In a statement written by Robinson, explaining her rationale for discharging Calocane, she said: “It’s dire for me to think this now, but I used to think sometimes – is it worse to have somebody open on caseloads that you’re not engaging with? Should we be discharging them instead?
“What does it look like if something happens and we’ve got this person open to us and we haven’t seen him for months and months and months?”
Asked to explain this statement by Craig Carr, counsel for the chair of the inquiry, Robinson said: “I suppose, from previous experience, I’m worried about how that’s looked – that we’ve got somebody that’s open to us, and perhaps we’ve not been able to treat them for nine months, or find them.
“So sometimes the decision’s better to discharge back to the GP.”
Carr said it could be interpreted that Robinson was suggesting it was better to get someone “off the books” if they could not be found.
Robinson added: “It feels safer to have somebody discharged back to the queue of the GP, than open to a secondary service when we can’t engage them, or we can’t do anything for them.”
Carr had asked what mandatory training was required to work in the EIP team.
Robinson said everybody did training at the trust “no matter the area that they work in”.
She added: “So that covers things like basic life, risk management, record keeping, infection control.
“We do mental health act training, mental capacity, care programme approach training, and they are more specific to mental health, but nothing specific to early prevention.”
Carr then asked Robinson whether there was any staff training on managing disengaging patients, medication concordance, and when or whether to refer patients to the community forensic team.
Robinson said there was not to her knowledge.
