Prevention of Future Deaths reports · 2017

Michael Giles

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 report30 Oct 2017
Reference2017-0309
DeceasedMichael Giles
CoronerGeraint Williams
Coroner areaWorcestershire
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 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

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 Respondent Not Named (PDF)
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

Related reports

Other reports by Geraint Williams

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.