Prevention of Future Deaths reports · 2017
Regulation 28 report to prevent future deaths, reference 2017-0309, written 30 Oct 2017. A coroner writes one of these when an inquest reveals a risk that could cause further deaths unless something changes.
| Date of report | 30 Oct 2017 |
|---|---|
| Reference | 2017-0309 |
| Deceased | Michael Giles |
| Coroner | Geraint Williams |
| Coroner area | Worcestershire |
| Category | Hospital Death (Clinical Procedures and medical management) related deaths |
| Source | judiciary.uk record · original PDF |
| Responses published | 1 |
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 FUTURE DEATHS (1) NOTE: This form is to be used after an inquest. REGULATION 28 REPORT TO PREVENT FUTURE DEATHS THIS REPORT IS BEING SENT TO: 1. Chief Executive Worcestershire Acute Hospital Trust | 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. On 20" July 2017 | commenced an investigation into the death of Michael Edward Giles then aged 78 years. The investigation concluded at the end of the inquest on 25" October 2017. The conclusion of the inquest was Mr Giles died as the result of a known complication of the surgical procedure, The medical cause of death being 1(a) acute haemorrhage from the liver, 1(b) liver biopsy, 2 chronic myeloid leukaemia, adenocarcinoma of the sigmoid colon, malignant melanoma of the right eye lid, . CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE DEATH Mr Giles became unwell and was admitted into hospital and following a diagnostic surgical procedure he declined and died CORONER'S CONCERNS During the course of the inquest the evidence revealed matters giving rise to concern. In my opinion there is a risk thet 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. - The Hospital Trust's internal report revealed a number of matters of concern in respect of which this report is written. (1) The handover process between shifts was expressed to be different throughout the hospital on different wards. This potentially leads to inconsistency with inadequate information being shared. it was not clear whose responsibility it was to ensure that the handover was undertaken in full and thorough fashion. The highlighting of the needs of particular patients who were the subject of the handover was inadequate, | invite the Trust to consider standardising the handover process across the hospital and to put in place a protocol whereby the identity of the person responsible for ensuring the handover takes place Is clearly recognised (2) The absence of a senior review of patients over the weekend was a factor in the suboptimal care given to this patient. | invite the Trust to put in place a requirement that all complex cases who are admitted into the ward on Friday or over the weekend, particularly where they have undergone invasive procedures, are routinely subject to a senior doctor review. (3) There was an acknowledgement within the Trusts investigation that, during the crisis period of this patient's admission there was a lack of leadership from both clinicians and nurses with no one taking responsibility to ensure that tests and investigations were in fact carried out and followed up. | invite the trust to consider a protocol to ensure that in such situations there is a nominated individual to take the lead and to ensure optimum care is given. 4 The case notes and medical records were (again) inadequate, | have been told on many occasions that the importance of good record-keeping is emphasised to clinicians - sadly in this case yet again the lessons do not appear to be being learned. | invite the Trust to put in place additional training so that record-keeping is consistent, complete and clear. ACTION SHOULD BE TAKEN In my opinion action should be taken to prevent future deaths and | believe you 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 25" December 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 f my report to the Chief Coroner and to the following Interested Persons| ; | 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 ar 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 tesponse, about the release or the publication of your response by the Chief Coroner. 0" ec 2c rarer = G U Williams 30th day of October 2017 H M Senior Coroner
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.
Office of the Chief Medical Officer
PA –
Divisional Medical Director:
Emergency Medicine
PA –
01905 763333 ext.39345
Divisional Medical Director:
Surgery
PA –
01527 505740
Divisional Medical Director:
Specialised Clinical Services
PA –
01905 733448
Divisional Medical Director:
Speciality Medicine
Divisional Medical Director:
Women and Children
01905 733211 ext.39818
01905 761499
Our Ref: 2078/SAK/MLR
20th December 2017
The Coroner
G U Williams LLB
HM Senior Coroner
Worcestershire Coroner’s Court
The Civic, Martins Way
Stourport on Severn
Worcestershire, DY13 8UN
Dear Mr Williams,
Ref: Regulation 28: Report to Prevent Future Deaths
Following your letter to the Chief Executive Officer, Michelle McKay, I write in response to your Regulation 28
Report issued 30th October 2017 surrounding the death of Michael Edward Giles.
You raised 4 matters of concern.
1. You’ve invited the Trust to consider standardising the handover process across the hospital and to put in
place a protocol whereby the identity of the person responsible for ensuring the handover takes place is
clearly recognised.
The events surround this tragic case and your regulation 28 letter was discussed with the trainees in early
November 2017. The conclusion from the trainees was that they were confident that the processes now
in place were robust and they had not experienced any near misses as a consequence of inadequate
handover. There is a standardised structure for handover which follows SBAR. This is an acronym for
Situation, Background, Assessment, Recommendation. With reference to identifying a responsible
person is a little more fraught. Handover takes place at multiple levels whilst the patient remains an
inpatient. For example; between nursing staff during shift changes, from allied health professionals to
nursing staff following procedures and interventions, between junior medical staff as part of a shift hand
over as well as between senior medical staff as part of the transfer of care and responsibility.
The importance of hand over in a structured manner continues to be the subject of our attention and
indeed was the focus of discussion by our Director for Medical Education when he met with the trainees.
To facilitate and support the transfer of clinical information the nursing staff also undertake a structured
process “board round” takes place every morning on the ward between senior clinicians and the ward
nursing staff.
Worcestershire Acute Hospitals NHS Trust | Executive Suite, Sky Level 3 | Worcestershire Royal Hospital
Charles Hastings Way | Worcester | WR5 1DD
2.
Invited the Trust to put in place the requirement that all complex cases who are admitted onto the ward on
a Friday or over the weekend, particularly where they have undergone invasive procedures, are routinely
subject to a senior doctor review.
There is already an expectation that all patients need to be reviewed 7 days per week. For those
pateients with high dependency needs the expectation is that they are seen and reviewed by a consultant
twice daily (including acutely ill patients directly transferred and other who deteriorate). An audit of our
practice from March 2017 shows that we were able to meet this requirement 93% of occasions. The
overall proportion of patients who required a daily consultant review and were reviewed by a consultant
was 68%. In order to improve this further working practice by consultants has been reorganised to
facilitate a higher proportion of patients being seen at least once every 24 hours.
In order to keep the risks to a minimum for patients undergoing invasive procedures we are already
reviewing where these can be done, i.e. limiting it to where there are areas with the required expertise for
care after the procedure.
3.
Invited the Trust to consider a protocol to ensure that during the crisis period of a patient’s admission
there is a nominated individual to take the lead and to ensure optimum care is given.
In all cases when patients take a turn for the worse the most senior Doctor is responsible for taking the
lead in ensuring optimum care is given. It is not possible to have a protocol to identify a nominated
individual because the required leadership depends on the underlying condition. Thus what is required in
Emergency Department and who should take the lead might be very different to the needs surrounding a
post-operative event or indeed during a period of convalescence whilst on the ward. The key to such
events is identifying changes to the patient’s condition in a timely manner before any event occurs. To
this end, we audit all patients brought to intensive care unexpectedly or patients requiring the emergency
team during the day time. We assess for the adequacy of care and the appropriateness of timely
escalation prior to this. We have also started human factors training.
4. We have invited the Trust to put in place addition training so that record keeping is consistent complete
and clear.
We recognise the importance of good clinical record note keeping. As part of this, we have undertaken
an audit to assess our baseline and thereby assess the impact of interventions to improve this. I have
attached the audit which demonstrates areas of good practice as well as areas in need of improvement.
We’re also working with the communications team to develop a clinical records keeping video to drive up
standards. I anticipate that this will be available in February. I’ve also attached a leaflet that will be
forwarded to all in the Trust that utilise patient’s notes. The attached has yet to be finalised and is merely
to provide an indication of the direction of travel. I anticipate that this will be available in February 2018.
I hope that the details of the actions that we are taking, provides you with the assurance you are seeking in
order to prevent future deaths.
Best wishes.
Yours sincerely,
Chief Medical Officer
Enc.
cc.
Michelle McKay
Chief Executive Officer
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.