Attwaters Solicitors

A hospital has agreed to pay compensation to the family of an Essex woman whose death from a dugs overdose after she was allowed to leave a psychiatric unit was criticised at an inquest.
Mrs B had a long history of inpatient treatment at a number of psychiatric hospitals.  After attempting suicide in January 2006 she was admitted to the psychiatric centre of a hospital where she described to staff her suicidal frame of mind.
Whilst at the centre she absconded several times.  During the following two months she was allowed leave on several other occasions, but became depressed and attempted to harm herself.
In April she was arrested by the police on a public order offence and was returned to the hospital.  She was subsequently sectioned under the Mental Health Act, but continued to try to harm herself.
Although her compulsory detention was discontinued, there were plans to re-admit her if she attempted to leave the centre.
However, after a few days the level of observation kept on Mrs B decreased and on 9 June she was permitted to leave, intending to visit London.  Staff do not appear to have asked her where she was going, when she would return or what she would be doing in London.
The next day when she had not returned, medical notes made by a nurse mentioned the intention to inform doctors, though nothing was actually done that morning.
A message was left on her mobile phone, but when she did not reply it was not followed up.  A consultant suggested she should be given until six that evening.
When there was still no reply the nurse on duty attempted to inform the consultant on call, but without success.
Half an hour later the police called to say that she had been found dead.
Evidence at the inquest suggested that Mrs B’s detention under the Mental Health Act was discontinued too abruptly and without adequate planning, and she should not have been permitted to leave the hospital just nine days later.
Once she had been allowed to leave there was no attempt to implement the missing persons procedure until she was already dead.
The inquest recorded that the cause of death was morphine intoxication and polysubstance abuse.  In a narrative verdict the coroner concluded that Mrs B ‘died as a result of misadventure the risk of which was not managed by a detailed care plan for her leave from the ward.’
The coroner said she had probably intended to return to the hospital, but did not have enough money for the fare. She spent the night with a friend, and they both used drugs.
Mrs B’s family were deeply concerned at the manner of her death, and pursued a legal claim against the hospital.  Proceedings have now been concluded with the hospital admitting responsibility and agreeing to pay an undisclosed sum in settlement.
The expert evidence gathered for the claim was extremely critical of the inpatient care Mrs B received, and suggested that she did not receive either an accurate diagnosis, a full risk assessment and care plan, adequate drugs or opportunities for psychotherapy and treatment of her personality disorder.
The family’s legal claim has been managed by Harlow-based lawyers Attwaters. 
‘Mrs B was a very unhappy woman who for several years had suffered from a number of complex psychiatric problems,’ explains David Kerry, head of Attwaters’ clinical negligence team.
‘Any one of them is associated with an increased risk of suicide and certainly a combination of them all indicated that she should be given the most careful management.
 ‘On the balance of probabilities, proper care would have prevented her death.  Her family have had to come to terms with an extremely troubled woman for whom they had the greatest concerns but for whom the proper treatment was denied, then with her death as a result.
‘The settlement figure is not important in a case such as this.  The important point is to highlight the shortcomings which psychiatric patients so often have to suffer at the hands of the NHS.’