Prevention of Future Deaths reports · 2016

Maurice Isaacs

Regulation 28 report to prevent future deaths, reference 2016-0411, written 7 Nov 2016. A coroner writes one of these when an inquest reveals a risk that could cause further deaths unless something changes.

Date of report7 Nov 2016
Reference2016-0411
DeceasedMaurice Isaacs
CoronerAndrew Barkley
Coroner areaSouth Wales Central
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.

ANNEX A

REGULATION 28: REPORT TO PREVENT PUTURE

NO

TE: This form Is to be used after an inquest.

THIS REPORT IS BEING SENT TO:

i. Chief Executive of the Cardiff and the Vale University Health Board
2. Minister for Health Welsh Assembly Government

3. Chliet Coroner

A

Pe

1 | CORONER
Tam Andrew Roger BARKLEY, Senior Coroner, for the coroner area of South Wales
Central,

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 —— oy
On the 20" June 2016 | commenced an investigation into the death of Maurice ISAACS,
The investigation concluded at the end of the inquest on the 2% November 2016, The
conclusion of the inquest was that of a narrative conclusion:-
“Maurice ISAACS died from the effects of a traumatic head injury which he sustained
when he suffered one of eight falls whilst in hospital, against a background of dementia,
declining health and frailty”

4 | CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE DEATH - -

The deceased suffered from Dementia, Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease and
Chronic Kidney Disease and was cared for in his-own home by his daughter. When she
could no longer manage his care, after a significant deterioration in his condition, he was
admitted to hospital acutely on 27" April 2016. On admission he was deemed to be at
high risk of falls,

Whist in hospital he fell on seven separate occasions. He was known to suffer from
dementia, and at times was delirium. He was particularly restless and agitated during the
night time.

In the early hours of 12" June 2016 he fell from his bed and was found on the floor and
was believed to have suffered a head injury. After complaining of a headache and after
a fall in his level of consciousness, a CT scan revealed a bieed on the brain. He
continued to deteriorate and died two days later.

a

“] During the cours

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 GF CONCERN are as follows. -

[BRIEF SUMMARY OF MATTERS OF CONCERN]

(1) The investigation into his death revealed shortcomings in the way in which his
tisk of falls were assessed and recorded. For example, no clear care plan was
introduced until after the fourth fall. Although there were some occasions when
he was given 1:1 care that was not consistent and despite the increasing
number of falis, he was never given true 1:1 supervision / observation. Despite
the medical notes showing that this should have been in place at the time of his
final fal, the reality on the ward was that he was being observed by a nurse ona
1:4 basis. Despite the ward being staffed to "agreed staffing levels” the evidence
showed that on the ground, on occasions, this was simply not enough staff to
manage the demands of the ward,

His condition was so variable and unpredictable, and against a background of
so many falls, 1:1 care was indicated. The evidence showed that whilst there

was a review of his situation after each fall, a more “holistic” approach,
recognising the dangers posed by his unpredictable behaviour, and the causes
of that, might have prevented so many falls.

After the final fall, shortcomings were identified in the way that the standard
“Neuro Observations” were carried out. They were not carried out in line with
Trust Policy, They were conducted by a Health Care Assistant, who had not
been trained and who failed to conduct one part of the test for a period of six
hours. The omission was not spotted by the qualified nurse whose duty it was to
oversee the work of the Healthcare Assistant.

S

6 | AGTION SHOULD BE TAKEN
In my opinion action should be taken to prevent future deaths and | believe you and your
organisation have the power to take such action.

7 | YOUR RESPONSE
You are under a cuty tc respond to this report within 56 days of the date of this report,
namely by 28 December 2016 . |, the coroner, may extend the period.
Your response must contain details of action taken or proposed fo be taken, setting out
the timetable for action. Otherwise you must explain why no action is proposed.

6 | COPIES and PUBLICATION

} have sent a copy of my report to the Chief Coroner
! 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.

Mr Andrew Barkley
Hl Senior Coroner
7™ November 2016

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 Uiniversity Hospital of Wales (PDF)
& GIG | 8rd techyd Prifysgol Ysbyty Athrofaol Cymru
Caerdydd a'r Fro University Hospital of Wales

UHB Headquarters

oan H S Cardiff and Vale Heath Park Pare Y Mynydd Bychan
University Health Board = Cardiff, cF14 4xW Caerdydd, CFi4 4XW

Eich cyf/Your ret;

Ein cyf/Our ref: SH-ns-01-5963

Welsh Health Telephone Network:

Direct Line/Llinell untongychol: 02920 745681

Interim Chief Executive

24 January 2017

PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL

Mr A Barkley

Senior Coroner
Coroner’s Court
Central Police Station
Cathays Park

Cardiff

CF10 3NN

Dear Mr Barkley
Regulation 28 report — Mr M | (Died 14.06.2016)

Thank you for your letter dated 7 November 2016. The letter was issued to
the University Health Board (UHB) on 11 November 2016, but unfortunately
there is no record of this being officially received. Please accept our sincere
apologies for the fact that this has led to a delay in responding to you. You
have very kindly agreed to extend the deadline for 14 days, which we are
very grateful for.

| have reviewed the points raised within the Regulation 28 report which
relates to the very sad death of Mr I. My response has been informed by key
clinical and managerial colleagues within the Medicine Clinical Board, who
work within the clinical environment in which the care was provided to Mr I.

| recognise that this will have been a difficult time for Mr I’s family and would
wish to offer my sincere condolences on behalf of the University Hospital
Board.

You will be aware that the UHB undertook an internal investigation which was
reported to Welsh Government in 2016. The report detailed numerous
recommendations for the Directorate and Clinical Board and an action plan
was subsequently developed and completed.

For ease of reference, | will respond to each of the matters of concern you
have raised in turn:

« The investigation revealed shortcomings in the way in which Mr
I’s risk of falls was assessed and recorded, e.g. no ciear care plan
was introduced until after the fourth fall. Although there were

Bwrdd Iechyd Prifysgo) Ceerdydd a'r Fro yw enw gweithredol Swyred lechyd Lieol Prifysgot Caerdydd ar Fro
Cardiff and Vole University Health Board is the operational neme of Carciff and Yale University Local Health Board

egy

some occasions when Mr | was given 1:1 care it was not
consistent and despite the increasing number of falls he was not
given true 1:1 supervision/observation. This was recommended
within the medical notes and that this should have been in place
at the time of Mr I’s final fall. The reality on the ward was that he
was being observed by a nurse on a 1:4 basis. Despite the ward
being staffed to “agreed staffing levels” the evidence showed
that on the ground, on occasions, there was simply not enough
staff to manage the demands of the ward.

Mr I’s condition was so variable and unpredictable, and against a
background of so many falls, 1:1 care was indicated. The
evidence showed that whilst there was a review of his situation
after each fall, a more ‘holistic’ approach, recognising the
dangers posed by his unpredictable behaviour, and the causes of
that, might have prevented so many falls.

The Medicine Clinical Board, in conjunction with all Directorates, have put in
place the following key changes to identify how risk is assessed and the level
of specialling that a patient requires to support a more holistic approach.
When completing the falls risk assessment, all patients identified as at risk
have a falls care plan commenced. This care plan is reviewed weekly, or
more frequently as the patient's health and requirements change. Since the
tragic incident involving Mr |, the Clinical Board recognises the need for more
robust discussion of the risk assessment outcome and the need for 1:1
specialling with families/carers. Families and carers are now actively
encouraged to share their opinions if they feel 1:1 specialling is not
appropriate for their relative or if they may respond poorly to this type of
enhanced monitoring. Environmental consideration and the assessment for
quiet areas are also considered. Families and carers are encouraged to visit
and stay as long as they deem necessary if they feel that it would benefit their
relative.

All patients with known cognitive impairment have documentation completed
by themselves or by a relative or carer in order to help healthcare staff learn
about the patient as a person. We recognise that in the case of Mr I,
regrettably, the ‘Reach Out To Me’ document had not been completed. All
staff have been reminded of this and it will form part of regular documentation
audits. Behaviour charts are maintained to identify any triggers for falls and
wandering behaviour. Tools such as Intentional Rounding, which ensures that
patients are reviewed every two hours in order to ensure that patients have a
drink, and are offered toileting in a timely manner are well embedded within
all Directorates. Medication reviews are undertaken weekly by the medical
team and Pharmacy colleagues to minimise medication interactions and use
of sedative medication. Daily Board Rounds supported by a multi-disciplinary
team approach are completed to provide a patient centred holistic review.

In addition, the Board and Directorate have engaged in Sensor Mat trials
which can be an alert mechanism to nursing staff to identify wnen patients
are moving and are at risk of a potential fall.

Bwrdd lechyd Prifysgol Caerdydd a'r Fro yw enw gweithredol Bwyrdd Iechyd Lleol Prifysgol Caerdydd a‘r Fro
Cardiff and Vale University Health Board is the operational name of Cardiff and Vale University Local Health Board

205i,
oe

say

Liz

Ss

ty
‘%
Mon

“

Nursing staff that have been identified to provide specialling have been
informed that they are not to participate in care that would take them away
from their role of providing specialling. The Clinical Board are currently
undertaking benchmarking of enhanced observational care within other
organisations across Wales and England.

The Health Board has a formal and well embedded process for the management and
escalation of issues in relation to safe staffing leveis. Ward establishments are set
and approved on an annual basis; these are signed off by the Director of Nursing in
the Clinical Board and the Executive Nurse Director. There is a 6 weekly off duty in
place which is subject to weekly review and requests for staff are placed/managed
where there are gaps in covering shifts.

Unfortunately, we know that some ward staff in Mr I's case were unclear on what to
do with regards to documentation to support safe staffing levels. All staff have since
been reminded of how to access and use ‘specialling’ documentation which is
available on the intranet and this was reinforced with staff at a ward meeting held on
12/09/2016 where the appropriate documentation was made available for all to read.

On a daily basis, staffing levels are operationally managed by the Senior Nurses at
ward/departmental level. They liaise with ward sisters and charge nurses and staff
are moved to provide the best cover possible, based on patient need on a daily
basis. Sometimes, Clinical Nurse Specialists and Senior Nurses are also asked to
work clinically in wards and often other additional support staff e.g. physiotherapist
etc are approached to support wards. If there are difficulties covering a
ward/department, the Senior Nurse will approach the Directorate Lead Nurse to see
whether it is possible to release capacity from other areas of the directorate. If this
does not provide a solution, the matter is then escalated to the Clinical Board
Director of Nursing to identify staff who can be released from across the wider
Clinical Board. Every opportunity is undertaken to support safe staffing with the
utilisation of Temporary Staffing and Agency, and on-going recruitment drives.
Deficits in staffing levels, reported by staff through the patient safety incident
reporting system, are reviewed by Executive Directors at the Management Executive
meeting on a weekly basis.

The UHB is currently carrying out a project on the ‘Specialling of patients’ which we
hope to have in place in the Medicine Clinica! Board ward areas in February 2017.

e After the first fall, shortcomings were identified in the way that
the standard Neurological Observations were carried out. They
were not carried out in line with UHB policy. They were
conducted by a Health Care Assistant, who had not been trained
and who failed to conduct one part of the test for a period of six
hours. The omission was not identified by the qualified nurse
whose duty it was to oversee the work of the Health Care
Assistant.

The Medicine Clinical Board has undertaken a review of the delegated tasks
that are completed by non-registered nursing staff. At this point in time, the
Medicine Clinical Board has taken a decision that responsibility for the

“ a,
SyYYs
Bwrdd Iechyd Prifysgol Caerdydd a’r Fro yw enw gweithredel Bwyrdd Iechyd Lleol Prifysgol Caerdydd a’r Fro ~~ a

Cardiff and Vale University Health Board is the operational name of Cardiff and Vale University Loca! Health Board

completion of neurological observations will be undertaken by registered
nurses only. The UHB is currently reviewing the clinical skills of Health Care
Support Workers and this issue which has arisen in Medicine, will be
considered as part of that review. All registered nurses are aware of their
UHB and NMC requirements to ensure that neurological observations are
undertaken as per UHB policy, and make a clinical decision on the need to
escalate to the relevant clinician, dependant on the results of these
observations.

Arrangements are in place to share learning from this incident for the Clinical
Gerontology Directorate and for the Medicine Clinical Board in February
2017.

The UHB has now also established a Falls Delivery Group, which will be
chaired by an Assistant Director with Executive support from the Director of
Therapies and Health Sciences. The group is multi-disciplinary and has
representation from medicine, nursing, pharmacists and therapists. The aim
of the group is to work with key internal and external stakeholders and
partners to provide expertise, review and monitor practice and promote the
prevention and management of falls resulting in fractures and other
significant injuries across the health community of Cardiff and the Vale of
Glamorgan. The first meeting of this group took place on 20 January 2017.

Your findings at Mr I’s inquest are of relevance to all Clinical Boards in the
University Health Board. A copy of your Regulation 28 report and my
response will be shared with all Clinical Boards with the intention that all
clinical areas will review the actions undertaken to date and assess areas of
clinical risk in their Directorates to minimise risk of reoccurrence of the
matters of concern.

| hope that the information set out in this letter provides you with the
assurance that the Health Board has fully considered the issues raised as a
consequence of the inquest into Mr I’s death, and has taken appropriate
action in response.

Yours sincerely

oy

Interim Chief Executive

Bwrdd lechyd Prifysgol Caerdydd a’r Fro yw enw gweithredal Bwyrdd Lechyd Lleol Prifysgol Caerdydd a'r Fro
Cardiff and Vale University Health Board is the operational name of Cardiff and Vale University Local Health Board

AB,

%

205i),
oe
os
x

54 y

Related reports

Other reports by Andrew Barkley

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.