Prevention of Future Deaths reports · 2014

Michael Harman

Regulation 28 report to prevent future deaths, reference 2014-0514, written 25 Nov 2014. A coroner writes one of these when an inquest reveals a risk that could cause further deaths unless something changes.

Date of report25 Nov 2014
Reference2014-0514
DeceasedMichael Harman
CoronerJacqueline Lake
Coroner areaNorfolk
CategoryCommunity health care and emergency services 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) 

NOTE: This form is to be used after an inquest. 

REGULATION 28 REPORT TO PREVENT FUTURE DEATHS 

THIS REPORT IS BEING SENT TO: 

Business Manager - Eastern Region 
Centra Support 
Central House 
1-3 Highbury Station Road 
London N1 1SE 

Managing Director 
Centra Support 
Central House 
1-3 Highbury Station Road 
London N1 1SE 

1 

CORONER 

I am JACQUELINE LAKE, senior coroner, for the coroner area of NORFOLK 

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 7 August 2014 I commenced an investigation into the death of MICHAEL TERENCE 
HARMAN, AGED 73 years. The investigation concluded at the end of the inquest on 20 
November 2014. The conclusion of the inquest was medical cause of death: 1a) 
Pneumonia; 1b) Hypernatraemia and Dehydration; 1c) Neglect;  2  Ischaemic Stroke 
(Old) Acute Kidney Injury and a narrative conclusion: “Mr Harman was seen on 18 July 
2014. He was then spoken to daily but not seen. On 28 July 2014 he was seen and due 
to concerns regarding his welfare he was taken to Hospital. His condition deteriorated 
and he died on 3 August 2014.” 

4 

CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE DEATH 

Mr Harman lived in a sheltered housing scheme, offering independent living with support 
offered as and when required and signposting to other services as requested by the 
tenant. An emergency pull cord is in place and no face to face contact unless requested. 
He was seen by a support Co-Ordinator on 18 July 2014 when his flat was messy 
(unusual for him), he had soiled himself, he had “clearly been drinking [alcohol] but was 
not drunk”. He was partially dressed with soiled pyjama bottoms by the side of his chair. 
He refused assistance to clean himself saying he would do this himself. A warden gave 
evidence that he later saw Mr Harman through a glazed door near to his bathroom.  
Attempts were made to contact Mr Harman’s family: a nephew agreed to try and call on 
him. Mr Harman was at this time receiving the maximum amount of support offered by 
this form of independent living. He was felt by the Co-Ordinator to have mental capacity. 

1

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 A cover support Co-Ordinator contacted Mr Harman by intercom each day from 21 to 25 
July 2014 when he did stated he did not require any extra support. 

On 28 July 2014 the original support Co-Ordinator returned from holiday and there was 
limited response from him via the intercom – he made a “noise”. The Support Co-
Ordinator entered the property and found Mr Harman unresponsive, naked, collapsed in 
his chair and having soiled himself with soiled clothes on the floor.   

He was taken to Hospital and diagnosed with acute kidney injury secondary to severe 
dehydration.  He had a grade 2 large pressure sore covering his buttocks and the backs 
of his thighs. The evidence of the Doctor was that this was most likely caused by a 
lengthy period of immobility and sitting in excrement.  Despite treatment, Mr Harman 
died. 

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) After being found in a soiled condition, no check was made on Mr Harman to ensure 
he had cleaned himself as he said he would do. 
(2) There were several indicators that Mr Harman’s condition had possibly deteriorated 
to a point where he was no longer suitable for independent living, such as his flat being 
unusually untidy, his relapse in respect of drinking alcohol, his having soiled himself, his 
physical problems (he had recently been diagnosed with cellulitis). He was also 
receiving the maximum amount of support which could be offered. 
(3) Reviews of a tenant such as Mr Harman are annual, unless the tenant requests a 
review. No thought had been given to anyone else carrying out a review of Mr Harman’s 
condition particularly in the light of the above factors 
(4) Handover notes between Co-Ordinator and Cover Co-Ordinator deal with whether a 
tenant is likely to be at home when the intercom call is made. No note was made 
requesting a check to be made to ensure Mr Harman had cleaned himself up. 

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 23 January 2015. 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: 

 and 

 Legal Services & Complaints Manager at Norfolk & Norwich University 

Hospital  

I have also sent it to: 

2

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  Director of Community Services at Norfolk County Council 

who may find it useful or of interest. 

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 

25 November 2014 

……………………………………………. 
[SIGNED BY CORONER] 

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 Centra Support1 (PDF)
Centra

27 JAN 2015 Support”

Jaqueline Lake
Senior Coroner . ——
Norfolk Coroner's Service Enhancing Life Chances
69-75 Thorpe Road
Norwich . Beacon House
NR1 1UA ‘ 23 Hostmoor Avenue

March

Cambridgeshire

PE15 OAX

Tl
23/01/15 e————

Fai]

www.centragroup.org.uk

Dear Jaqueline,
Re: Mr Michael Terence Harman
Thank you for your report dated 25" November 2014, please find our response below.

Before detailing our proposed actions and timetable, | have provided responses to some of
the issues highlighted in the report. This is to provide further clarity about the service we
offer and the circumstances. surrounding.Mr Harman's death.

Centra’s Older Person’s Support offer in North Norfolk

: f
Potential tenants are assessed for their eligibility to move into sheltered accommodation and
have a tenancy agreement directly with the landlord, in this case Victory Housing Trust.
People within sheltered housing have a Varying degree of need and all are encouraged to be
’ as independent as possible. Often people's needs change over time but this does not
automatically. mean that their tenancy agreement would need to come to an end. Local
authorities seek to support people in making their own choices and to maintain their
preferred lifestyle. Increasingly, this means that people remain in their own homes for as

long as possible and that their support and. care needs are met in their own home.

‘The housing related support service provided by Centra involves two main elements: the
welfare. check and the face to face visit. The welfare check is usually completed remotely
through the warden call system and is a brief check with the tenant to make sure they are
well and to offer an opportunity to that person to request additional support. Face to face
support is arranged on an appointment basis. with a defined purpose and outcome. The role
is to provide housing related support to tenants within the schemes. This can include things
like supporting people to manage their money, maximise their income, make links to health
and social care, signpost to other services, and to encourage mutual support by tenants.

The support coordinators travel between different sheltered schemes to provide this support
and they do not remain static in one location. This’ means that tenants are encouraged to
request support as and when it is needed, rather than having the support coordinator seek
them out to offer support. This is in accordance with the service specification as
commissioned by Norfolk County Council, as well as promoting independence, choice and
control amongst the tenants.

ES, INVESTORS Circle Housing welcomes calls from Text Relay. If calling from a textphone
4d! IN PEOPLE @® please dial the prefix 18001 and the number you wish to contact.

sole Care ard Support Limiced is acamipany England and Wales No, 2307084 teding a3 Centra Support Registered Ofice: Circle House, 4 Highbury Station Road Lendoa Nt Se

ci
Registered Charity No, 1107432 Part of Circle

THCESIG 0514

Within the sheltered schemes, including Mr Harman's flat is an emergency ‘warden call
system’. By pressing a call button or by pulling one of the emergency pull-cords in the flats
and communal areas tenants have access to a call handler 24hrs a day. The call handlers
have access to personal information and contacts for every tenant within the sheltered
scheme. The call handlers are trained to respond to emergencies by taking important
information and raising an alert with the emergency services, the person’s next of kin and
during working hours with the support coordinators. The call handlers also receive non-
emergency calls and raise alerts as appropriate and agreed with the individuals concerned.

Provision of personal care in the community is regulated by the Care Quality Commission
and is employed to support people to remain in their own homes for as long as possible.
This provision depends on the person's needs and preferences and can include several
visits a day from care workers. With the exception of people who are able and willing to pay
for and organise their own care, the majority of care at home is managed through local
authority adult care services. This includes the assessment of individuals requiring care,
against the Fair Access to Care Services eligibility criteria before the focal authority
commissions a ‘package of care’ for that person. The time frame from first contact with the
local authority to receiving care is variable but not immediate. :

Norfolk County Council provides a service called ‘Norfolk Swift Response’. This service is
regulated by the CQC and can assist with getting up, washing, dressing and falls. It is
available for people who have an urgent, unplanned need for care at home but who don't
require the emergency services.

Response to concerns raised in the report

¢ Section 4: Clarification: At the inquest evidence was given that Centra Support
Coordinator made a referral to Norfolk Swift Response and
requested that the service attend Mr Harman on 18" July 2014 to support him to
manage his personal care. Norfolk Swift Response declined to attend because Mr
Harman’s difficult situation was regarded _as due to his use of alcohol rather than the
result of an ongoing personal care need. HE wes not able to directly support
Mr Harman with his personal care as this is an activity regulated by the Care Quality
Commission. The sheltered support service is not regulated by the CQC and so
support with this activity is prohibited. [EEE made contact with Mr Harman’s
family to let them know about his difficulties.

¢ Section 4: Clarification: ‘a warden gave evidence that he later saw:Mr Harman’.
The person who gave this evidence was actually a Housing Officer employed at the
_ time by the landlord, Victory Housing Trust.

¢ Section 5 (2): Clarification: ‘Mr Harman...was no longer suitable for independent
living’. With regard to the Mental Capacity Act we believe that Mr Harman had
capacity, and as such was fully able to make his own choices about his living
arrangements. The local authority, medical practitioners and the support service
would have no legal authority to remove him from his accommodation. Mr Harman
had a tenancy agreement between himself and the fandlord (Victory Housing Trust).
As already described, community care services are provided through the local
authority to support people to remain in their own homes for as long as possible, as
well as to support swift hospital discharges. A person may live in sheltered
accommodation and receive housing related support, have a 24hr warden call
system and also be in receipt of a ‘care package’. The maximum amount of support
referred to in the report, was only the housing related support element offered by
Centra.

¢ Section 5 (3): Clarification: Centra’s support service is service user led and
therefore the review process requires the tenant to engage with a review. In this
situation, an immediate review ‘of’ Mr Harman and his situation would have resulted
in a referral to Norfolk First Response for immediate support, along with a referral to
Norfolk Adult Care Services to request an assessment for care at home. It is likely
that a planned review ‘with’ Mr Harman would have resulted in the same
recommendation. It is important to note that being assessed for and receiving care at
home would require Mr Harman’s consent. Evidence given at the inquest indicated
that Mr Harman had previously declined a care at home service. Again, evidence
was given at the inquest indicating that the immediate need was in fact referred to
Norfolk First Response by Centra staff.

¢ The report does not appear to fully recognise that Mr Harman found himself in a very
difficult situation on the 18" July as a direct result of alcoho! abuse and that this had
been a previous pattern of behaviour. As such, an ongoing need requiring a referral
for care at home may not have been immediately evident.

e The report does not appear to fully recognise that Mr Harman had access to the
warden call system for emergency assistance but did not make use of it.

« It would have been helpful to have had a.representative from Norfolk County Council
Adult Care Services present to give evidence describing the sheltered
accommodation, the support service, to give a history of Mr Harman’s previous care
at home service and to elaborate on why the referral made by Centra to Norfolk First
Response was not accepted.

Actions and timetable

After reviewing the concerns raised in your report, the following actions have been planned /
taken. _ oo . Be eee .

Nov/Dec | Completed - Review has been
carried out and recommendations
presented to the Regional
Business Manager.

_ © 7
Locality

Business
Manager

Action

Full internal review of
working practices in the
service to be carried out.

Full review of welfare checks | Locality Nov/Dec | Completed - Review has been

and warden call response Business carried out and recommendations

process. Manager presented to the Regional
Business Manager.

Discuss outcome of welfare January | In progress - discussion is

check and warden call ongoing with the Service

review with Service Commissioner from Norfolk

Commissioner. County Council to consider
alternative ways of carrying out
welfare checks so that support
coordinators can focus more on
support related tasks and face to
face contact.

Draw up and rolt out local Locality January | Completed — please see attached

guidance protocols for Business guidance document.

(1) Reporting of Manager

accidents, incidents
and near misses.

(2) Follow up with a
service user when an

accident, incident or
near miss has been
reported

(3) Making onward
referrals ;

(4) When to undertake
scheduled and
unscheduled reviews

Audit schedule developed to | Team End of To be completed
check understanding and Manager _| January

compliance with new tocal

guidance.

| hope this response provides assurances that we are taking appropriate steps to ensure the
continued safety and wellbeing of any person that uses our services. We take our
responsibilities around health and wellbeing very seriously and welcome all feedback and
suggestions for improvements in our working practices. We have taken note of your
concerns and are taking appropriate actions to ensure that the risk of a similar incident

occurring are minimised.

If you have any further questions or require any clarification please do not hesitate to let me
know.

Yours Sincerely,

Regional Business Manager - Eastern Region —
Centra Care and Support

Phone:
E-mail: [a ar

Related reports

Other reports by Jacqueline Lake

See all →

More reports categorised “Community health care and emergency services related deaths”

See all →

Track Community health care and emergency services related deaths

See every Prevention of Future Deaths report matching Community health care and emergency services 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.