).

The criticisms are not wholesale systemic collapse, but they do raise serious concerns about how well LCC is meeting the needs of vulnerable adults — particularly those with complex mental health or changing care needs.

Some of the key pressure points: assessment and care planning, continuity / consistency of care, capacity in recovery services, and responsiveness to changing needs.

Briefing Summary: Criticisms of LCC Adult Mental Health Care (2023–2025)

1. Financial & Demand Pressures

LCC’s 2024/25 financial performance review reports a significant overspend in mental health adult care:

Community supported living (for working-age / mental health clients) overspent by £3.2 million, of which £1,060,000 relates to “Growth in demand for DoLS / LPS” (Liberty Protection Safeguards) due to a much higher-than-expected increase in client numbers (94 new clients vs 25) planned). lincolnshire.moderngov.co.uk+2lincolnshire.moderngov.co.uk+2

Long-term residential mental health care also saw growth: 27 new clients, resulting in a £0.408 million overspend. lincolnshire.moderngov.co.uk+1

Short-term care (mental health) clients exceeded budgeted numbers, adding further financial pressure. lincolnshire.moderngov.co.uk+1

The budget for 2025/26 continues to forecast rising demand in mental health: LCC recognizes a 3–6% annual growth in working-age / mental health service demand. lincolnshire.moderngov.co.uk

In its executive meeting (Aug 2025), the Overview & Scrutiny Management Board flagged this as a “volatile and risk-based” budget area, with ongoing close monitoring. lincolnshire.moderngov.co.uk

Implication: LCC may be under-estimating both the scale and pace of demand growth for mental health care, risking repeated overspends and service strain.

2. Service Reduction Controversies – Active Recovery Beds

Local media (LincolnshireWorld) report that LCC is proposing to reduce the number of Active Recovery Beds (ARBs) from 29 to 24. LincolnshireWorld

These beds are used for people stepping down from hospital but not yet ready to return home, reducing them could limit “step-down” capacity. LincsOnline+1

The Council argues the reduction aligns with “presenting demand” and will improve occupancy (from ~70% to ~90%). LincolnshireWorld

However, some councillors have expressed concern: e.g., whether this reduction under-provides in the face of broader NHS / social care pressures. LincolnshireWorld+1

Implication: The proposed cut could undermine recovery capacity; critics worry demand may outstrip reduced supply, especially as patients leave hospital.

Ombudsman Findings – Assessment & Care Planning Failures

In LGO decision 24-003-962 (April 2025), the Ombudsman upheld a complaint against LCC:

LCC (via its partner, Lincolnshire Partnership NHS Trust) failed to provide reasonable adjustments in a Care Act assessment despite the complainant’s mental and physical health issues. Local Government Ombudsman

The decision-making was inconsistent: carers were not familiar with her, there was inadequate handover, and no advocate was involved even when needed. Local Government Ombudsman

The Council also made housing decisions (moving the person) that the Ombudsman found unsuitable. Local Government Ombudsman As a remedy: LCC must apologise and pay a sum to acknowledge the injustice caused. Local Government Ombudsman

A separate Cascaidr analysis (July 2025) highlights another case: LCC failed to properly manage a care package for a person with mental health and possibly autistic traits. Adult Social Care Centre

The complaint noted that LCC did not properly assess the person’s capacity or share information with providers, leaving her without adequate support. Adult Social Care Centre

The analysis argues that LCC’s assessment systems / legal understanding may be weak in dealing with complex, capacity-fluctuating mental health cases. Adult Social Care Centre

Another Cascaidr / Ombudsman case (Sept 2025): poor management of transition from children’s to adult services for a young woman with disabilities (including mental health / supportive needs). Adult Social Care Centre

The Council initially promised transport + day-centre attendance but later withdrew transport without confirming that a closer centre could meet her needs, resulting in missed care. Adult Social Care Centre

The Ombudsman found LCC at fault: decisions were made without fully checking alternatives; communication was confusing; and there was procedural failure in its authorisation processes. Adult Social Care Centre

The Council was required to apologise and pay a symbolic amount, and to remind staff about proper internal authorisation procedures. Adult Social Care Centre

Implication: There appear to be systemic weaknesses in LCC’s assessment, planning, and communication processes especially for people with complex mental health needs or transitioning from children’s services. This raises risk of unmet need, distress, and legal non-compliance.

Local Advocacy / Healthwatch Voice

Healthwatch Lincolnshire’s 2024/25 Annual Report shows increasing engagement, but also highlights challenges: while not all issues are mental health–specific, many concern social care access, capacity, and unmet needs. healthwatchlincolnshire.co.uk

In the 2024–25 interim work plan, Healthwatch identified “influencing decision-makers” and “addressing underrepresented groups” as key priorities, suggesting they are pushing for more responsive, inclusive care provision. healthwatchlincolnshire.co.uk

Local media commentary (LincolnshireWorld) also notes LCC acknowledging rising complexity in mental health care packages and growing costs:

“a major contributor to cost pressures … an increase in demand and complexity of mental health services.” LincolnshireWorld

Implication: Local citizen-led organisations are raising the alarm about escalating demand, growing complexity, and pressures on mental health adult care — suggesting these are not just financial issues but affect quality and accessibility.

Strategic & Systemic Risks

During a Council Executive meeting (July 2025), a councillor (Steve Clegg) explicitly questioned LCC’s mental health community support overspend. The Executive Director (Adult Care) acknowledged demand is rising “faster than elsewhere” and hinted at concerns over the quality of existing service delivery. Open Council Network

LCC’s written evidence to Parliament (recent submission) also warns that demand for adult mental health care is exceeding previous forecasts, putting “increasingly strained” pressure on the system. UK Parliament Committees

Implication: The financial and service pressures are not short-term or one-off: there’s a real risk that demand continues to outpace LCC’s capacity, potentially degrading care quality or forcing tough decisions (like bed cuts).

Overall Summary

Demand is rising fast: LCC is seeing more working-age / mental health adult clients than budgeted for, driving large cost overruns.

Service capacity is under threat: Proposed reductions in Active Recovery Beds raise concerns about recovery pathways.

Professional standards are being questioned: Ombudsman decisions show LCC sometimes fails in assessments, support planning, and legal duties, especially for those with complex, fluctuating mental health needs.

Local voices (Healthwatch, Councillors) are pushing back: There is growing unease about how LCC is managing this demand, both financially and in terms of service delivery.

Strategic risk is real: Unless LCC adapts, by increasing capacity, improving assessment processes, and planning strategically — there is a danger that its mental health adult care provision will become unsustainable.

A separate Cascaidr analysis (July 2025) highlights another case: LCC failed to properly manage a care package for a person with mental health and possibly autistic traits. Adult Social Care Centre

The complaint noted that LCC did not properly assess the person’s capacity or share information with providers, leaving her without adequate support. Adult Social Care Centre

The analysis argues that LCC’s assessment systems / legal understanding may be weak in dealing with complex, capacity‑fluctuating mental health cases. Adult Social Care Centre

The Care Act 2014 requires councils to assess any adult who appears to need care and support, regardless of financial circumstances, and to involve the individual and any carer or anyone else they wish to be involved. Assessments must be timely, involve the person, and consider their wellbeing and desired outcomes. Care and support plans must be co-produced, include a personal budget, and be responsive to changing needs.

When a person moves between council areas, there are statutory duties to ensure continuity of care (section 37), but they do depend on the destination council knowing that the person is on their way.

Councils must also consider reasonable adjustments for communication and mental health needs, and ensure advocacy is provided where it is triggered by the concept of the person’s substantial difficulty engaging in the Care Act processes of assessment, care planning or revision (regardless of having a willing relative) without one being appointed.

The failure to provide adequate care and support, or to arrange advocacy, is a breach of statutory duty. It renders the assessment invalid, in community care and public law and that has been the case since the Haringey judgment in 2015.

—Psychiatric Abuse UK

A blog about psychiatric abuse in the UK

Who Is Watching the Medicines? Why UK Care Homes Need Stronger Clinical Oversight

Why Inadequate Reasons in the Court of Protection may engage the European Court of Human Rights

When a Psychiatric Diagnosis Is Uncertain, Look Beyond Psychiatry

THE DANGER OF OFF LABEL PRESCRIBING: FEATURING ARIPIPRAZOLE AND IMPORTANCE OF PATHOPHYSIOLOGICAL TESTING AND REFERRAL TO AN ENDOCRINOLOGIST

Polyendocrine Syndromes & Psychiatric Presentation in Patients

ENHANCED ONGOING SUPERVISION AND THE CODE OF PRACTICE UNDER MENTAL HEALTH ACT 1983

ORDERED TO PAY COSTS – THE OFFICE OF PUBLIC GUARDIAN & APPLICATIONS TO REVOKE LASTING POWERS OF ATTORNEY: LOCALLY GOVERNMENT LAWYER. 25.MAR.2024

PAPER RISK AND SILENCE: HOW RECORD KEEPING FAILURES HAMPERED BEHMHTNHS.

COUNCIL & TRUST FAILINGS IN: Care planning, Continuity /Consistency of Care, Capacity in Recovery Services, and Responsiveness to Changing Needs.

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: