Preventable suicide in mental health `care'

- 02 October 2006;This article appears on the website of AVMA (Action for Victims of Medical Accidents)

Beverley committed suicide by hanging back in May 2002.

This followed a catalogue of errors on the part of the local Mental Health Trust, including discharging Beverley from a Section 2 order, after 28 days, notwithstanding her absconding from hospital and making a suicide bid less than two weeks before the Section 2 order elapsed.

The mother brought a detailed complaint concerning Beverley's care.

The Trust investigated this, with `independent' assessors and, after considerable delay, rejected it entirely.

Beverley's mother persevered to the IRP stage.

There was an extensive IRP investigation and hearing which then upheld her complaint in its entirety. The IRP was also highly critical of the way in which the Trust had handled the complaint. It made widespread recommendations for improvements.

At that stage the Trust issued a clear letter of apology and undertook to implement all the recommendations. In doing so, it explicitly accepted the IRP findings.

When Beverley's mother (later followed by Beverley's sister) looked to take legal proceedings the Trust acted as follows:

Firstly, it refused to continue to update her as to the implementation of the IRP's recommendations (it subsequently resiled from that position under the extreme pressure from ourselves).

Secondly, it denied the allegations on the most spurious grounds imaginable.

Thirdly, it refused to disclose other complaints about the treating Consultant – in response to which we had to secure an order for specific disclosure. This showed that there had been umpteen complaints against the Consultant and that, in fact, the Trust's then Chief Executive had actually referred him to the GMC, in light of the IRP panel findings. Notwithstanding this, the case was defended – including the Consultant's actions – so criticised by the IRP.

When the inconsistency between their public position, in response to the IRP findings, and their litigation position was raised by way of request for additional information they simply stated that the tests applicable were different.

Finally, the Trust spent thousands and thousands of pounds in public money defending the case. Both Claimants were publicly funded.

The Trust commissioned a highly dubious report from a Psychiatrist, defending the Trust's actions. The claimant's solicitors secured an order for a split trial. Throughout, they tried to settle the case, seeking mediation. Ultimately, just a few weeks short of trial, the Trust was forced to settle the case for the same amount that the Claimants had offered to settle it for six months previously.

For their psychiatric injury, and attendant losses, as secondary victims, they received £20,000 and £25,000 respectively.

Costs have reached about the same level – quite unnecessarily.

Both Claimants are responsible people, appalled at the waste of public funds involved in the case.

With thanks to the claimant Solicitors:

Harman & Harman (Canterbury)