Prevention of Future Deaths reports · 2014

Eric Matthews

Regulation 28 report to prevent future deaths, reference 2014-0151, written 4 Apr 2014. A coroner writes one of these when an inquest reveals a risk that could cause further deaths unless something changes.

Date of report4 Apr 2014
Reference2014-0151
DeceasedEric Matthews
CoronerR Brittain
Coroner areaInner North London
CategoryHospital Death (Clinical Procedures and medical management) related deaths
Organisation namedUniversity College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
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
REGULATION 28 REPORT TO PREVENT FUTURE DEATHS
THIS REPORT IS BEING SENT TO:
(1) ­ University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
1 CORONER
I am R Brittain, Assistant Coroner for Inner North London
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
The investigation into the death of Eric Laser Matthews, aged 1 month, was commenced
on 9 January 2014 and concluded at the end of the inquest on 2 April 2014. The
conclusion of the inquest was narrative (Copy attached).
4 CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE DEATH
Eric Matthews was born on 26 November 2013. He was discharged home after a course of
antibiotics, which was required for presumed sepsis. Over the next month he was well and
no further issues of concern arose.
On 24 December 2013 his parents placed him in a ‘sling’ baby carrier in order to comfort
him during a period of crying. He appeared to settle during a short walk, however, on their
return home it was clear that Eric was not breathing. Resuscitation was started and the
ambulance service called. After a period of approximately 39 minutes, sufficient circulation
returned so that resuscitation could be stopped. Eric was ultimately transferred to Great
Ormond Street Hospital where, despite further treatment, he was found to have suffered a
significant hypoxic injury to his brain. Treatment was discontinued and he died on 1
January 2014.
Evidence was provided by Paediatric Pathologist, that, on the balance of
probabilities, the cause of the cardiac arrest was positional asphyxia. There was no
evidence that the use of the sling was inappropriate or incorrect.
In her evidence stated that there have been reported cases of infant deaths in
similar circumstances, notably in the United States and Australia. She noted that
, Perinatal Pathologist at UCLH, is currently collating reports of such
cases in the UK, with a view to understanding this risk more thoroughly.
Eric’s parents set out that they had no knowledge of the risk of positional asphyxia
through use of a baby sling. Eric’s mother noted the valuable work undertaken by the
1
Lullaby Trust, with regard to the provision of information to parents relating to sleep
positioning. She proposed that the Trust might be well placed to distribute similar
information regarding sling use.
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. –
(1) There appears to be a body of evidence that positional asphyxia can occur through use
of baby slings. However, knowledge of this risk appears to be limited at present to
academic circles and has not been widely researched.
(2) If there is currently sufficient evidence to raise this risk to parents, I am concerned that
this information has not been publicised more widely.
6 ACTION SHOULD BE TAKEN
In my opinion action should be taken to prevent future deaths and I believe that the above
information may be helpful to you, as it relates to the research you are
undertaking on the risks posed by baby slings.
It may be that you would wish to send details of your research to Eric's family and to
organisations such as the Lullaby Trust, who may be able to publicise the risks posed,
should this be appropriate now, or at any future point.
7 YOUR RESPONSE
You are under a duty to respond to this report within 56 days of the date of this report,
namely by 30 May 2014. 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 Eric’s family.
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 4 April 2014
Assistant Coroner R Brittain
2

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 University Hospital London NHS Trust (PDF)
Histopathology 
Rockefeller Building 
University Street 
London 
WC1E 6JJ 
Telephone: 020 7679 6032 

Chief Coroner 
St Pancras Coroners Court 
Camley Street 
London N1C 4PP 

15.4.14 

RE: PFD report - Eric Laser Matthews 

Dear Sir 

Although a couple of years ago  I did investigate the possibility of doing a survey of ‘cot 
deaths’ in unusual scenarios such as slings and car seats, it did not prove feasible due to data 
protection and consent issues. 

These events are very rare: among perinatal pathologists nobody had seen more than one or 
two (verbal communications).  Because they are all Coroner cases, the pathologists could not 
supply any further data without the consent of each individual coroner, often going back 
several years.  The data exists, in the form of the child death reports, but these are not 
available as a research resource, and the data is held locally and not collated. 

Being so rare, any prospective collection of data would take many years, and further infants 
would die.   

The way forward may be for the coroners to liaise with clinicians who are working on sudden 
infant death (ideally via FSIDS), and release whatever data is available from existing child 
death reviews.   

Since the ‘back to sleep’ campaign, a subset of SUDI have been considered  very likely to 
have been asphyxial – more investigation revealed that these are often associated with 
additional risk factors (e.g. sharing a sofa with a parent).  What a review of deaths in slings 
and car seats might do is identify possible additional risk factors, such as the age of the baby 
or the design of the sling.  Being so rare, no useful conclusions could be reached from the 
experience of one centre, even a very large one. 

UCL Hospitals is an NHS Trust incorporating the Eastman Dental Hospital, Elizabeth Garrett 
Anderson & Obstetric Hospital, The Heart Hospital, Hospital for Tropical Diseases, The 
Middlesex Hospital, National Hospital for Neurology & Neurosurgery, The Royal London 
Homoeopathic Hospital and University College Hospital. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
 All we can say at present is that (very rarely) babies have died in carrying slings, and the 
information reaches the public via local inquest reports and the newspapers.  Any progress 
would have to come from examination of child death review data.  FSID is very interested in 
setting up a child death register for this reason, but is hampered by the same legal and 
consent issues as I was.   

There is clearly scope for further work, but this is very peripheral to my own professional 
interests and experience.  I was trying to match people up, but was never in a position to run 
my own study.  The chief executive at FSID was certainly interested, but I don’t know how 
much progress she has been able to make.  I’m happy to talk on the phone about this if you 
want to discuss matters further. 

Yours faithfully 

Rosemary Scott FRCPath

Related reports

Other reports by R Brittain

See all →

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

See all →

Track University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust

See every Prevention of Future Deaths report matching University College London Hospitals 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.