Prevention of Future Deaths reports · 2014

Ryan Loughran, Katie Joyce, Muhanna Alhayany and Sophie Ryan-Palmer

Regulation 28 report to prevent future deaths, reference 2014-0520, 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
Reference2014-0520
DeceasedRyan Loughran, Katie Joyce, Muhanna Alhayany and Sophie Ryan-Palmer
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 

Sophie RYAN-PALMER (died 17.07.13) 
Katie JOYCE (died 06.10.13) 
Ryan Stephen LOUGHRAN (died 10.07.13) 
Muhanna Talal Hamad ALHAYANY (died 28.08.13) 

THIS REPORT IS BEING SENT TO: 

1.  NHS England 
PO Box 16738 
Redditch 
B97 9PT 

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 various dates in 2014, I commenced investigations into the deaths of 
Sophie  Ryan-Palmer,  Katie  Joyce,  Ryan  Loughran  and  Muhanna 
Alhayany,  four  children  who  had  died  in  2013  following  treatment  at  the 
National  Hospital  for  Sick  Children  at  Great  Ormond  Street  in  London. 
The  investigation  concluded  at  the  end  of  the  inquest  earlier  today.    I 
made a narrative determination, which I attach. 

4 

CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE DEATH 

As you will see from the narrative, all the children were treated with stem 
cell transplants, but it later appeared that there might be an issue with the 
cryopreservation of the stem cells.    

1 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Identifying the fact that there was any problem at all, still less the nature 
of that problem, was not straight forward.  Those treating the children and 
then  investigating  potential  causes  of  their  failure  to  recover,  were 
they  had  no  means  of 
fact 
significantly  hampered  by 
benchmarking autologous stem cell engraftment. 

that 

the 

This put these children at a significant disadvantage and is likely to do the 
same for some other children with cancer, not just at GOSH but all over 
the country. 

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.  I  heard  at  inquest  that  there  is  concern  within  the  medical 
community  over  the  whole  governance  structure  for  autologous 
stem  cell  transplant  in  this  country,  most  especially  regarding  the 
lack of any one appropriate control risk group with a national lead. 

2.  I  also  heard  that  there  is  at  present  no  disease  specific  national 
benchmarking available for autologous stem cell engraftment.  The 
relevant  results  of  an  international  SIOPEN  trial  (that  aspect  of 
which closed in 2011) have not been made publicly available.   

treating  children 

Those 
following  autologous  bone  marrow 
transplant, do not know how many days to recovery is normal, so 
they do not know what is abnormal, and whether the results in their 
own hospital fall below the results elsewhere.   

The  failure  to  unlock  the  results  of  the  SIOPEN  trial  could, 
therefore,  compromise  the  optimal  care  of  some  children  with 
cancer. 

6 

ACTION SHOULD BE TAKEN 

In  my  opinion,  action  should  be  taken  to  prevent  future  deaths  and  I 
believe that you have the power to take such action.  

2 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 7 

YOUR RESPONSE 

You are under a duty to respond to this report within 56 days of the date 
of this report, namely by 26 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 following. 

and 

  HHJ Peter Thornton QC, the Chief Coroner of England & Wales 
  Care Quality Commission for England 
  Professor Dame Sally Davies, Chief Medical Officer for England 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 parents of Ryan 
, parents of Muhanna 

, Divisional Director, GOSH 

, President, SIOPEN 

 Director, Planer plc 

, parents of Sophie 

, parents of Katie 

and 
and 

 and 

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 
interest.  You  may  make 
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 

25.11.14 

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 NHS England (PDF)
NHS
England

Skipton House
80 London Road
London

SE1 6LH

3 February 2015

Coroner ME Hassell

Senior Coroner

Inner North London

St Pancras Coroner’s Court
Camley Street

London N1C 4PP

Dear Coroner

Regulation 28: Prevention of Future Deaths Report. Ref 368837

Thank you for your letter informing us of the findings of the Report to Prevent Future Deaths, ,
which we received on 27 November 2014. This report reflected on the experience of four

children, all of whom sadly died as a result of graft failure following stem cell transplantation

at Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Foundation Trust (GOS).

The role of NHS England ©

As you identified, NHS England has a duty to respond in these matters as the commissioner
for prescribed specialised services, which include blood and marrow transplants for children.
NHS England directly commissions blood and marrow transplants for children. This includes
a responsibility for specifying the detail of the services to be provided, including the
standards to be met, and for monitoring delivery of these standards.

Under its mandate from the Department of Health, NHS England is legally-bound to pursue
the goal of continuous improvement in the quality of health services. NHS England works to
commission evidence based, equitable services which improve outcomes and patient
experience. This includes learning from reports such as yours, and ensuring that the lessons
learned are shared across the NHS.

On receipt of your report, Simon Stevens, Chief Executive of NHS England, asked that
appropriate colleagues across NHS England work to establish the actions necessary to
reduce the risk of future deaths. | would like to assure you that NHS England has reviewed
in detail the findings of the report, and has considered its implications for clinical practice,
quality assurance and the commissioning of these services.

As National Clinical Director for Specialised Commissioning, | convened a review group of
senior clinical and management staff to consider your report, and to make recommendations
to me on its findings and the actions which should be taken in response. This has included
working with a range of stakeholders to identify opportunities to further strengthen
governance and to reduce the risk of future deaths. The work of the review group has
informed this response to you.

Key themes from your report

As your report identifies, these tragic cases highlight a number of complex issues in relation
to.stem cell transplantation. For this response, | have addressed these points under two
headings: .

¢ Quality assurance of technical processes involved in transplantation
¢ Clinical governance (including peer review, audit and benchmarking of outcomes)

| will deal in turn with issues relating to each of these areas, and then set out the actions
which NHS England is taking to address them and to reduce the risk of future deaths.

Quality assurance of technical processes involved in transplantation

Your report confirms that the procedure used for processing cells was the cause of the
engraftment failure which unfortunately occurred in all of these children. However, we also
note your conclusion that a more successful graft would not have changed the outcome for
three of the children, and it remains unclear whether it would have changed the outcome in
the case of the fourth child.

The deaths of these children were reported by GOS through the national incident reporting
system in the NHS as a serious incident (an Sl). In response, NHS England’s London
Regional Team worked with the Trust to review the cryopreservation serious incident. The
investigation and action plan have provided assurance that procedures and protocols have
changed as a result. The key points of learning from the incident have already been shared
with other paediatric transplant providers by the British Society for Blood and Marrow
Transplantation (BSBMT), and we will in February be issuing an NHS England. Specialised
Services Circular to all teams involved in commissioning specialised services to highlight the
concerns raised and the actions being taken nationally, and required of Regional teams, to
respond to your recommendations

With regard to the processing of cells, NHS England requires that transplant providers
implement the regulatory and quality assurance systems that are a condition of Joint
Committee-ISCT (Europe) & EBMT (JACIE) accreditation. As part of NHS England's
contractual derogation processes, we agree timed action plans with providers who do not
currently meet this standard and will suspend the commissioning, or decommission,
providers where this is not rectified within the required timescale and we believe that this
could present a significant issue concerning the safety and quality of care provided.

Your report focuses most attention on the clinical governance for transplants and the rest of
our response facuses on this and the action-NHS-England, with its stakeholders,-is taking to-
resolve this issue.

Clinical governance (including peer review, audit and benchmarking of outcomes)

Blood and Bone Marrow Transplantation (BMT) is a low volume, high risk procedure. In
2013, BSBMT recorded a UK total of 370 transplants in children and 83 of those were
autologous transplant (where the donor and recipient are the same person). Relapse is the
major cause of treatment failure in the autologous setting with 90% of paediatric deaths due
* to relapse.

The governance arrangements for paediatric BMT are set out in the following NHS England
prescribed specialised service specifications:

Actions by NHS England in response to your report

1. Guidance to commissioners and providers: NHS England will issue to
commissioning teams and providers in February a Specialised Services Circular
restating the requirement that transplants should only take place and be funded in
providers compliant with the BMT / Paediatric Oncology service specifications i.e.:

e With the appropriate JACIE clinical programme accreditation.

e Using JACIE accredited laboratories / collection and processing facilitates

* Compliant with the published policy for transplants which includes evidenced based
indications for transplant.

e Reporting to the national registry

¢ Participating in the new expert group, MDT and audit arrangements.

2. Review of service specifications: NHS England will also be reviewing the service
specifications relating to bone marrow transplants for children and making any
changes in wording required to clarify and reinforce this requirement.

3. Establishment of a new national expert group: NHS England has agreed with the
Paediatric Cancer Clinical Reference Group (CRG) and JACIE to establish a national
oncology group of experts systematically reviewing research and cases to inform
indications, protocols and benchmarking. We consider that this will enhance
governance and reduce ‘the risk of future deaths occurring. The Paediatric Cancer
CRG is leading the establishment of this group, with the first meeting being planned
for February 2015. This group will report on a review of the indications for
autologous transplants for solid tumours and advise on any changes required to the
Clinical commissioning policy. The group will also review individual cases and act as
the forum for audit and benchmarking. We expect this oncology group and the UK
Paediatric BMT Group to forge strong links so that a full picture of transplant in
children can be shared and understood.

4. Improved reporting: This expert oncology group will enhance the current reporting
into the BSBMT registry to enhance the benchmarking through this route. This will in
turn support the ongoing development and refinement of the NHS England Quality
Dashboard, which we use as a key tool to compare outcomes and identify good
practice.

5. Assurance: NHS England will commission its internal quality surveillance team to
support and assure changes in governance are implemented.

In-this response to your report; Ihave described the role of NHS England, summarised the
key themes, and described the actions that NHS England is taking. | hope this provides you
with the assurance that you are seeking about how NHS England is taking forward the
lessons learned from the sad deaths of the children concerned.

With best wishes
Yours sincerely

National Clinical Director, Specialised Commissioning

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.