Prevention of Future Deaths reports · 2014

Simon McAndrew

Regulation 28 report to prevent future deaths, reference 2014-0067, written 19 Feb 2014. A coroner writes one of these when an inquest reveals a risk that could cause further deaths unless something changes.

Date of report19 Feb 2014
Reference2014-0067
DeceasedSimon McAndrew
CoronerDr R N Palmer
Coroner areaLondon (North)
CategoryHospital Death (Clinical Procedures and medical management) related deaths
Organisation namedCentral and North West London NHS Foundation Trust
Sourcejudiciary.uk record · original PDF
Responses publishednone published

The report

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

H.M. Senior Coroner, South London Area 

South London Coroner's Office  
Saint Blaise Building, Bromley Civic Centre 
Stockwell Close, Bromley BR1 3HU 
Telephone 020-8313 1883 Fax 020-8313 3673 

Coroners & Justice Act 2009; Coroners (Investigation) Regulations 2013 

REGULATION 28:  REPORT TO PREVENT FUTURE DEATHS (1) 

REGULATION 28 REPORT TO PREVENT FUTURE DEATHS 

THIS REPORT IS BEING SENT TO: 

Chief Executive of Central and North West London NHS Foundation Trust 
Trust Headquarters, Stephenson House, 75 Hampstead Road, London NW1 2PL 

1 

CORONER 

I, Dr Roy Newberry Palmer, am senior coroner for the South London coroner area. 

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, SI 2013 
no. 1629 

3 

INVESTIGATION and INQUEST 

On 3rd July 2011 I opened an inquest into the death of Simon William McAndrew, aged 
38 years. The inquest was concluded on 13th February 2014.  

The cause of his death was  
1a  hypoxic ischaemic encephalopathy 
1b  fatal pressure to the neck/suspension 

I recorded a narrative verdict on this matter, as follows:  

Simon McAndrew had a long history of emotionally unstable personality disorder, 
substance abuse and self harm. He was a voluntary inpatient of the Gordon Hospital for 
several months in 2010.On his discharge arrangements were made for him to be 
resident at Jordan Lodge in Croydon but his ongoing psychiatric care was supervised at 
the Gordon Hospital. He harmed himself in April 2011 and attended Croydon Hospital 
where he was assessed by the emergency department and by a psychiatric liaison 
nurse. His methadone prescriptions were managed at Lantern Hall, Croydon. On 28th 
June 2011 at Jordan Lodge he was seen holding some belts. Fearing for his safety staff 
at Jordan Lodge removed the belts and monitored him closely for some time. He 
appeared to settle down. They did not seek advice. At about 01.00h Simon McAndrew 
was found hanging from a tree in the garden at Jordan Lodge. Staff cut him down and 
initiated cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Police and ambulance personnel were called, 
assisted in resuscitation and transferred Simon to Croydon Hospital where he was taken 
to the intensive care department and neuroprotective strategies were implemented. His 
condition deteriorated on 30th June 2011 and he was found to have suffered an 
extensive subarachnoid haemorrhage. Brain stem testing was performed on 3rd July 
2011. Death was confirmed at 11.45h. He died as a consequence of an act of self harm. 
Issues of poor communication and confusion about who was responsible for his 

1 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 psychiatric care were probably not contributory to his death but do warrant a Prevention 
of Future Deaths Report 

4 

CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE DEATH 

See box 3 above;  

Simon  McAndrew  died  on  3  July  2011  at  Croydon  University  Hospital,  London  Road, 
Croydon,  Surrey.  He  was  a  voluntary  residential  patient  at  Jordon  Lodge,  Croydon,  at 
the time of his death.  

He  had  suffered  brain  damage  as  a  child  and  childhood  epilepsy.  Into  adulthood,  he 
experienced drug abuse issues and was diagnosed with Emotional Personality Disorder, 
a chronic mental health condition. On 30th June 2011 Mr McAndrew was seen by staff of 
the home where he resided to be making nooses from belts. They were confiscated, and 
he  was  placed  on  a  one-to-one  watch.  This  was  relaxed  later  in  the  evening  when  he 
appeared  to  have  clamed  down.  He  later  used  a  plastic  washing  line  to  hang  himself 
from  a  tree  in  the  garden  of  the  home,  having  told  staff  he  was  going  outside  for  a 
cigarette.  He  was  discovered  and  two  staff  members  attended  the  scene,  performing 
emergency  First  Aid.  An  ambulance  was  called  and  Mr  McAndrews  was  taken  to 
hospital, where he died on 3rd July 2011.  

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. 

Representatives of your Trust attended the Inquest and many brief you more fully. In 
summary the MATTERS OF CONCERN are as follows.   

There  are  issues  of  poor  communication  which  need  to  be  addressed.  I  acknowledge 
that  even  the  most  detailed  communication  in  this  instance  may  not  have  averted  Mr 
McAndrews' actions and subsequent death. However, circumstances in which important 
information is not  being  shared effectively may result  in avoidable tragedies in future if 
remedial action is not taken.  

I  invite  the  Trust  to  consider  whether  improvements  can  be  made,  particularly  with 
regards the sharing of information between different NHS Trusts.  In the comments that 
follow I do not intend to be prescriptive or to make firm recommendations; rather I seek 
to  encourage  you  to  consider  the  issues  that  arose  and  what  might  be  done  to  try  to 
prevent any recurrence. 

Mr McAndrew had a drug misuse issue and a mental health issue. Each was dealt with 
by  different  specialist  psychiatrists.  After  a  long  period  of  in-patient  treatment  at  the 
Gordon  Hospital  Mr  McAndrew  was  located  in  a  residential  home  in  another  Borough. 
His  key  caseworker  was  not  easily  able  to  keep  in  touch  with  him.  His  methadone 
management  was  managed  by  Lantern  House,  a  local  NHS  facility  in  the  London 
Borough of Croydon. When acute psychiatric issues arose Lantern House staff ordinarily 
worked in close liaison with the local acute mental health trust (SLAM). At the material 
time  it  was  not  appreciated  that  Mr  McAndrew’s  psychiatric  care  remained  with  the 
Gordon Hospital.  

Correspondence  from  one  trust  to  another  was  copied  to  the  consultant  psychiatrist  at 
Lantern Hall but was not seen by her. This might have been because she was on leave 
when  it  was  received  and  the  copy  letter  was  then  scanned  into  the  electronic  patient 
record  but  not  left  in  the  consultant’s  ‘in-tray’  for  perusal  on  her  return.  An  opportunity 
was  missed  to  ensure  effective  communication  with  the  Gordon  Hospital  staff.  Junior 
staff,  whether  medical  or  nursing,  had  no  ‘front  page’  on  the  electronic  patient  record 
that  contained  information  that  the  primary  psychiatric  care  was  held  by  the  Gordon 
Hospital; so an inappropriate referral was made to SLAM. 

2 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 For  so  long  as  the  national  computer  database  for  all  NHS  patients  is  a  far-off  ideal, 
some better method must surely be devised to ensure that key clinical staff can access 
important  information  held  electronically  in  a  different  NHS  Trust.  This  is  especially 
important in psychiatric illness, where patients may not be able to provide the relevant, 
important information themselves.  

One  possibility  raised  during  the  inquest  hearing  -  which  might  go  some  way  in 
addressing  this  issue  -  is  for  patients  to  carry  a  "Crisis  Card",  containing  details  of  the 
Consultant and Hospital responsible for the main psychiatric care. Whilst it is conceded 
that such cards cannot be compulsory, nor will they always be carried, the provision of 
such cards for voluntary uptake might be worthy of consideration. Those called upon to 
deal  with crises in management would then more easily be  able to ascertain important 
information to help with management. 

The Trust may also like to consider the unintended consequences of the use of different 
computer  databases  in  Trusts  and  how  they  might  better  be  managed.  Even  within 
individual  computer  systems,  the  evidence  heard  in  this  case  suggests  that  the 
information may be available but often staff - particularly junior staff - do not know to look 
for it, may not know where to look for it and might not have the time to delve deep into 
the  electronic  record  to  find  it.  If  a  "front  of file"  note  could  be  created  in  each  case  to 
record  basic,  essential  information  this  may  assist  medical  staff  in  discerning  the 
appropriate  mental  health  professional  with  overall  care  in  any  particular  case.  Of 
course, such information must be accurate and up-to-date. 

I believe it was accepted by all who so helpfully attended to give evidence at the inquest 
that  there  were  too  many  miscommunications  in  this  case  and  that  steps  should  be 
taken to try to ensure an improvement. 

An additional point is that where discharged in-patients are resident in homes far distant 
from the ‘base hospital’ and their key caseworkers, a better means must be devised of 
keeping in touch with the patient. In this case the key caseworker conceded that she did 
not keep in touch with Simon as much as would have been the case had he remained 
resident locally. At best regular contact would have been by telephone rather than face-
to-face, albeit that occasional face-to-face contact was being arranged. 

Please will you also consider whether a formal, written care plan should be provided to 
the  distant  residential  home  with  clear  guidance  as  to  what  is  to  happen  in  defined 
circumstances of crisis. If the staff at Jordan Lodge had had the benefit of a care plan, 
they might have contacted the acute psychiatric team on 30th June 2011 to seek advice 
as  how  best  to  manage  the  immediate  crisis.  In  the  absence  of  a  care  plan,  and  with 
residential  home  staff  who  are  not  mental  health  professionals,  the  staff  who  were  on 
duty on the day were left to deal with the crisis as best they could. Is that state of affairs 
capable of improvement? 

6 

ACTION SHOULD BE TAKEN 

Although the death was to some extent impulsive and unpredictable, in my opinion a 
number of issues of concern arose in the course of the evidence that lead me to 
consider that action should be taken to prevent future deaths. I believe you have the 
power to facilitate appropriate action being taken with a view to improving 
communication between institutions and individuals and to arrange for staff who are 
called upon to deal with crises have immediately available to them in easily accessible 
form a summary of the main physical and mental health issues and details of the teams 
that are responsible for relevant aspects of patients’ care.  

7 

YOUR RESPONSE 

You are under a duty to respond to this report within 56 days of the date of this report, 
namely by April 19th 2014. I, the coroner, may extend the period upon request. 

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

8 

COPIES and PUBLICATION 

3 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 I have sent a copy of my report to the Chief Coroner and to the following persons  

  Chief Executive of South London and Maudlsey NHS Foundation Trust 

Addictions Clinical Academic Group (CAG) 

      Lantern Hall, 190 Church Road, Croydon, CR0 1SE 

 General Practitioner; 

Violet Lane Medical Practice, 231 Violet Lane, Croydon, CR0 4HN 

  The Manager, Jordan Lodge Residential Home 

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 make representations to me, the coroner, at the time of your 
response, about the release or the publication of your response by the Chief Coroner. 

9 

Dr R N Palmer 
Senior Coroner, South London Area 

19th February 2014 

4

Related reports

Other reports by Dr R N Palmer

See all →

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

See all →

Track Central and North West London NHS Foundation Trust

See every Prevention of Future Deaths report matching Central and North West London NHS Foundation Trust, 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.