Prevention of Future Deaths reports · 2018

Ellie Clark

Regulation 28 report to prevent future deaths, reference 2018-0066, written 6 Mar 2018. A coroner writes one of these when an inquest reveals a risk that could cause further deaths unless something changes.

Date of report6 Mar 2018
Reference2018-0066
DeceasedEllie Clark
CoronerWendy James
Coroner areaGwent
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.

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. The Practice Manager Grange Clinic 34 Westfield Avenue Newport NP20
6EY

2. Ms Judith Paget Chief Executive Aneurin Bevan University Health Board
St Cadoc’s Hospital Lodge Road Caerleon NP18 3XQ

1 CORONER

| am Wendy Ann James, acting senior coroner, for the coroner area of Gwent

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

On 03/02/15 David Thomas Bowen commenced an investigation into the death of ELLIE
MAY CLARK (dob 02/01/10). The investigation concluded at the end of the inquest on
26/02/18. The conclusion of the inquest was that Ellie May Clark died from natural
causes where the opportunity to provide potentially lifesaving treatment was missed.
The medical cause of death being:

1 (a) Bronchial Asthma

4 | CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE DEATH
Ellie was a child with a history of severe asthma, who had been admitted to hospital on
several occasions as a result of this condition. Ellie’s consultant had written to her doctor
at Grange Clinic (“the surgery”), advising that she was at risk of another episode of
severe/life threatening asthma. Suffering with a wheezy chest, Ellie attended an
appointment with a doctor at the surgery on 22/01/15, where she was told her condition
was not severe enough to be prescribed steroids, but she should continue using her
asthma pumps and be brought back to the surgery should her condition deteriorate. On
26/01/15 Ellie became ill in school. Her mother Pontacted the surgery to
request a home visit as Ellie was unable to walk, and she had no form of transport and
was also caring for her 8 week old daughter. This request was refused, but Ellie was
triaged by the on call doctor to assess if an e' appointment was necessary.
Over an hour later, a reception te offer an emergency
appointment 25 minutes later. immediately recognised she would struggle to
make the appointment on time,but she was not offered an alternative appointment and
was told not to be late. nd Ellie arrived at the surgery a few minutes late and
the doctor refused to see Ellie ,as she was late ,without making any clinical assessment,
without asking if the on call doctor could see her or without offering any advice on what
should do if Ellie’s condition worsened. fas told to bring Ellie back
the following day. returned home with Ellie, who then died later that evening.

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 could 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) The lack of an effective and robust care plan. No one clinician was allocated to
oversee the long-term management and care of Ellie’s medical condition. She was dealt
with by three different doctors at the surgery within a period of 5 days leading up to her
death.

(2) Ellie was turned away from an emergency appointment for being late without any
clinical assessment or safeguarding advice being given.

(3) A delay in Ellie being triaged for an emergency appointment resulting in insufficient
notice being given a to enable timely attendance at the appointment.

4) The lack of an effective and robust triage system. The receptionist who spoke with
a. the telephone and the doctor who triaged Ellie were different to the
receptions spoke with at the surgery and the doctor with whom the
emergency appointment was booked. Furthermore, the triage notes were not made
available to the doctor in readiness for the emergency appointment.
(5) A note that Ellie had severe/life threatening asthma was not placed on her medical
notes in a prominent position.
(6) Support staff did not feel they would be supported if they challenged a doctor's
decision or sought a second opinion.

ACTION 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.

YOUR RESPONSE

You are under a duty to respond to this report within 56 days of the date of this report,
namely by 30/04/18.1,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: Harding Evans solicitors, RadcliffesLeBrasseur solicitors and to the LOCAL
SAFEGUARDING BOARD. | have also sent it to HEALTHCARE INSPECTORATE
WALES who may find it useful or of interest.

| 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.

6" March 2018 | WWiure o.

Acting Senior Coroner (Gwent)

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 University Health Board (PDF)
Q: GIG | swrda techyd Pri
ojo ngurin Bean
hf * NHS

University Health Board

Our ref: INQ/ABHB70455/DM Direct line 01633 431673 Date 19 April 2018

Ms W James
H M Coroner

r . 8
Coroner’s Office 23 ppR

Victoria Chambers
11, Clytha Park Road
Newport

South Wales

NP20 4PB

Dear Mrs. James

I am writing further to your correspondence issued on 6" March 2018,
regarding the outcome of the inquest held on 26% February 2018 into the
death of Ellie-May Clark on 26 January 2015. In accordance with paragraph
7, Schedule 5 of the Coroner’s and Justice Act 2009 and Regulations 28 and 29
of the Coroners (Investigations) Regulations 2013, you request a response
from the Health Board outlining its position and the actions taken to prevent
similar occurrences through shared learning and its monitoring and assurance
arrangements.

I can confirm that the Health Board has duly noted your recommendations and
ensured a formal review of the action plan which was developed and
implemented in 2015 immediately following the Health Board’s own
investigation undertaken by the former Clinical Director, Primary Care Division
was completed. This has been conducted in liaison with the Grange Clinic
practice.

It may be helpful to clarify that the Health Board does not directly manage the
delivery of services or the oversight of staff employed within independent
primary care contractors. Independent contractors are directly responsible for
ensuring that the delivery of services is safe and also for ensuring that services
conform to the expected professional standards and regulations and are
appropriately accessible to patients. Nonetheless, there is a requirement for
practices to provide assurance to the Health Board in respect of the adequacy
of services provided. The Health Board has established processes to monitor
the compliance of practices with contractual requirements and to intervene
where it has concerns, contractually or professionally.

Pencadlys Headquarters

Ysbyty Sant Cadog St Cadoc’s Hospital
Ffordd Y Lodj Lodge Road

Caerltion Caerleon

Casnewydd Newport

De Cymru NP18 3XxQ South Wales NP18 3xQ
Fidén: 01633 234234 Tel No: 01633 234234

Bwrdd lechyd Prifysgol Aneurin Bevan yw enw gweithredol Bwrdd lechyd Lleol Prifysgol Aneurin Bevan
Aneurin Bevan University Health Board is the operational name of Aneurin Bevan University Local Health Board

Mrs W James 19 April 2018

The recommended actions arising from this tragic event have now been
formally reviewed with the Clinical Director for Quality and Patient Safety
and the Quality and Patient Safety Manager for our Primary Care Division.
The action plan has been updated to ensure it is reflective of its current
state, acknowledges the improvements made and those further
developments required to provide ongoing assurances.

During the meeting held with Health Board representatives and the
practice on 29 March 2018, there was representation from senior GP and
partners, Practice manager, Practice Safeguarding lead, Receptionist and
the Practice Nurse with specialist interest in asthma. The practice were
able to confirm and provide evidence of completion of actions as outlined
following completion of Health Board serious incident investigation and
discussion was held regarding any further actions and developments that
have arisen from this learning.

I understand that the Practice will be writing to you separately to confirm
their specific actions and evidence of implementation of the actions they
have taken.

The practice provided confirmation that the duty doctor responsible for
triaging deals with this solely and does not take routine appointments.
There was evidence of extensive work undertaken to ensure that all
existing and new staff members are instructed in a standardised best
practice approach and that the standard operating procedure is used by
all. A red flag/alert system is now in place to ensure that any patient
specific condition concerns will appear on screen to alert the GP during
review/consultation.

There has been a significant amount of work undertaken within the
practice to address workplace culture issues to promote an open and
transparent healthy workplace which is advocated and supported by all
partners and practice staff

The Health Board can confirm that those actions and request for
assurances outlined in your correspondence have been implemented and
continue to be the focus of cross divisional work with primary care and
lead consultant paediatricians. I am advised by our Lead Consultant
Paediatrician that the consultant leads for asthma have met to discuss
Ellie May’s case and the Regulation 28 report. He confirms that the plan
for the next 6 months includes:

1. An audit of documentation (as per the pathway) of asthma
education at discharge.

2. An audit of PAAP (person’s asthma action plans) being given in
clinic and at discharge.

Mrs W James 19 April 2018

3. As part of the paediatric consultant’s regular commitment to asthma
teaching the team provide teaching for peers and juniors around
their responsibilities, where adverse outcomes in Gwent are shared
in terms of lessons learned, and the need for PAAPs as part of
current standards review.

4. The team acknowledge that the high risk children may not be
seeing their GPs nor paediatric services, and the team liaise with
our Emergency Department(ED) to identify those children who have
attended ED for asthma exacerbation more than twice per year.

5. The team recommit to following up all children who have received
more than steroids and nebulisers for at least one year and any
child that has been to Intensive Care Unit to follow up until
transition or exacerbation-free stepdown in preventer treatment
down to step 2 or less.

6. If these two groups of patients don't attend then the team will
reappoint with a highlighting of neglect, with a referral to
safeguarding if they do not attend (DNA) a second time.

Within Primary Care a programme of work in response to the national
audit of asthma-related deaths has taken place led by respiratory
pharmacists within the Neighbourhood Care Network clusters. This has led
to the development of a community pharmacy Local Enhanced Service to
identify those patients with review outstanding or who were overusing
reliever medication. Support has been enlisted from the respiratory
specialist nursing team to support promulgation of learning.

Since the inquest was held further correspondence has been issued by the
ABUHB Medical Director to all GP practices and paediatric consultants to
ensure that those lessons learned following this sad case are
acknowledged and shared by the GP community.

I hope this response has addressed the recommendations outlined and
provided reassurance that lessons have been and continue to be learned
across the Health Board and the wider GP community. However, if you
have any further questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact
my office on 01633 431673

Yours sincerely

ois tafet

Judith Paget
Prif Weithredwr/Chief Executive

Related reports

Other reports by Wendy James

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.