Prevention of Future Deaths reports · 2014

Gregg O’Reilly

Regulation 28 report to prevent future deaths, reference 2014-0221, written 19 May 2014. A coroner writes one of these when an inquest reveals a risk that could cause further deaths unless something changes.

Date of report19 May 2014
Reference2014-0221
DeceasedGregg O’Reilly
CoronerMary Hassell
Coroner areaInner North London
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:  Prevention of Future Deaths report 

Gregg O’REILLY (died 21.01.14) 

THIS REPORT IS BEING SENT TO: 

1. 

Medical Director 
Barts Health 
Royal London Hospital 
Whitechapel Road 
London  E1 1BB 

1 

CORONER 

I am:   Coroner ME Hassell 
           Senior Coroner  
           Inner North London 
           St Pancras Coroner’s Court 
           Camley Street 
           London  N1C 4PP 

2 

CORONER’S LEGAL POWERS 

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

3 

INVESTIGATION and INQUEST 

On  04.02.14  I  commenced  an  investigation  into  the  death  of  Gregg 
O’Reilly,  aged  53. The  investigation  concluded at  the end  of  the  inquest 
on 15.05.14.  

I  concluded  that  Mr  O’Reilly  died  from  two  naturally  occurring  diseases, 
contributed  to  by  the  recognised  complications  of  medical  treatment  for 
one of these.   

His medical cause of death was: 
1a  bronchopneumonia and urinary tract infection 
1b  diverticular disease (treated) and cirrhosis of the liver 
2    hypertensive heart disease. 

1 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 4 

CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE DEATH 

Mr O’Reilly was admitted as an emergency to the Royal London Hospital 
on  31.12.13.    He  was  dehydrated  and  in  a  poor  nutritional  state,  with  a 
high  stoma  output from  his ileostomy,  an acute  kidney  injury  and  a  high 
white cell count.   

On 17.01.13, he deteriorated and went into multi organ failure.  He  then 
suffered  a  bleed  from  his  abdominal  wound.    The  following  day,  he 
suffered a further bleed and this had to be treated surgically, after which 
he was admitted to critical care.  However,  he did not recover, and died 
three days later. 

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.  

I heard that an opportunity was missed by the medical, ward nursing and 
critical  care  nursing  outreach  teams,  to  refer  Mr  O’Reilly  to  critical  care, 
certainly by 17.01.14.  It is unclear whether that would have changed the 
outcome for him, but it meant that he was not offered optimal care.  Given 
the  number of  staff  who  could  have  made  such  a  referral,  it  seems  that 
this  issue  goes  further  than  individual  error  or  lack  of  understanding.    I 
appreciate that also makes it a big issue to tackle. 

Further,  although  he  was  on  two  hourly  observations,  no  record  of  any 
observation  could  be  found  between  midnight  on  17.01.14  and  3am  on 
18.01.14,  when  Mr  O’Reilly  was  found  to  have  suffered  a  second  bleed 
with very low blood pressure, and a cardiac arrest call was made. 

6 

ACTION SHOULD BE TAKEN 

In  my  opinion,  action  should  be  taken  to  prevent  future  deaths  and  I 
believe that and your trust 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 15.07.14.  I, the coroner, may extend the period. 

2 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 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 following. 

  HHJ Peter Thornton QC, the Chief Coroner of England & Wales 
 
 wife of Gregg O’Reilly 
 

intensivist, Royal London Hospital 

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 
interest.  You  may  make 
he  believes  may 
representations to me, the Senior Coroner, at the time of your response, 
about  the  release  or  the  publication  of  your  response  by  the  Chief 
Coroner. 

it  useful  or  of 

find 

9 

DATE                                                   SIGNED BY SENIOR CORONER 

19.01.14 

3

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 Barts Health NHS Trust (PDF)
Barts Health

NHS Trust

Trust Executive Offices
Barts Health NHS Trust
Ground Floor, Pathology and Pharmacy Building

Ref: SR756

8 July 2014 The Royal London Hospital
80 Newark Street

Coroner ME Hassell London

Senior Coroner Inner North London E1 2ES

St Pancras Coroner's Court Main swi

Camley Street

London www.bartshealth.nhs.uk

N1C 4PP

By special delivery

Dear Madam
Inquest Touching the Death of Gregg O’Reilly

| write in response to your Regulation 28: Report to Prevent Future Deaths received on 20 May
2014.

| can inform you that investigation into your concerns regarding the opportunity missed by medical,
ward nursing and critical care outreach teams, to refer Mr O’Reilly to critical care, as well as the
absence of a record of observations between midnight and on 17 January 2014 and 0300 hours on
18 January 2014, when he was on two hourly observations, and was found to have suffered a
second bleed with very low blood pressure, for which a cardiac arrest call was made, has now been
concluded.

| am satisfied that this investigation has been sufficiently robust, in that we have scrutinised all
relevant records and interviewed staff to inform our investigation. | write to apprise you of the
conclusions to the investigation.

During the investigation, senior medical and nursing staff have investigated the concerns raised in
your report as well as the wider issues which impacted upon Mr O'Reilly's death.

The key recommendations of the investigation are set out below.

1. The Trust Executive Team to consider the wider learning points from this review and
instigate changes as appropriate.

2. The relevant ward to have a Band 7 Sister recruited as a matter of urgency given the
overall acuity of this ward and the need for senior leadership locally.

3. Ensure the transition period from a paper based system to the full electronic patient
record is as short as possible and ensure the risks of the hybrid system are on the Risk
Register and appropriate mitigation is in place.

at Nigy,
Barts Health NHS Trust: Newham University Hospital, The London Chest Hospital, F “ / igs
The Royal London Hospital, St Bartholomew's Hospital and Whipps Cross University Hospital. * a

5 a
Asay

Barts Health

NHS Trust

Explore the usage of an electronic patient record red flag to identify chronically ill patients
who have complex care needs and require frequent admissions to hospital. This would
involve the key contacts from the multi-professional teams being incorporated into this
system to expedite care and ensure continuity for the patient and the family.

5. The Critical Care Outreach Team (CCOT) and the consultant intensivists to develop
formal guidelines, outlining when CCOT should request a critical care medical review.

6. Chronically sick patients who are causing concern should have a “Case Review Meeting”
which should involve all relevant teams involved in the care to agree and implement the
overall management plan.

7. Managing the Acutely Ill Patient Group (MAIPG) to be revamped, by expanding the
membership, ensuring greater participation of senior clinicians from all Clinical Academic
Groups, setting clear objectives with timelines, to address the most important issues.
This group has forged strategic links with the Trust Quality Group and the new Mortality
Review Board to ensure greater executive awareness and support. Strengthening
the links between MAIPG and the Care Quality Collaborative — Deteriorating Patient
Group.

8. In line with the Berwick Report 2013 the MAIPG to have a patient or public
representative to sit on the forum to voice concerns and challenge decision making to
improve patient safety.

9. Ensure each clinical team conducts a Morbidity and Mortality review, ideally using an
agreed Trust proforma for all patients who die in hospital. Any suspected preventable
death identified to be escalated to the Mortality Group and a Serious Incident proforma
raised.

10. Launch an Education Strategy to ensure all staff can identify a sick and deteriorating
patient and can escalate concerns. The Trust medical and nursing Induction
Programmes to incorporate a briefing on ‘Recognising and Responding to the
Deteriorating Patient.’

11. The Trust is planning an “all site" Cardiac Arrest Call Audit in July 2014 to determine
what factors pre-empted the call and to look at whether appropriate care was taking
place prior to the arrest. Ensure the findings are widely disseminated, action plans
agreed, and all key groups mentioned above are involved in delivering the key
recommendations.

12. The Trust to re-establish the Critical Care Board, as a matter of urgency. The Terms of
Reference, membership and Chair have now been agreed and a provisional date set of
August 2014 has been set for the first meeting.

st Moy,
Barts Health NHS Trust: Newham University Hospital, The London Chest Hospital, F V/s
The Royal London Hospital, St Bartholomew’s Hospital and Whipps Cross University Hospital. A

7SAB\S

Barts Health INHS|

NHS Trust

We have taken this as an opportunity to review our processes to enhance future care. The outcome
of the investigation will be shared with all relevant Trust medical and nursing staff to ensure that
these changes are put into practice. The effectiveness of the changes will be subject to regular
audit.

Thank you kindly for bringing your concerns to my attention. | trust you are assured | have taken
them seriously and investigated them appropriately.

Yours faithfully

Medical Director
Barts Health NHS Trust

st Mou,
Barts Health NHS Trust: Newham University Hospital, The London Chest Hospital, 3 Ves
ExV (Vf:

The Royal London Hospital, St Bartholomew’s Hospital and Whipps Cross University Hospital. de
*SAB©

Related reports

Other reports by Mary Hassell

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.