Prevention of Future Deaths reports · 2017

Najeeb Katende

Regulation 28 report to prevent future deaths, reference 2017-0132, written 21 Apr 2017. A coroner writes one of these when an inquest reveals a risk that could cause further deaths unless something changes.

Date of report21 Apr 2017
Reference2017-0132
DeceasedNajeeb Katende
CoronerEdwin Buckett
Coroner areaInner North London
CategoryCommunity health care and emergency services related deaths · Child Death (from 2015)
Organisation namedLondon Ambulance Service NHS Trust
Sourcejudiciary.uk record · original PDF
Responses publishednone published

The report

Text extracted from the PDF text layer. Reproduced verbatim, including the scan's own layout.

Regulation 28:  Prevention of Future Deaths report 

Najeeb Katende (died 10.10.2016) 

THIS REPORT IS BEING SENT TO: 

Mr Andrew Grimshaw 
Chief Executive 
London Ambulance Service NHS Trust 
220 Waterloo Road 
London SE1 8SD 

1 

CORONER 

I am:   Edwin Buckett Assistant 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 

Following  the  death  of  Master  Najeeb  Katende,  aged  15  years,  on  the 
10th October, 2016  an investigation into  his death was carried out which 
concluded at the end of the inquest on 10th April, 2017. I made a narrative 
determination, which I attach. 

4 

CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE DEATH 

At about 10am on the 10th October, 2016 Najeeb collapsed at school. A 
paramedic from LAS attended and was with Najeeb by about 10.12am. 

The paramedic considered that Najeeb was in cardiac arrest and used at 
LP15  defibrillator  on  him  in  manual  mode.  He  interpreted  the  readings 
from  that  device  as  showing  that  Najeeb  had  a  non-shockable  heart 
rhythm and did not defibrillate him. 

At about 10.36am, a subsequent heart rhythm check was carried out by 

1 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 an  Advanced  Paramedic  (who  had  by  then  attended  the  scene)  which 
showed  that  Najeeb  had,  in  fact,  a  shockable  rhythm.  He  was  then 
defibrillated 6 times but was pronounced dead at 11.46am at hospital.  

The  data  from  the  LP  15  device  was  downloaded  and  analysed.  It 
showed  that  Najeeb  had  a  shockable  rhythm  when  first  tested  at 
10.12am. 

Accordingly, Najeeb was not defibrillated for a period of about 24 minutes 
between 10.12am – 10.36am. 

The  medical  cause  of  death  was  found  to  be  Sudden  Cardiac  Death 
Syndrome. 

I  found  that  the  delay  in  defibrillating  Najeeb  significantly  reduced  his 
chances of survival although I did not find, on the balance of probabilities 
that he would have survived had this been done earlier. 

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. Evidence was given by 

 (Consultant Paramedic) that: 

  Based  on  LAS  statistics  the  survival  rate  from  cardiac  arrest, 
is  around  31%  when 

is  a  shockable  rhythm 

where 
there 
defibrillation occurs; 

  This is to be contrasted against a survival rate of around 9% for all 

presenting rhythms; 

  For  every  minute  of  cardiac  arrest  where  a  shockable  rhythm  is 
present  and  no  defibrillation  is  carried  out,  survival  decreases  by 
approximately 7-10%. 

2. Evidence was also given from other Ambulance staff that: 

  Despite  the  presence  of  other  staff  between  10.12am  and 
10.36am,  no  cross  check  was  made  as  to  whether  Najeeb  had  a 
shockable rhythm; 
If  an  Automated  External  Defibrillator,  such  as  those  used  by 
members of the public had been applied, this would have detected 
a  shockable  rhythm  and  would  have  proceeded  to  defibrillate 
Najeeb. 

 

3.  I  consider  that  it  would  be  of  great  benefit  if  LAS  were  to  take  the 

2 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 following steps, namely training and instruction to staff to: 

  Actively  cross  check  with  another  clinician  whether  a  shockable 

rhythm is present when attending an incident of this sort; 

  Use the defibrillator in AED mode when first attending as a matter 
of  routine,  or  at  the  very  least  if  uncertain  when  interpreting  a  
heart rhythm; 

  Further  educate  on  the  interpretation  of  shockable  rhythms  from 

readings provided by defibrillator devices. 

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.  

7 

YOUR RESPONSE 

You are under a duty to respond to this report within 56 days of the date 
of this report, namely by 17th June, 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 following. 

  HHJ Mark Lucraft QC, the Chief Coroner of England and Wales; 
 

  QAM,  Chairman  of  Association  of  Ambulance 

Chief Executives 

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  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        21st April, 2017                                       SIGNED BY 
ASSISTANT CORONER EDWIN BUCKETT 

3

Related reports

Other reports by Edwin Buckett

See all →

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

See all →

Track London Ambulance Service NHS Trust

See every Prevention of Future Deaths report matching London Ambulance Service 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.