Prevention of Future Deaths reports · 2016

Ann Hardman

Regulation 28 report to prevent future deaths, reference 2016-0350, written 10 Oct 2016. A coroner writes one of these when an inquest reveals a risk that could cause further deaths unless something changes.

Date of report10 Oct 2016
Reference2016-0350
DeceasedAnn Hardman
CoronerCaroline Sumeray
Coroner areaIsle of Wight
CategoryHospital Death (Clinical Procedures and medical management) related deaths
Organisation namedIsle of Wight NHS Trust
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 

THIS REPORT IS BEING SENT TO: 

1.  Karen Baker, Chief Executive of the Isle of Wight NHS Trust 

1 

CORONER 

I am Caroline Sarah Sumeray, Senior Coroner for the Coroner Area of the Isle of Wight. 

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  23rd  January  2015  I  commenced  an  investigation  into  the  death  of  Ann  Hardman, 
aged 73. The investigation concluded at the end of the inquest on 6th October 2016. The 

conclusion of the inquest was Natural Causes. The medical cause of death was found to 

be: 

 1a Pulmonary Thromboembolism 

 1b Thrombosis of the Deep Veins of the Left Calf 

 1c 

 2  

4 

CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE DEATH 

1)  Ann Hardman presented at her GP’s practice on 13th January 2015 complaining 

of a three-week history of a painful left calf and cough. She was examined and 

found  to  have  a  swollen  left  calf,  but  her  chest  examination  was  normal.  She 

was apyrexial and had oxygen saturation of 97% and a regular pulse of 70bpm. 

A  D-Dimer  test  was  undertaken  which  gave  a  positive  result.  Her  Wells  Score 

was 2 due to her left calf being swollen by more than 3cm than her right leg, and 

because there was pitting oedema on her left leg. Her GP gave her an injection 

of Clexane and sent her directly to St Mary’s Hospital for an ultrasound scan of 

her left leg to rule out a deep vein thrombosis. 

2)  Later  that  day  at  St  Mary’s  Hospital,  she  was  scanned  by  an  ultrasound 

sonographer who had difficulty carrying out the scan effectively as Mrs Hardman 

1

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 was  a  morbidly  obese  lady,  resulting  in  a  poor  quality  scan  of  her  leg.  The 

ultrasound  sonographer  reported  back  to  her  GP  as  follows:  “Suboptimal  scan 

due  to  technical  limitations  associated  with  the  patient’s  build.  The  common 

femoral  vein,  superficial  femoral  vein,  popliteal  vein  and  deep  calf  veins  were 

assessed  and  no  evidence  was  seen  of  an  acute  DVT  on  today’s  scan.” 

Evidence heard at the Inquest from the sonographer revealed that the language 

that  she  had  used  was  ambiguous  inasmuch  as  the  “technical  limitations” 

referred  to  the  difficulty  carrying  out  an  effective  scan  due  to  Mrs  Hardman’s 

obesity,  and  that  “no  evidence  was  seen  of  an  acute  DVT”  meant  that  a  DVT 

couldn’t  be  seen,  but  due  to  Mrs  Hardman’s  obesity,  it  was  impossible  to  be 

certain that there definitely was no DVT in her left leg. 

3)  Mrs Hardman had no further dealings with her GP’s practice before 20th January 

2015. 

4)  On 20th January 2015, Mrs Hardman contacted her GP’s practice complaining of 

chest pain and requesting an appointment. The receptionist told her to dial 999 

or  offered  to  do  it  for  her.  Mrs  Hardman  declined  this  advice  and  shortly 

thereafter she was found dead at home by her daughter. 

5)  Evidence  heard  at  the  Inquest  revealed  that  various  protocols  had  changed 

since Mrs Hardman’s death, including that it is now the practice after a negative 

ultrasound scan for a DVT to rescan the patient 6-8 days later, and that this new 

practice  had  found  5  previously  undiagnosed  DVTs  in  patients  who  had 

previously  been  given  a  negative  ultrasound  scan  thereby  saving  5  lives, 

however  this  relies  on  the  patient  revisiting  their  GP  and  being  given  another 

referral form for a scan at St Mary’s Hospital. 

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  am  concerned  that  when  there  is  a  negative  scan  for  a  DVT  at  St  Mary’s 

Hospital,  the  current  protocol  relies  on  the  patient  returning  to  their  GP  and 

being  given  another  referral  form  for  a  further  scan  6-8  days  later.  It  was 

accepted  that  a  better  system  would  be  one  whereby  the  patient  was 

automatically  told  to  return  for  a  further  scan  a  week  or  so  later  by  the 

ultrasound  department,  subject  to  the  patient’s  GP  cancelling  this  scan,  based 

2

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 on  their  clinical  judgement  of  any  review  of  the  initial  scan  and/or  any  further 

examination of the patient. This would remove the chance of patients failing to 

be told to re-attend for a further scan. 

6 

ACTION SHOULD BE TAKEN 

In my opinion action should be taken to prevent future deaths and I believe you and/or 
your organisation 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 21st November 2016. 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: the family of Ann Hardman. 

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 

H.M. Senior Coroner – Isle of Wight 

10th October 2016                                               

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 Isle of Wight NHS Trust (PDF)
Isle of Wight INHS|

NHS Trust

Pad

St Mary's Hospital

Isle of Wight NHS Trust
Newport

Isle of Wight

21 November 2016

Mrs C. Sumeray

H.M. Coroner.

Isle of Wight Coroners Office
RSKC-XJZG-JKGZ
Seaclose Offices
NEWPORT

Isle of Wight

PO30 2QS

Dear Mrs Sumeray
Regulation 28 Report to Prevent Future Deaths

| write to respond to your letter of 10 October 2016 following the inquest of Mrs Ann Hardman.

| understand that Consultant Radiologist attended the inquest with J enc

he had taken your recommendations further within the Trust.

| am therefore very pleased to report that we have implemented the following system in line with your
suggestion:

e Any patient with a D-Dimer positive blood result but a negative Ultrasound scan now has
a repeat scan booked by the Ultrasound department 6-8 days from the time of the
negative scan. If a patient does not attend this second scan the Ultrasound Department
will contact the relevant General Practitioners (GP) Surgery to inform them of this non-
attendance.

HS has informed me that he had written a joint letter with PF General

Practitioner to all Island GP’s to inform them of this new procedure.

Thank you for highlighting this matter to me and | am pleased that we are able to work with you to
improve healthcare on the Isle of Wight.

Yours sincerely

Karen Baker
Chief Executive Officer

v7
SMOKEFREE
Isle of Wight

Related reports

Other reports by Caroline Sumeray

See all →

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

See all →

Track Isle of Wight NHS Trust

See every Prevention of Future Deaths report matching Isle of Wight NHS 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.