Prevention of Future Deaths reports · 2015

William Bows

Regulation 28 report to prevent future deaths, reference 2015-0301, written 28 Jul 2015. A coroner writes one of these when an inquest reveals a risk that could cause further deaths unless something changes.

Date of report28 Jul 2015
Reference2015-0301
DeceasedWilliam Bows
Coroner2015-0301
Coroner areaSouth Yorkshire (East)
CategoryHospital Death (Clinical Procedures and medical management) related deaths
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.

Nicola Jane Mundy
Senior Coroner for South Yorkshire (East District)

REGULATION 28 REPORT TO PREVENT FUTURE DEATHS

THIS REPORT IS BEING SENT TO: Sir Andrew Cash,
Chief Executive, Northern General Hospital, Sheffield and The Chesterman
Cardiothoracic Unit, Northern General Hospital, Sheffield

CORONER

lam Nicola Jane Mundy, Senior Coroner for South Yorkshire (East District)

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.

http://www. legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2009/25/schedule/5/paragraph/7

http://www. legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/1629/part/7/made

INVESTIGATION and INQUEST

On 28 January 2015 | commenced an investigation into the death of William Arthur Bows, aged
85 years. The investigation concluded at the end of the inquest on 28 July 2015. The conclusion
of the inquest was a Narrative conclusion and the cause of death was:

1a Respiratory Failure, 1b. Diffuse Alveolar Damage, 1c. Amiodarone Toxicity, 2. Ischaemic
Heart Disease

CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE DEATH

This is an 85 year old man with medical history of heart bypass (2013), AF (treated with
amiodarone),prostate problems, high BP and suffered with polymyalgia rheumatica. He was
admitted to Bassetlaw Hospital on the 3rd Jan 15 due to increasing shortness of breath. He
deteriorated further and on the 6th Jan was transferred to DRI where he was moved to the
Intensive Care Unit. Blood cultures were normal with him having routine daily blood tests.
Influenza swabs were normal. Echo cardiogram showed evidence of pulmonary hypertension
and chest x-ray showed opacity in both lungs. Despite supportive treatment he continued to
deteriorate. He passed away on 15th January whilst investigations were still ongoing.

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) There was no evidence of any protocols in place or guidance for advising primary care
providers of the need to closely monitor patients who have been prescribed Amiodarone,
particularly in relation to liver function tests, thyroid tests and respiratory difficulties.

(2) With regard to the development of Amiodarone toxicity, | heard evidence that should this
complication develop it usually does so within the first twelve months or so of commencing this
drug and linked with (1) above, there was nothing before me to suggest primary care providers,
or indeed secondary care prescribers, were taking steps to ensure there was adequate
monitoring during this period.

Coroner's Court and Office, Doncaster Crown Court, College Road, Doncaster, DN1 3HS
Tel 01302 320844 | Fax 01302 364833

ACTION SHOULD BE TAKEN

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

In the event there are policies dealing with how patients prescribed Amiodarone should be
monitored and assessed, such protocols need to be reviewed to ensure that patients are
properly followed up.

This should ensure clear guidance as to how communications with Primary Care Healthcare
providers should be informed.

YOUR RESPONSE

You are under a duty to respond to this report within 56 days of the date of this report, namely by
22 September 2015. |, 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 copy of my report to the Chief Coroner and to the following Interested Persons:
SERENE 16 Ni1S England (Northern Region).
| 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 publi tion of your response by the Chief Coroner.

Dated 28 Julyy20

outh Yorkshire (East District)

Coroner's Court and Office, Doncaster Crown Court, College Road, Doncaster, DN1 3HS
Tel 01302 320844 | Fax 01302 364833

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 Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust (PDF)
Sheffield Teaching Hospitals INHS|

NHS Foundation Trust

Chief Executive's Office

RECEIVED 8 Beech Hill Road
SHEFFIELD

a9 SSS eae eee Tel: 0114 2712436

Our Ref: AJC/PB

7 October 2015

Private & Confidential

Ms Mundy

HM Coroner

South Yorkshire (East District)
Coroner's Court and Office
Crown Court

College Road

Doncaster

DN1 3HS

Dear Ms Mundy
Re: William Arthur Bows (Deceased) — Report to Prevent Future Deaths

| write with the Trust's response to your Report under Regulation 28 of the Coroners
(Investigations) Regulations 2013 enclosed with your letter of 29 July, received on 3 August 2015.

Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (STHFT) was not present at the inquest and
so this letter is based on the summary in your report and a review of Mr Bow’s medical records
and our relevant policies and procedures. In your report you raise two areas of concern and | shall
deal with these in turn.

1: There was no evidence of any protocols in place or guidance for advising primary
care providers of the need to closely monitor patients who have been prescribed
amiodarone, particularly in relation to liver function tests, thyroid tests and
respiratory difficulties.

| am pleased to reassure you that there is and was an appropriate policy in place. The Shared
Care Protocol for Amiodarone was initially developed in Sheffield in 2007 by the cardiology team
in conjunction with the then Sheffield PCT. It has been revised several times since, so that it was
the third edition that was current at the time of the prescription (Appendix 1). It was subsequently
revised further in 2014, a version developed by Dr Sheridan, Consultant Cardiologist, STHFT and
Richard Crosby, Head of Primary Care Clinical Support, NHS West and South Yorkshire and
Bassetlaw CSU.

The protocol is designed for use by both primary and secondary care clinicians to enable the safe
and appropriate continuation of care of patients initiated on amiodarone in hospital. It sets out the
responsibilities of the primary and secondary care clinicians to ensure appropriate consent,
dosage, baseline testing and ongoing monitoring. The monitoring specifically confirms the need
for liver function tests, thyroid tests and the need to ask about breathlessness and non-productive

pera Ss
' m = ( She eld
In hospital and in the community a a

proud to make a difference Chair: Tony Pedder OBE Chief Executive: Sir Andrew Cash OBE !

cough at each review relating to possible pulmonary toxicity. It also confirms the further tests to be
undertaken if there is suspected pulmonary toxicity.

The amiodarone in this case, was initially prescribed by STHFT on 16 October 2013 whilst the
patient was an in-patient, following development of atrial fibrillation. It was determined by the
cardiologists that this should continue post discharge, and this was confirmed via the in-patient
discharge summary dated 20 October 2013, a copy of which is documented to have been given to
the patient and also will have been sent to the GP (in Sheffield this goes to GPs electronically, but
is printed off and sent to practices outside of Sheffield). This correspondence also referred the GP
to an internet link to the Shared Care Protocol and also summarised the hospital physician and GP
responsibilities (Appendix 2).

A further letter was sent to the GP on 5 November 2013 (Appendix 3) which included the following:

“Post operatively he developed atrial fibrillation and therefore was started on treatment with
amiodarone. This is to be continued in the community and we would be grateful if you could carry
out the tests as per the agreed protocol. We will see Mr Bows in clinic in 6 weeks time with an
ECG on arrival where further decisions regarding the amiodarone can be made.”

As is transpired the amiodarone was then stopped with immediate effect (as the patient had
reverted to a sinus rhythm) at the out-patient appointment referred to, which took place on 27
November 2013. This was confirmed to the patient during that appointment and the plan was also
communicated to the GP by letter of 29 November 2013 (Appendix 4).

2. With regard to the development of amiodarone toxicity, | heard evidence that should
this complication develop it usually does so within the first twelve months or so of
commencing this drug and linked with (1) above, there was nothing before me to
suggest primary care providers, or indeed secondary care prescribers, were taking
steps to ensure there was adequate monitoring during this period.

This Trust would be responsible for baseline monitoring and monitoring during the loading dose.
From review of the medical records the appropriate tests were carried out. It is not known what
reviews were undertaken in the community, but monitoring tests are largely undertaken at 6 and
12 months, unless there is any suspected pulmonary toxicity or other side effects in the meantime.
The patient was on the amiodarone prescribed by STHFT for around 6 weeks.

| therefore believe that an appropriate protocol was in place at the time of the prescription of
amiodarone and that this was followed during the inpatient stay and communicated to the GP.
Since this case, but not because of it, to further improve the safety of patients taking amiodarone,
an Amiodarone Passport and Patient Handheld Information Booklet has been developed which
provides key information about the drug, including the monitoring regime and the potential life
threatening side effects (Appendix 5).

| hope that the above satisfies you that the Trust has an appropriate policy in place, part of which
is to ensure that this is also communicated to GPs. Please do not hesitate to contact me if | can
be of any further assistance or provide any further information in respect of these issues.
Yours sincerely

Kuan COS,

Sir Andrew Cash OBE
Chief Executive

° Po

Enc.

Related reports

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.