Prevention of Future Deaths reports · 2013

Labhuden Amarshi Vaghadia

Regulation 28 report to prevent future deaths, reference 2013-0201, written 5 Sep 2013. A coroner writes one of these when an inquest reveals a risk that could cause further deaths unless something changes.

Date of report5 Sep 2013
Reference2013-0201
DeceasedLabhuden Amarshi Vaghadia
CoronerCatherine Mason
Coroner areaLeicester City & South Leicestershire
CategoryHospital Death (Clinical Procedures and medical management) related deaths
Sourcejudiciary.uk record · original PDF
Responses published1

The report

Text extracted from the PDF text layer. Reproduced verbatim, including the scan's own layout.

REGULATION 28:  REPORT TO PREVENT FUTURE DEATHS (1) 

REGULATION 28 REPORT TO PREVENT FUTURE DEATHS 

THIS REPORT IS BEING SENT TO: 

1. 

Acting Chief Executive 

      Leicestershire Partnership Trust 

1 

CORONER 

I am Mrs Catherine Mason, Senior Coroner, for the coroner area of Leicester City and 
South Leicestershire 

2 

CORONER’S LEGAL POWERS 

I make this report under paragraph 7, Schedule 5, of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 
and regulations 28 and 29 of the Coroners (Investigations) Regulations 2013. 

3 

INVESTIGATION and INQUEST 

On the 3rd September 2012 I commenced an investigation into the death of Labhuben 
Amarshi Vaghadia, aged 78 years. The investigation concluded at the end of the inquest 
on the 28th August 2013. The conclusion of the inquest was Accidental Death. 

4 

CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE DEATH 
On the 25th August 2012 Mrs Vaghadia attended the Leicester Royal Infirmary Accident 
and Emergency department and was diagnosed as having a suspected deep vein 
thrombosis in her left calf.  She was treated with a subcutaneous anti-coagulant injection 
into her abdomen and discharged home for daily follow up injections. Late that evening 
and in the early hours of the 26th August 2012 she experienced bleeding from the 
injection site.  The bleeding had stopped by the time the Community Staff Nurse 
attended but she was made aware of the history of bleeding.  The nurse proceeded to 
give the anti-coagulant injection and telephoned the Out of Hours services to report the 
abdominal pain that Mrs Vaghadia was experiencing. A doctor attended later that day 
and Mrs Vaghadia was admitted to the Leicester General Hospital where she died on 
the 27th August 2012.  The cause of death was 1a) haemorrhage and haematoma of the 
abdominal wall (injection of Fragmin administered on the 25th August 2012).  It is 
understood that the injection on the 25th may have punctured a blood vessel or gone into 
the muscle.  Both would cause bleeding and are recognised risks. However, due to Mrs 
Vaghadia’s frailty the problem did not resolve naturally as it normally would. 

5 

CORONER’S CONCERNS 

During the course of the inquest the evidence revealed matters giving rise to concern. In 
my opinion there is a risk that future deaths will occur unless action is taken. In the 
circumstances it is my statutory duty to report to you. 

The MATTERS OF CONCERN are as follows.  –  

administered the anticoagulant on the 26th August 2012 

(1) Community Nurse 
without seeking medical advice from a Doctor even though she knew Mrs Vaghadia had 
been bleeding from the site of the previous injection.  Although the expert evidence in 
this case is that the nurse’s actions did not cause or contribute to the death in this 
instance, there is a risk that such action in another case may not have the same 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 outcome and could be causative of death. 
(2) Although the nurse had full knowledge of the bleeding she did not share this with 
other health care professionals when she spoke to them.  If she had there was a real 
possibility that Mrs Vaghadia would have been admitted sooner.  In this instance, the 
expert opined that on a balance of probabilities had Mrs Vaghadia been admitted sooner 
the outcome was unlikely to have been different.   Nevertheless, full and appropriate 
information sharing is paramount and the nurse’s actions fell short of her professional 
duties and could have caused an adverse outcome. 
(3) Nurse 
could cause or contribute to death.   
(4) Although not causing or contributing to Mrs Vaghadia’s death, it is clear that Nurse 
lacks training 

appeared to have no professional insight into her actions and that they 

 actions were not appropriate. I have a concern that Nurse 

and/or experience as well as insight that her actions and therefore her practice may 
continue and cause future deaths 

6 

ACTION SHOULD BE TAKEN 

In my opinion action should be taken to prevent future deaths and I believe you and/or 
your organisation have the power to take such action. 

7 

YOUR RESPONSE 

You are under a duty to respond to this report within 56 days of the date of this report, 
namely by the 23rd October 2013. I, the coroner, may extend the period. 

Your response must contain details of action taken or proposed to be taken, setting out 
the timetable for action. Otherwise you must explain why no action is proposed. 

8 

COPIES and PUBLICATION 

I have sent a copy of my report to the Chief Coroner and to the following Interested 
Persons I have also sent it to 
or of interest. 

who may find it useful 

and 

I am also under a duty to send the Chief Coroner a copy of your response. 

The Chief Coroner may publish either or both in a complete or redacted or summary 
form. He may send a copy of this report to any person who he believes may find it useful 
or of interest. You may makerepresentations to me, the coroner, at the time of your 
response, about the release or the publication of your response by the Chief Coroner. 

9 

5th September 2013

Responses

1 response published against this report on judiciary.uk. A response is a body's written reply to the coroner's concerns; publication is at the discretion of the Chief Coroner's office, so an absent response does not mean nobody replied.

Response from Leicestershire Partnership NHS (PDF)
Leicestershire Partnership NHS}

NHS Trust

From the Executive Office A University Teaching Trust

Direct dial: 0116 295 0911 Lakeside House

Our ref: L111_pm ‘Gore pat
Enderby
Leicester

17 October 2013 LE19 1SS

Tel: 0116 295 0030

Mrs C E Mason Fox 0 earthed

H M Coroner

Leicester City & South Leicester

The Town Hall

Town Hall Square

Leicester

LE1 9BG

Dear Mrs Mason
Re. Labhuben Amarshi VAGHADIA

Thank you for your letter, dated 6 September 2013, with the enclosed Regulation 28: Report
to Prevent Future Deaths.

| would like to reassure you, and Mrs Vaghadia's family, that Leicestershire Partnership NHS
Trust have carefully considered the concerns you have raised, and put actions in place to
respond to them.

Your concerns

| am aware that you are concerned that:

1. Mrs Vaghadia was visited by Community Nurse a... administered a
prescribed anti-coagulant injection despite evidence of bleeding from the site of the
previous injection; and

2. Nurse reportes to the Out of Hours service that Mrs Vaghadia was
experiencing abdominal pain, but did not inform them of the bleeding.

Whilst these actions were not causative of Mrs Vaghadia’s death, you are concerned that
these actions were inappropriate, demonstrated a lack of professional insight, training and
experience and that they could lead to a death in the future.

Response

The death of Mrs Vaghadia has been reviewed by the following:
1. Community Health Services (CHS) Division Senior Clinical Team
2. CHS Divisional Head of Nursing

3. CHS Clinical Directors

Chair: Professor David Chiddick CBE Chief Executive: Dr Peter Miller

4. CHS Lead Nurses
5. CHS Head of Governance
6. CHS Nurse Consultants

7. Chief Nurse of Leicestershire Partnership NHS Trust (LPT)

The CHS leadership has also considered the current practice of the Community Nurses
when they attend a patient to administer prescribed medication.

It is recognised that it is vital that the Community Nurses ask the right questions to ensure
that it is still appropriate to administer the prescribed medication. It is the responsibility of
any nurse to work within their Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) Code of Conduct. With
specific reference to the administration of medicine nurses are required to follow the NMC
Standards for Medicines Management, which clearly sets out under Standard 8 the
standards for practice in administering medications. These standards include: understanding
the therapeutic uses of the medicines being administered; its normal dosage; side effects;
precautions and contraindications; administering or withholding medications according to the
patient's condition, and contacting the prescriber or another authorised prescriber where
contraindications are discovered or where the patient develops a reaction to a medication.
The CHS has a Standard Operating Protocol (SOP) for administration of medicines in the
community that is aligned to the NMC guidance. CHS Division Community Nurses
administer subcutaneous low molecular weight heparin only on the prescription of a
prescriber. Usually the prescriber will be a doctor, such as the patients GP, or the prescriber
may be a non-medical prescriber such as an Advanced Nurse Practitioner. The responsibility
for the prescription ultimately lies with the prescriber. In the case of non-medical prescribing,
nurses, who prescribe under this auspice do so only within their competency.

| can confirm that if it appears that the administration of the prescribed medication may be
contra-indicated the Community Nurses should seek a second opinion from a Nurse
Prescriber or Doctor before administering the medication. Full details of all the symptoms
should be provided to other professionals to enable appropriate decisions to be made. This
applies to anti-coagulant medication where there is evidence of a bleed, and other
prescribed medication.

Actions Taken

It is accepted fully that part of a health professional's responsibility to communicate all
relevant information to other clinicians and organisations on the specific details of a patient's
condition. The CHS Division will now re-inform all health care professionals about their
professional responsibility regarding this issue via a system of email cascade. Specifically
the message for compliance with NMC Standards for Medicines Management will be given.
Ensuring the message is conveyed will be achieved by cascading the information via their
communications lead using direct emails to staff, the inclusion of key learning points of the
case within the monthly briefing paper, and dissemination through the professional nurses
monthly meeting by the lead nurses for physical and mental health. All CHS nurses will be
re-issued with the SOP and the Divisional Clinical Director will ensure that this
communication process is completed by the end of December 2013. All pertinent nursing
staff in CHS will be re-issued with the SOP and the matter a topic at the team meetings.
CHS lead staff will also be sharing the learning points from the case with nursing and clinical
colleagues in all clinical divisions of LPT.

For further assurance | advise that within CHS division they are implementing a mobile
working solution allowing all community nursing and therapy staff to access the patients’
notes in their own homes. Many GP practices are linked via this IT solution allowing them
the ability to communicate directly with the nurse and vice versa within the clinical record.
Systems are already in place for organisations to use the Single Point of Access (SPA) for

Chair: Professor David Chiddick CBE Chief Executive; Dr Peter Miller s Moy, *‘
S

3
S
=

say

the Division as a central route for communication. External management consultancy has
also been commissioned to review and improve the processes operating within the SPA

Community Nurse

We have taken a number of steps to address your concerns regarding Nurse HM These
include:

1. Two independent assessments of the nursing practice of Nurse by
a. The Lead Nurse in the Community Health Service Division; and

b. The Clinical Education Lead in the Community Health Service Division.

Nurse i clinical skills and competencies were assessed using the
Leicestershire Competency Assessment Test (LCAT) that is also used by other NHS
organisations.

2. The Divisional Clinical Director and Lead Divisional Lead Nurse
HR 22'sonally interviewed Nurs with regard to this matter

As a result of this process Nurse is judged to be competent in all areas of clinical
practice assessed. However in response to the concerns raised a programme of training has
now been arranged for Nurse [EM which includes medicines management training and
emotional resilience training. In addition she will participate in additional clinical supervision
on a monthly basis for six months and undertake a reflective practice assessment, the sum
of which is to strengthen her clinical decision making skills.

Yours sincerely,

f Dr Peter Miller
Chief Executive

i

Chair: Professor David Chiddick CBE Chief Executive: Dr Peter Miller

205,
Gg

LN .
VAS

4
say

Related reports

Other reports by Catherine Mason

See all →

More reports categorised “Hospital Death (Clinical Procedures and medical management) related deaths”

See all →

Track Hospital Death (Clinical Procedures and medical management) related deaths

See every Prevention of Future Deaths report matching Hospital Death (Clinical Procedures and medical management) related deaths, and how often a new one appears.

What would an alert for this have sent me? Search the full text

Free to try — the preview shows the real matches and how many arrived in the last 12 months. Your first email alert is free.

These reports are published by the Chief Coroner's office at judiciary.uk and are © Crown copyright. The text here is reproduced from the published PDF so it can be searched. If something on this page is wrong, or you are a person named in it and want it reviewed, email drcjar@gmail.com and we will act promptly.