SUSSEX 2019

Our Ref: SPFT FOI 20/21-007

Date: 13 July 2020

Arundel Road

West Sussex

Worthing

BN13 3EP

Wendy Micklewright

By email: wmicklewright@yahoo.co.uk

Email: FOI@sussexpartnership.nhs.uk

Tel: 0300 304 0100

Dear Wendy

Request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 - Internal Review

I refer to your email of 4 June 2020 in which you requested an internal review under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 from Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust for the request reference SPFT FOI 20/21-007.

Original request received on 16 April 2020

Our response was sent to you on 17 April 2020

Your request

You made the following request for an internal review on 4 June 2020:

Question 1:

Thank you for your email + all you do...

I think there is a typo in the attached letter...

I made the request on the 16th April 2020?

I attended a ZOOM meeting involving researchers from LSE.

They made an important point, in my opinion, if information is not being gathered there is a problem. If Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust does not gather this information it does not think these issues are important?

The questions were compiled with the help of several people with lived experience, so Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust does not work collaboratively with us? as equals?

Part of the information request is around BAME / POC...

To conclude, many people think Trusts should have already gathered this information, so the cost should be minimal...

We cannot visit our family and friends on Mental Health wards at the moment so I think this research maybe useful at this time...

Four London Mental Health Trusts did provide the data in its entirety last year.

I would now like to raise an internal complaint regarding this matter.

Decision

Following an internal review Sussex Partnership is able to produce part of the information within the appropriate limits and has decided to release it as stated below in the answers below.

ECT - Answers

We have two ECT sites; Worthing (Meadowfield Hospital) and Eastbourne District General Hospital.

Please see attached
Please see attached
No reports or investigations
53 patients (Meadowfield) / 90 patients (Eastbourne)
23 male & 30 female (Meadowfield) / 45% male & 55% female (Eastbourne)
Age ranges from 23 - 90
80% had Severe Depression, 8% Catatonia and 2% Mania (Meadowfield) / 88 Depression, 2 Schizoaffective disorder (Eastbourne)
No BAME (Meadowfield) / 88 White British/European, 1 South Asian, 1 Black African (Eastbourne)
40% had ECT for the first time and 60% returned (Meadowfield) / 68 patients - first time (Eastbourne)
10. Informal (consenting) 57%, Detained 43% but some regained capacity and consented to continue their treatment (Meadowfield) / 66 Consented (Eastbourne)
11. No complaints
12 - 14 this information is not recorded
None (Meadowfield) / 2 patients suffered complications during ECT treatment, 1 asthma attack / breathing difficulty, 1 patient suffered transient ischemic attack (Eastbourne)
None
Not applicable
It is common for temporary memory disruption but in the vast majority of patients this is not common when followed up (Meadowfield) / 5 patients complained of memory loss secondary to ECT, which resulted in change of laterality from bilateral to unilateral treatment (Eastbourne)
Mini Mental State Examination Assessment (MMSE) assessment prior, during and following ECT treatment, memory and orientation assessments are performed prior and following every treatment.
Not routinely, only if concerns from referring doctors prior to ECT
Not applicable
The Trust does not want to prevent ECT; it remains an effective treatment modality.

Serious Incident - Answers

135 Serious Incidents (SIs) occurred in the period from 01/01/2019 - 31/12/2019.
Of the 135 SIs that occurred in the period from 01/01/2019 - 31/12/2019, table below by gender:

Male	Female	N/A	Multiple Patients
73	58	1	3

Of the 135 SIs that occurred in the period from 01/01/2019 - 31/12/2019, table below by age range:

18-

26-30

31-40

41-50

51-60

61-70

Over 71

Multiple Patients

N/A

Of the 135 SIs that occurred in the period from 01/01/2019 - 31/12/2019, table below by diagnosis:

Diagnosis	Number
Anorexia Nervosa	2
Other	7
Dementia/Alzheimer's Disease	11
Bi-Polar Affective Disorder	13
Personality Disorder Type	20
Depressive/Anxiety Disorder	27
Schizophrenia/Psychosis	27
Unknown/Not applicable/No diagnosis	28

Multiple patients are serious incidents which involved more than one patient i.e. an information governance breach.

Restraint - Answers

293 restraint incidents occurred in the period from 01/01/2019 - 31/12/2019.
Of the 293 restraint incidents that occurred in the period from 01/01/2019 - 31/12/2019 160 patients were involved, table below by gender:

Male	Female
86	74

Of the 293 restraint incidents that occurred in the period from 01/01/2019 - 31/12/2019 160 patients were involved, table below by age range:

0-17	18-25	26-30	31-40	41-50	51-60	61-70	Over 71	Not known
9	33	17	16	20	10	12	26	17

Seclusion - Answers

281 seclusion incidents occurred in the period from 01/01/2019 - 31/12/2019.

Of the 281 seclusion incidents that occurred in the period from 01/01/2019 - 31/12/2019 there were 184 patients involved, table below by gender:

Male	Female	Other
118	65	1

Of the 281 seclusion incidents that occurred in the period from 01/01/2019 - 31/12/2019 there were 184 patients involved, table below by age range:

0-17	18-25	26-30	31-40	41-50	51-60	61-70	Over 71	Not known
7	26	31	45	22	16	6	3	28

Medication - Answers

675 medication incidents occurred in the period from 01/01/2019 - 31/12/2019.

Of the 675 medication incidents that occurred in the period from 01/01/2019 - 31/12/2019 497 patients were involved, table below by gender:

Male	Female	Other
260	236	1

Of the 675 medication incidents that occurred in the period from 01/01/2019 - 31/12/2019 497 patients were involved, table below by age range:

0-17	18-25	26-30	31-40	41-50	51-60	61-70	Over 71	Not known
14	47	42	80	44	58	44	80	88

Having reviewed your request we can advise that to complete a full response to the questions raised will require a significant investment in time to review.

As such, we assess this to cost more than the appropriate limit. As you may know, section 12(1) of the Freedom of Information Act makes provision for public authorities to refuse requests for information where the cost of dealing with them would exceed the appropriate limit, which for public bodies is set at £450. This represents the estimated cost of locating, retrieving and extracting the information.

In order for us to respond to your request, we would need to charge a fee, which we can assess later in accordance with section 13 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the Freedom of Information Fees Regulations.

If you are able to narrow the scope of your request, we may be able to provide the information free of charge, as it would cost less than the appropriate limit to do so. For instance, you may wish to refine your request by being more specific about the information that you particularly wish to obtain. Any reformulated request the Trust receives from you will be treated as a fresh Freedom of Information request.

However, we are able to produce the following requested information within the appropriate limit. Please feel free to re-submit the other information within the limits.

(Your questions are attached as a separate document).

Review rights

If you are dissatisfied with the outcome of any internal review, you may contact the Information Commissioner for a decision on whether your request for information has been dealt with in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act 200.

The Information Commissioner can be contacted at:

The Information Commissioner’s Office

Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire SK9 5AF

Website: www.ico.org.uk

Please remember to quote the reference number above in any future communications.

I do hope you find the information provided helpful.

Yours sincerely

Ian Genner Freedom of Information Officer

On behalf of the Corporate Governance Team