Prevention of Future Deaths reports · 2014

Antonio Allen

Regulation 28 report to prevent future deaths, reference 2014-0351, written 31 Jul 2014. A coroner writes one of these when an inquest reveals a risk that could cause further deaths unless something changes.

Date of report31 Jul 2014
Reference2014-0351
DeceasedAntonio Allen
CoronerJohn Pollard
Coroner areaManchester South
CategoryHospital Death (Clinical Procedures and medical management) related deaths
Organisation namedCentral Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
Sourcejudiciary.uk record · original PDF
Responses published1

The report

Text recovered by OCR from a scanned PDF. OCR is imperfect: check anything you rely on against the source PDF. 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: The Chief Executive Officer, Central
Manchester NHS Foundation Trust.

1 | CORONER

| am John Pollard, senior coroner, for the coroner area of South Manchester

2 | CORONER’S LEGAL POWERS

| 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 22™ July 2013 | commenced an investigation into the death of Antonio Jerome Allen
dob 17" June 2013. The investigation concluded on the 18" June 2014 and the
conclusion was one of Natural Causes. The medical cause of death was 1a Intra-
abdominal Haemorrhage 1b Sub-capsular Haematoma (Liver and Spleen)

4 | CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE DEATH

On the 26" June 2013 at 07.40 hours, Antonio Allen was admitted to Trafford
General Hospital in cardiac arrest with no respiratory effort and no palpable pulse.
His mother had breast fed him at 01.00 hours and then found him unresponsive at
06.45 hours. Despite the best efforts of the ambulance and Emergency
Department personnel, he could not be revived.

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. —

It had been arranged that this was to be a home birth and the midwives based at
Lostock Medical Centre were aware of this. His expected date of delivery was the
15" June but in fact he was born on the 17" June.

The mother and grandmother of Antonio tried on four separate occasions to call
out a midwife to attend the birth but in fact the delivery had to be carried out by
the grandmother and a neighbour. Two midwives eventually arrived, checked the
baby and said all was well although he was a bit ‘puffy’ because it was a ‘quick
birth’.

IF A HOME BIRTH IS BOOKED AND EXPECTED OR INDEED OVERDUE, IT
SHOULD NOT BE THE CASE THAT THE MIDWIVES ARE NOT CONTACTABLE,
NOR THAT THEY ARRIVE AFTER THE BIRTH HAS OCCURRED.

6 | ACTION SHOULD BE TAKEN

In my opinion action should be taken to prevent future deaths and | believe you have the

power to take such action.

YOUR RESPONSE

You are under 3 duty to respond to this report within 56 days of the date of this report,
namely by 25" September 2014. |, 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.

COPIES and PUBLICATION

| have sent a co ‘0 the Chief Coroner and to the following Interested
Persons namel mother).
! 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 tepresentations to me, the coroner, at the time of your
response, about the eae r the publication of your response by the Chief Coroner.

31st July 2014 John Pollard,Senior Coroner

SS

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 Central Manchester University Hospitals NHS (PDF)
Central Manchester University Hospitals NHS

NHS Foundation Trust
Room 217

Np sated Slto/te Medical Directors Office
LEZ Loy Trust Headquarters
Manchester Royal Infirmary

Oxford Road

Manchester, M13 9WL

24" September 2014

Mr J S Pollard

HM Coroner Manchester South
Coroner's Court

1 Mount Tabor Street
Stockport SK1 3AG

Dear Mr Pollard
Re: Antonio Jerome ALLEN (Deceased)

Thank you for your letter to Sir Michael Deegan of 31° July 2014, he has asked me to reply
on his behalf. | instructed the clinical team to review the case and have set out the answers

to the points noted in the Regulation 28 notification below.

The priority of the maternity directorate is to provide safe and high quality maternity care for
all women and their partners regardless of their choice of place of birth. Options for place of
birth are discussed fully with the woman and her partner/family to enable women to make an
informed choice. At the booking consultation a full medical, surgical, obstetric and social
history is taken to support women in their decision by discussing the risks and benefits of
choices available. Women are also given an information leaflet to enable them to discuss

their options further with their family.

Maternity staffing is managed to ensure that the community midwifery team can respond to
requests from women at any time of the day or night when a home birth is planned in order
to ensure women and their family receive optimal care and support.

On the 17th June 2013 at approximately 04:20 hours community midwife [a was
informed by a fellow midwife, working on the midwifery led unit, of the imminent delivery at
EEE home address.

Midwife [iiiJimmediately colle ergency equipment and attended Patient A’s
home. On arrival at 04:44 hours was on the kitchen floor with her baby placed on

her abdomen (skin to skin). Midwife performed a full risk assessment once
and her baby were comfortable and settled and made the decision that it was safe for

both to remain at home.

The mother of [EEE informed Midwife [that she had telephoned the dedicated
telephone number from approximately 04:00 on four occasions until approximately (04:20 /

04:30 hours) but her call was not answered. (All women who are booked for a planned
home birth are given a dedicated number to contact. This telephone line is normally in

operation 24 pours) mother reported that she then called the Triage
department who transferred ner call to the community midwifery team.

ry Incorporating:- 2S
So,
=

7 %y INVESTORS Manchester Royal Eye Hospital ¢ Manchester Royal infirmary + Royal Manchester Children’s Hospital
4 Saint Mary’s Hospital ¢ Trafford Hospitals + University Dental Hospital of Manchester

ne IN PEOPLE Community Services “Csy x

bam

Central Manchester University Hospitals NHS)

NHS Foundation Trust

Following her return to the hospital Midwife HB alettec the radio telephone
administration staff of the difficulties experienced by the family. On investigation it was
identified that there had been a known fault on the telephone line earlier in the day but this
had been resolved by the engineers. There is a process in place to ensure that the essential
telephone lines are checked at the beginning of each shift; it was apparent that the
administrator did not follow the process for checking the phone line at commencement of
their shift so was unaware that the fault had reoccurred.

On being informed by Midwife [J of the unanswered phone calls the administrator
notified switchboard of the fault on the line and immediate action was taken to reconnect the

telephone line. To ensure that this never happens again women are now given two
telephone numbers to call in case one line is busy or faulty. A standard operating procedure

in place to check that the essential telephone lines are fully functioning.

Yours sincerely

= —_

cc. FY Clinical Head of Division, Saint Mary’s Hospital
GEE Divisional Director, Saint Mary's Hospital

Zo

7a, Incorporating:- + Abo,

‘y INVESTORS Manchester Royal Eye Hospital ¢ Manchester Royal Infirmary # Royal Manchester Children’s Hospital
ye Hosp y Pi

is ¢ University Dental Hospital of Manchester

ROS,

a
; “fess
Saint Mary’s Hospital ¢ Trafford Hospital: ©

_a IN PEOPLE Community Services “Osa?

Related reports

Other reports by John Pollard

See all →

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

See all →

Track Central Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust

See every Prevention of Future Deaths report matching Central Manchester University 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.