Prevention of Future Deaths reports · 2014

Lalitaben Patel

Regulation 28 report to prevent future deaths, reference 2014-0175, written 13 Apr 2014. A coroner writes one of these when an inquest reveals a risk that could cause further deaths unless something changes.

Date of report13 Apr 2014
Reference2014-0175
DeceasedLalitaben Patel
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.  Department of Health 

1 

CORONER 

I am 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 21st December 2012 I commenced an investigation into the death of Lalitaben 
Jayantibhai Patel. The investigation concluded at the end of the inquest on the 11th 
March 2014. The conclusion of the inquest was a narrative conclusion which in summary 
recorded that inappropriate dissection during an elective cholecystectomy on the 4th May 
2012 resulted in a series of complications which ultimately led to her death on the 20th 
December 2012 at the Leicester General Hospital. 

4 

CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE DEATH 

Mrs Patel underwent elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy at the Leicester Royal 
Infirmary on the 4th May 2012.  During the initial stages of the procedure the surgeon 
undertook inappropriate dissection leading to a damaged vessel near to the common 
bile duct which subsequently ruptured resulting in a massive secondary haemorrhage.  
This in turn led to Mrs Patel suffering problems after her surgery, hypoxic brain injury 
and her death on the 20th December 2012 at the Leicester General Hospital. 
CORONER’S CONCERNS 

5 

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)  The surgeon who had responsibility for the elective cholecystectomy was a 
Locum Consultant Surgeon and was in the second week of his 4 weeks 
contract.  Evidence was heard that he had been appointed via an agency 
following which he undertook two practical assessments at the University 
Hospitals Leicester. In summary, there were two main issues highlighted by both 
assessing Consultants on two separate days resulting in a decision to restrict 
the Locum Consultant Surgeon to conducting routine laparoscopic 
cholecystectomies. However, as this was a Consultant grade Locum, no other 
supervision was provided in respect of the cases under his clinical management. 

1

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 Evidence revealed that the systems in place at the material time for signing off a 
locum Consultant as competent to undertake independent practice were  not as 
robust as they should have been. 

The inquest heard that University Hospitals Leicester have now changed their 
recruitment process for Locums and that Locums must be recruited by the 
‘Locum Bookers’ team in accordance with Trust policy.  In addition the 
processes for signing off a locum consultant as competent are more robust. 

However, it is understood that in other areas the practice for appointing locums 
is not so robust and mirrors the practice undertaken at the material time. 
Accordingly, there is a real risk that what happened in this case could happen 
elsewhere. 

6 

ACTION SHOULD BE TAKEN 

In my opinion action should be taken to prevent future deaths and I believe your 
organisation has 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 8th 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 to the following Interested 
Persons: 

Chief Executive, University Hospitals Leicester 

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 

13/4/2014 

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 Department of Health and Social Care (PDF)
• 

Department 
of Health 

From the Rt Hon Jeremy Hunt MP
Secretary of State for Health 

Richmond House 
79  Whitehall 
London 
SIVIA 2NS

Mrs Catherine Mason 
HM Coroner for Leicester City and South Leicestershire 
The Town Hall 
Town Hall Square 
Leicester 
LEI  9BG 

J(1.J  1,,.,-, •  f,/'-.t.J~A  > 
Thank you for your letter about the death of Lalitaben Patel. 

Your report advised that, Mrs Patel died from post-operative problems following an 
elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy surge1y by a locum doctor at the Leicester 
Royal Infirmary. 

I am pleased to note that your concerns about the recruiting and management 
practices at the Trust have now been addressed. However, your report raised wider 
concerns about the practice for appointing locum doctors elsewhere. 

The issue of quality assurance of locum doctors working in secondary care is clearly 
important.  In November 2013, a high level Secondaiy Care Locum Doctor 
Working Group ( established by the Health Minister 
) made a series 
of recommendations to strengthen existing atTangements and these were welcomed 
by the Government.  They include: 

"  Strengthening General Medical Council appraisal guidance for doctors 

particularly the need to report on any locum work undertaken. 

"  Strengthening guidance to responsible officers (ROs) to ensure they 

check with doctors that locum work has been recorded. 

"  NHS Employers Pre-Employment Standards being strengthened to 

include a seventh standard - covering the need for an employer to be 
provided with information about an individual locum's RO, dates of 
revalidation, and appraisal; and that the employer should check an 
individual is not only fit for practice but purpose. 

 
 
 •  NHS Employers publishing a standard audit guide for pre-employment 

locum checks, providing greater confidence in audits and checks. 

•  Strengthening guidance for Trusts, emphasising the desirability of 
using framework locum agencies, with a section included on best 
practice when using non-framework agencies. 

•  NHS Employers issuing guidance to Trusts suggesting the 

development of a set of core measurements on locum usage, which will 
give boards visibility oflocum usage and quality assurance processes. 

•  Providing guidance to T1usts on best practice with regards to quality 

assurance controls, which sets out minimum requirements. 

I continue to welcome progress against these recommendations. I hope that this 
infonnation has been helpful and I thank you for bringing the circumstances of Mrs 
Patel's death to my attention. 

JEREMYHUNT

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.