Skip to content
recurance

Inadequate ACCT document review and agency input documentation

Closely relatedConfidence 0.70 · moderate3 reports · 2014–2017 One-page brief (print or PDF)

Care UK received 3 coroners' reports about this hazard between 10 Dec 2014 and 28 Mar 2017.

They came from 3 different coroners in 3 coroner areas. A similar concern was raised again 2 times after the first warning.

A published response was found for 2 of the 2 earlier reports, stating 4 specific actions.

3
reports
3
different coroners
2014–2017
years
0.70
lowest link confidence

The story, report by report

Spacing grows with the time between reports.

  1. First warning

    Geraldine Kilborn↗

    10 Dec 2014 · Andrew Tweddle · County Durham & Darlington

    “Witnesses confirmed that they often did not read much of the ACCT document prior to the ACCT review and relied more upon input of other attendees”
    Original on judiciary.uk ↗

    Care UK responded, stating 2 specific actions.Response (PDF) ↗Response (PDF) ↗

    “an amended arrangement has been put in place to facilitate the presence of a member of the mental health team at ACCT reviews that take place at the weekend”
    “From April 2015 the health service delivery model will change from a Prime Provider model to a 7 Lot commissioning model .The National Health Service Commissioning Board has procured seven services - GP Services including Pharmacy, Dental, Optometry, Community Care, Non-Clinical Substance Misuse, Mental Health and Support Services.”

    Stated timescale: April 2015

  2. 1 year 9 months later

    Raised again · 1st time

    Warren Sampson↗

    6 Sept 2016 · Caroline Beasley-Murray · Essex

    Closely relatedConfidence 0.70 · moderatea different coroner
    “The lack of written evidence within the ACCT documentation of contributory input from other agencies such as Healthcare.”
    Original on judiciary.uk ↗

    Repeated from the earlier report:ACCTinput

    Care UK responded, stating 1 specific action.Response (PDF) ↗

    “The process now is that a Second Health Screen is undertaken within 72 hours of an inmate arriving at HMP Chelmsford and at that second health screen there would be a Care UK Cltrncal SeMces llm,ted - Registered ,n England No 3462881 Registered Office Connaught House.”

    Stated timescale: within 72 hours

  3. 7 months later

    Raised again · 2nd time

    John Williams↗

    28 Mar 2017 · ME Hassell · London Inner (North)

    Identical hazardConfidence 0.90 · higha different coroner
    “Some prison officers did not seem familiar with the very important contents of the ACCT, not even the inside cover.”
    Original on judiciary.uk ↗

    Care UK responded, stating 1 specific action.Response (PDF) ↗

    “The nurse has been reminded of the process of giving evidence at an inquest and to listen carefully to the question that is being and to take time in considering her answer. Enquiries have been made by the Interim Head of Healthca re who is satisfied that the nurse in giving evidence at the inquest was confused and made a mistake in response to your question.”
  4. All reports to Care UK

Next

This shows that a similar concern was raised again after an earlier report. It does not say why, and it is not a finding about any organisation or person. To report an error, see the corrections route.

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

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

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