Prevention of Future Deaths reports · 2017

Kevin Morgan

Regulation 28 report to prevent future deaths, reference 2017-0165, written 22 May 2017. A coroner writes one of these when an inquest reveals a risk that could cause further deaths unless something changes.

Date of report22 May 2017
Reference2017-0165
DeceasedKevin Morgan
CoronerThomas Osborne
Coroner areaMilton Keynes
CategoryCommunity health care and emergency services 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.

Carl

Thomas Ralph Osborne
Senior Coroner for Milton Keynes

REGULATION 28 REPORT TO PREVENT FUTURE DEATHS

THIS REPORT IS BEING SENT TO: Carole Mills, Chief Executive Milton Keynes Council

CORONER

| am Thomas Ralph Osborne, Senior Coroner for Milton Keynes

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 29" July 2016 | commenced an investigation into the death of Kevin George Morgan, aged
53. The investigation concluded at the end of the inquest on 19" May 2017. The conclusion of
the inquest was “Open”.

CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE DEATH

Mr Morgan suffered from insulin controlled type 1 diabetes that was poorly controlled. He was
not registered with a GP and had not been in contact with family for several weeks. Family
called Police who attended the flat. On looking through the letterbox Mr Morgan could be seen
deceased lying on the floor in the hallway. Entry was forced, ambulance attended and death
confirmed, there were no suspicious circumstances. His body was heavily decomposed. At the
time of his death it was known that he suffered from diabetes, that he had accumulated rent
arrears, that his telephone had been disconnected, that he was without gas and electricity, that
he was not claiming benefits and he suffered from mental health problems.

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)That social services and the housing team were aware of the problems experienced by Kevin
Morgan and yet there was no effective follow up.

(2) That a safeguarding alert was completed by Kevin Morgan's Mother and, despite her serious
concerns, the response was to arrange a visit where Kevin Morgan refused to engage.

(3) That the case was reviewed by senior managers on at least two occasions and no further
action was taken.

(4) The police were never requested to conduct a concern for safety visit despite such a visit
being recognised as appropriate.

(5) It was accepted by the Adult Social Care Access Team that a meeting of senior professionals
should have been called to consider the case and prepare a plan.

(6) Following the death of Kevin Morgan there was no Serious Incident Review conducted by
social services and it was not referred for a safeguarding review so that lessons have not been
learned from this incident. Without such a review a similar incident could occur in the future.

ACTION SHOULD BE TAKEN

In my opinion action should be taken to prevent future deaths and | believe you as the Chief
Executive of Milton Keynes Council have the power to take such action.

YOUR RESPONSE

You are under a duty to respond to this report within 56 days of the date of this report, namely by
16" July 2017. |, 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 Ill
(Kevin’s mother) and to the CQC. | am also under a duty to send the Chief Coroner a
copy of your response.

The Chief Coroner may publish eith¢rfr_both in a complete or redacted or summary form. He
may send a copy of this report to a
You may make representations to

release or the pubsCation of your y.

Dated 22° M

Signature.
Senior Coroner for Milton Keynes

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 Milton Keynes Safeguarding Board (PDF)
4 April 2018 

Mr T Osborne 
Her Majesty’s Senior Coroner for Milton Keynes 
Civic Offices 
1 Saxon Gate East 
Milton Keynes  

MK9 3EJ 

Dear Mr Osborne 

Re: Regulation 28 report to prevent further deaths 

I am the Independent Chair of Milton Keynes Safeguarding Board and am writing following 
your correspondence of 22nd May 2017 with 
Executive in relation to Kevin George Morgan. Thank you for returning my call as I always (as 
a totally independent chair) prefer (wherever possible) to deal directly with senior public 
sector leaders across the Milton Keynes system, whatever their role.   

, Milton Keynes Council Chief 

It is nearly 12 months since you wrote to 
sooner. I will be considering why it took so long as part of the actions I have decided to take, 
but believe it to be a consequence of a major restructure, major staff shortages and a lack of 
rigour in the tracking systems that were in place until relatively recently. Whatever the cause 
it should not have taken so long however and I apologise for the delay. 

, and the response should have come much 

 wrote back to you on 12th July 2017 indicating that in response to the Regulation 28 

report a referral was made to the Milton Keynes Safeguarding Board for a Safeguarding 
Adults Review (SAR) to be conducted under Section 44 of the Care Act 2014. That referral 
was made and the process of considering the case began. I received a recommendation from 
the Adults Case Review Panel recently but delayed making a decision until I had thoroughly 
examined all of the facts, taken advice and weighed it up carefully. 

My decision is that the case does not meet the criteria for a Safeguarding Adult Review, but 
as I share many of the concerns you expressed in your Regulation 28 report, I have 
commissioned another more flexible but no less rigorous form of review called a learning 
review in order to establish what can be learnt from the case to improve practice and reduce 
the likelihood of similar cases occurring. I am happy to send you my full decision should you 
wish to see it, but have set out below the decision and the commission for a learning review 
for your information. 

My decision is as follows: 
The case does not meet the criteria for conducting a Safeguarding Adult Review as set out in 
the Care Act 2014 S44 (1) and S44 (2). The rationale for this conclusion is set out in the 
section below. 

I have decided however that a multi-agency learning review, chaired by a relevant 
professional from one of the agencies who has no links to the case, should be undertaken, 
and that the review should involve: 

MKSB, Saxon Court, 502 Avebury Boulevard, Milton Keynes MK9 3HS 
Email: mkscb@milton-keynes.gov.uk/ tel: 01908 254373 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   Mr M’s mother and other family members of her choice (through the opportunity to 

meet and speak to the review chair and a review group member) 

  A practitioner event involving all relevant practitioners in the NHS, the Council, the 

Police and the Voluntary sector 
  An analysis of agency case reports 
 

In depth consideration of the areas for concern 1-6 in the Regulation 28 report and 
any other areas identified by Mr M’s family, identified in agency reports or identified 
at the learning event,  

  A Signs of Safety approach to the learning process (what went well, what did not go 

so well, what does that tell us, what will we do as a result) 

  A short report making recommendations for practice improvements to the MKSB 

Board (copied to the MKC Chief Executive) and suggesting effective ways to disseminate 
the learning to the multi-agency workforce 

  A meeting with Mr M’s mother should she wish, to hear what has been learnt and 

what will change as a result of the review. 

The terms of reference for the learning review should be drafted by the panel and signed off 
by me. 

The review should be undertaken as swiftly as possible given that information about the case 
has already been collated. I anticipate receiving the report at the September 2018 Board 
meeting. 

I will be reporting to the Chief Executive and to Mr M’s mother on the conclusion of the 
review process. 

I am of course very happy to discuss further my decision should you feel the need to do so. 

I understand that there are a number of other cases that you have expressed concerns 
about. I discussed this with the MK Safeguarding Board Members and we are delighted you 
are happy to accept our invitation for you to meet with the Board to discuss areas of 
common concern, and how we could more effectively address those concerns in the future. 
We will, I am sure, find it extremely constructive to meet with you. 

Yours sincerely 

MKSB Independent Chair (jane@janeheld.co.uk ) 

cc  

Carole Mills – Chief Executive, Milton Keynes Council 
Michael Bracey – Corporate Director People, Milton Keynes Council 
Michael Kelleher – Service Director Housing & Regeneration, Milton Keynes Council 

MKSB, Saxon Court, 502 Avebury Boulevard, Milton Keynes MK9 3HS 
Email: mkscb@milton-keynes.gov.uk/ tel: 01908 254373

Related reports

Other reports by Thomas Osborne

See all →

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

See all →

Track Community health care and emergency services related deaths

See every Prevention of Future Deaths report matching Community health care and emergency services 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.