Data obtained under FOI from South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust, June 2026
What This Data Shows
I recently obtained data from South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust (SLaM) under the Freedom of Information Act regarding the Maudsley Hospital Place of Safety.
The data covers three financial years: 2022–23, 2023–24, and 2024–25. I’m sharing it here for professional discussion on what the figures reveal about systemic pressures in inpatient mental health provision.
The Headline Table
| Metric | 2022–23 | 2023–24 | 2024–25 | Trend |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| S136 arrivals | 588 | 545 | 525 | ↓ −10.7% |
| Detained under Section 2 | 330 (56.1%) | 316 (58.0%) | 310 (59.0%) | Stable |
| Stayed past S136 expiry (“breached”) | 326 | 356 | 348 | ↑ |
| Breach rate (% of arrivals) | 55.4% | 65.3% | 66.3% | ↑ +10.9 pts |
| Average wait beyond expiry | 62.2 hrs (2.6 days) | 67.8 hrs (2.8 days) | 78.6 hrs (3.3 days) | ↑ +26% |
| Longest single wait | 189 hrs (7.9 days) | 325 hrs (13.5 days) | 756 hrs (31.5 days) | ↑ |
| Total hours of unlawful detention | 20,261 | 24,124 | 27,337 | ↑ +35% |
All figures sourced from the Trust’s FOI response. Where numbers are fewer than 5, the Trust has suppressed them under Section 40(2) of the FOIA to prevent identification.
Three Things That Stand Out
1. The Paradox: Fewer Arrivals, More Getting Stuck
S136 arrivals fell by 10.7% over the period. Yet the proportion of those arrivals who end up “breached” — held beyond the 24-hour legal limit while waiting for an inpatient bed — rose from 55% to 66%. In 2024–25, two out of every three people brought to the Place of Safety were detained beyond the statutory maximum.
This strongly suggests the bottleneck is not demand-side (police bringing people in) but supply-side: the Trust has progressively less inpatient capacity available to receive people from the PoS.
2. The Average Wait Is Now Over 3 Days — and the Worst Cases Are Shocking
The average post-expiry wait increased by 26% in two years, from 2.6 days to 3.3 days. But the extremes tell an even starker story:
- 2022–23: longest wait was 189 hours (7.9 days)
- 2023–24: longest wait was 325 hours (13.5 days)
- 2024–25: one person waited 756 hours — 31.5 days
That individual spent over a full calendar month in a facility legally designated for 24 hours. In the time they were held, a patient admitted under Section 2 would have completed and exceeded the entire 28-day assessment period — without having been admitted to a ward at all.
Across three years, the total is 71,722 hours of detention without statutory authority.
3. The Place of Safety Is Overwhelmingly a Gateway to Section 2 — and That’s Where the Blockage Is
Section 3 admissions (treatment detention) directly from the PoS are negligible — the Trust’s figures are almost entirely suppressed as “<5”, with only about 10 identifiable cases across three years. The PoS feeds almost exclusively into Section 2 assessment beds. The people waiting days or weeks are waiting for an assessment bed, not a longer-term treatment bed. This raises pointed questions about why assessment capacity is so constrained.
The Granular Data: A “Hockey Stick” Distribution
The Trust provided a detailed table of wait times by hour for breached patients. The pattern is a reverse-J: a dense cluster at 24–72 hours, thinning into a long tail that is visibly lengthening year on year.
| Wait Band | 2022–23 | 2023–24 | 2024–25 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 24–35 hrs (1–1.5 days) | ~52 | ~53 | ~52 |
| 36–71 hrs (1.5–3 days) | ~120 | ~142 | ~128 |
| 72–119 hrs (3–5 days) | ~95 | ~106 | ~108 |
| 120+ hrs (5+ days) | ~59 | ~55 | ~60 |
The absolute numbers in each band haven’t shifted dramatically — which means the rising average is driven by the tail getting more extreme, not by more people crossing the short-to-medium threshold. Notably, a cluster at the 120-hour (5-day) mark has emerged: only 1 patient in 2022–23, but 9 patients by 2024–25. This may reflect a systemic “holding pattern” — perhaps the point at which weekend admissions clear or escalation procedures finally unlock a bed.
Legal and Ethical Context
Every hour beyond the 24-hour S136 limit is a deprivation of liberty without statutory authority. These are individuals in acute crisis, held in what is typically a clinical assessment space not designed or staffed for extended stays — potentially without access to outdoor space, meaningful activity, or the full range of inpatient care. The 71,722 hours accrued across three years represent both a significant legal exposure for the Trust and a profound human impact.
The case of the individual held for 31.5 days warrants particular scrutiny. Article 5 (right to liberty) is plainly engaged.
Questions for Discussion
I’d welcome colleagues’ thoughts on:
-
What’s driving the bed shortage? Blocked discharge pathways? Reduced commissioned capacity? Workforce constraints? Are others seeing similar patterns in their own Trusts?
-
What levers exist? Have any ICBs or Trusts successfully reversed a worsening breach trend? What worked?
-
The CQC dimension. Should these figures — particularly the 31.5-day case — be notifiable safety incidents? Has anyone seen CQC engage meaningfully on S136 breaches?
-
Accountability. At what point does a breach rate of 66% trigger formal intervention?
-
The legal risk. Has anyone been involved in or aware of litigation arising from extended S136 detention?
Data source: FOI Response from South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust, ref: Clement Olusoji, Corporate Information Governance Officer, 30 June 2026. All figures drawn from the Trust’s response tables.