Services failed man with brain injury who took his own life, finds review

Multi-agency approach from Somerset mental health and adult services was 'entirely absent', report concludes

SCR2

A man with brain injuries who took his own life did not receive proper support from health and social care services, a serious case review has found.

Forty-three-year-old Tom, who had sustained a brain injury in a car crash more than 20 years previously, was discovered dead at his Somerset home in June 2014. Since his accident he developed longstanding mobility, mental health and substance misuse problems. More recently he had been financially exploited.

In October 2013, Somerset Partnership NHS Foundation Trust’s crisis team assessed Tom as being “a ‘low risk’ of deliberate self-harm, accidental self-harm and suicide” following a referral by police. Around the same time his family wrote to their MP complaining that both adult social care and mental health professionals were failing to perceive him as a vulnerable adult.

The serious case review concluded that the NHS trust, Somerset council and local drug and alcohol services failed to provide an integrated response to Tom’s needs.

“Services do not easily respond to individuals whose lives appear chaotic and who are barely compliant. Working with people with multiple and complex needs, across agencies, has to hinge on coordinated assessment, care management and working with the risk of harm together,” the report found.

“Tom’s family grieved for him throughout his post brain-injury circumstances – which became increasingly unsafe – and yet their requests for help did not result in integrated working.”

Lack of professional curiosity

Tom was first assessed by social services in June 2000 but the review found no documents remained to evidence the process or the outcome. At the time Tom had already referred himself to Headway, a brain injury support organisation that the review found was one of the few points of stability in his life. He disclosed an “under control” drug habit to the organisation.

In 2005, Tom told a psychologist he used drugs and alcohol “to numb” his mind. He was referred to drug and alcohol services and asked to record his use of substances and his mood.

“Tom’s family were concerned that he was in contact with many professionals and yet ‘he could not take anything in,'” the serious case review found.

“It is his family’s perception that professionals believed they were engaging with a man who was mentally capable following his rehabilitation and processes of compensatory adaptation. However, Tom was experiencing chronic insomnia after his brain injury. He was plagued by depression and, unsupervised, his addictions compromised his cognitive abilities.”

At no stage, Tom’s family explained during the review, did health or social care professionals ask about his life prior to his brain injury.

In his teens he had won a scholarship to a prestigious school before becoming involved in drug use and minor criminal behaviour.

“Although the gap between the vibrant capability of his pre-brain-injury and his post-brain injury disability was most evident to his family, ‘we were never privy to any of the assessments… after the injury he didn’t see the point of living,'” the review noted.

During 2006, however, Tom moved in with his partner Liz, who also had a brain injury and paid him £100 a week to care for her. Looking after her needs “gave him a purpose”, Tom’s family told the review.

‘Missing the subtleties’

Over the next few years Tom’s physical and mental health continued to deteriorate. He suffered chronic pain and insomnia, which he used heroin and alcohol as well as prescription medication to treat, and had a number of accidents while intoxicated.

A May 2012 adult social care assessment, the case review found, was inadequate owing to the lack of a holistic evaluation of Tom’s ability to manage risk. The assessment had a “limited” study of his mental capacity and – in common with other assessments – failed to explore his role as Liz’s partner and carer.

Professionals “missed the subtleties of his condition by dealing with bits – no one put the whole picture together and saw him as a depressed, vulnerable man who was brain damaged with mental health problems exacerbated by drugs and alcohol,” Tom’s family told the review.

In early 2013, two other drug users moved into Tom and Liz’s home and, according to police intelligence, took money from the couple. Two social workers who offered help with personal care and domestic tasks around this time were turned away.

Tom’s family recalled that a May 2013 case review called for an “emergency care plan” owing to Tom’s increasing inability to care for Liz because of his disabilities and substance use but that “nothing was ever done about this”.

‘No support or assistance’

In the year leading up to his death, Tom was denied a hip replacement operation because of his habitual intoxication.

In early October 2013 he was “found out in the street naked, shouting and screaming at Liz”, the review heard. Tom’s family stated that adult social care offered “no support or assistance” to him; nor did they investigate claims that he had been extorting money from Liz by threatening not to care for her.

Following the mental health crisis team’s decision not to provide a service, Tom was evicted from Liz’s home in late 2013. He spent the next six months living between a series of short-term homelessness placements. During this period, primary care made a safeguarding referral that was knocked back, on the basis that adult social care was already providing support around rehousing.

Tom was eventually offered a bedsit in May 2014, with social workers vouching for his ability to live independently despite carrying out no formal assessment.

But soon afterwards, housing officers submitted a further safeguarding referral stating that he was “spaced out”, being financially abused and failing to keep up with service charges. Six days before his death, adult services completed an assessment finding him at significant risk of health damage, further homelessness and “mobility limitations compromising the control of his own from door”.

In general, the serious case review concluded, “the assessment processes experienced by Tom were not integrated and had no impact on inter-professional working. Adult social care’s assessments were scant, unfocused, barely documented and disconnected from professional judgement and decision-making.”

It added that while “no single agency” could have addressed Tom’s needs, “it appears that nothing impelled or even required health and social care services to work collaboratively” to provide direction and resolution.

“A professional-led, multi-agency approach was required and this was entirely absent as gatekeeping criteria and service thresholds meant that he was placed in remained in harm’s way” the review said.

It recommended that the case be used as the basis for training in Somerset, and that ‘learning events’ for practitioners and commissioners around working with people with brain injuries.

Richard Crompton, chair of Somerset Safeguarding Adults Board, said the board had fully accepted the findings and would be giving them “continued focus and attention”.

Peter McCabe, chief executive of Headway, said: “It is vital that all local authorities take time to read and fully digest this report and learn the lessons contained within in order to ensure that no other brain injury survivors are similarly let down.”

A spokesman for Somerset County Council said: “We accept the review and its findings, and thank Tom’s family and Headway for the critical role they have played in it.

“The response to Tom’s circumstances, including the social work support, wasn’t good enough.

“Everyone is committed to learning from this and improvements have been made.”

More from Community Care

4 Responses to Services failed man with brain injury who took his own life, finds review

  1. Margaret June 13, 2017 at 8:50 pm #

    Lesson one do not discount a child adult or anyone from proper mental health services because they have an alcohol or drug problem. We know these are self medication attempts by the individual to deal with the hell that is the life they have been left by brain injury or emotional breakdown.
    The amount of times I have been told “we can not help your client until, they overcome there alcohol/drug issues/self harm” what absolute crap!
    Mental health services need to fess up, any one child adult octogenarian is not going to receive your help if they have drug, alcohol,self harming or any other issue that they have adopted in order to deal with the pain.

    Do your job mental health if you can’t do it and you need to weasel out of your responsibilities I.e the mental health issues created the coping mechanisms. Treat the mental health issues and then may be…maybe.. the coping mechanisms won’t be needed!!!

  2. Mark C June 14, 2017 at 5:50 pm #

    Sad to hear this story, a story about a life that is common in terms of multiple complex needs. I have worked in social / health care for almost 20 years and as each year goes by I am astounded at the volume of referrals that mental health services are expected to manage with so little human resources. I am sure this is the same for other fields of social / health care practice within a variety of professional disciplines. I feel sad that Margaret feels that mental health services need to ‘fess up.’ The reality is that those that need to ‘fess up’ are those who allocate the scarce resources to dedicated professional to do what is a largely a thankless, stressful and high risk profession.

    • Margaret June 17, 2017 at 12:26 pm #

      I am not in any way criticising Social Workers trying hard to support immense complicated needs. However, they don’t have the support of managers and services to do the job as they know it needs to be done.

      I believe all Social Workers are struggling to do a 100% job with only 25% resources that they need. People die because of this, and instead of being defensive be open and honest. Nothing will change if people run around being defensive and covering for poor management and resources.

      I’m sorry that you attempt to defend this poor level of service. It is NOT GOOD ENOUGH ! When will we come together and fight for appropriate services.?

  3. frank cliffe June 16, 2017 at 1:56 pm #

    There seems to be a total indifference to the sad case highlighted of a man who took his own life by the services supposedly there to care.A sad story indeed.