Prevention of Future Deaths reports · 2018

Bernard Gerrard

Regulation 28 report to prevent future deaths, reference 2018-0070, written 8 Mar 2018. A coroner writes one of these when an inquest reveals a risk that could cause further deaths unless something changes.

Date of report8 Mar 2018
Reference2018-0070
DeceasedBernard Gerrard
CoronerRachel Syed
Coroner areaDerby and Derbyshire
CategoryHospital Death (Clinical Procedures and medical management) related deaths · Community health care and emergency services related deaths
Organisation namedEast Midlands Ambulance Service NHS Trust
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.

= “OR
IFO ot RON
ET MON.

REGULATION 28: REPORT TO PREVENT FUTURE DEATHS

REGULATION 28 REPORT TO PREVENT FUTURE DEATHS
THIS REPORT IS BEING SENT TO:

1. The Chief Executive, NHS Hardwick CCG, Scarsdale Hospital, Nightingale
Close, Off Newbold Road, Chesterfield, S41 7PF

2. The Chief Executive, East Midlands Ambulance Service NHS Trust
1 Horizon Place, Mellors Way, Nottingham, NG8 6PY

1 CORONER

| am RACHEL SYED, Assistant Coroner, for the Coroner area of DERBY &
DERBYSHIRE

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 14 December 2017, an Inquest was opened into the death of BERNARD LESLIE
GERRARD which was concluded on Wednesday 28" February 2018. The conclusion of
the inquest was Natural Causes and the medical cause of death being 1a.
Bronchopneumonia, 1b. Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, II. Left Fracture Neck
of Femur. During proceedings, the Court heard Pathology evidence which confirmed that
the bronchopneumonia caused by the underlying Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary
Disease had resulted in Mr Gerrard's fall.

4 | CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE DEATH

Mr Gerrard sustained injuries following an unwitnessed fall which occurred in his
bedroom at around 5pm on 28 November 2017 at the Milford Care Home where he
resided, The care home buzzer was activated and the person that discovered Mr
Gerrard, dressed his arm wound whilst waiting for other carers to attend. During this
period, Mr Gerrard was not noted to be in any pain and there was no shortening of the
limbs. 111 was called to request the attendance of the District Nurse. Mr Gerrard was
reassessed by care home staff, moved off the floor into his armchair using the hoist and
was noted to sound breathless, also indicating to staff that his thigh was sore. At 17:40,
111 called back and were informed of Mr Gerrard's breathlessness and his inability to
stand. The care home were advised not to move Mr Gerrard further until the ambulance
arrived on scene. According to the Care Home Investigation Report, they had contacted
East Midlands Ambulance Service at 18:45, 20:45, 23:11, 03:47 before an ambulance
finally arrived on scene at 05:30 on 29 November 2017. Mr Gerrard was transported to
Royal Derby Hospital for treatment and care where investigations revealed a Left
Fracture Neck Of Femur. Despite the best efforts of his treating clinicians, Mr Gerrard
died on 02 December 2017. The care home raised concerns that it had taken 12 hours
for an ambulance to respond to Mr Gerrard.

The Court heard evidence from an East Midlands Emergency Operations Centre
Quality, Audit and Compliance Clinical Lead, that there had been a 10 hour delay in

responding to Mr Gerrard, stating the initial 111 referral call, had been time stamped at
18:19 and correctly categorised as a Category 3 response, meaning that a conveying
vehicle should respond within 2 hours, in 9 out of 10 cases. East Midlands Ambulance
Service (EMAS) conceded at the latest an ambulance should have arrived on scene by
20:19. During evidence, EMAS explained that they had received 3 calls from the care
home, at 19:44, 20.58 and 23:07 and a clinician call back had been undertaken at 20:40
confirming there were vehicle shortages resulting in ambulance delays. During the call
they advised the care home to monitor the patient’s condition and if there was any
deterioration, EMAS should be re-contacted.

At 03:10, EMAS correctly re-graded Mr Gerrard’s condition to a Category 2 response,
meaning that a conveying vehicle should respond within 18 minutes in 9 out of 10 cases,
to reflect his breathing deterioration. EMAS accepted that the upgraded response should
have resulted in an ambulance arrival by 03:30 at the latest. An ambulance finally
arrived on scene at 04:20, some 10 hours after receiving the initial 111 referral. The
Category 3 and upgraded Category 2 responses both fell well outside of the National
Response Standards required. EMAS stated that the reasons for the delays were that
they had no available resources to deploy due to high Service demands.

EMAS accepted that the vehicle response time was unacceptable and stated that the
Service could not cope due to insufficient resources and lack of funding. EMAS stated
that during the period in question, they were holding three Category 2 calls and eleven
Category 3 calls. When asked if these callers had also been waiting over 9 hours fora
vehicle response, the reply was probably.

EMAS went on to explain that they received the third lowest amount of ambulance
funding in the Country which had recently been debated at Parliamentary level and
without further funding they could not function.

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) There was a 10 hour vehicle response delay to attend to a Category 3 call.
When the call was eventually upgraded to a Category 2 response, there was a
further 50 minute delay. EMAS report that they cannot cope with the current
demands placed on their service due to insufficient funding which is resulting in
unacceptable vehicle response times

ACTION SHOULD BE TAKEN

In my opinion action should be taken to prevent future deaths and | believe you
[AND/OR 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 Thursday 03 May 2018. |, 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

| 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.

08 March 2018

Raskel. Syed

Rachel Syed, Assistant Coroner for Derby and Derbyshire

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 East Midlands Ambulance Service NHS Trust (PDF)
East Midlands

Ambulance Service
NHS Trust

Trust Headquarters

1 Horizon Place

Mellors Way

Nottingham Business Park
Nottingham

NG8 6PY

Telephone: 0115 884 5000
Fax: 0115 884 5001
Website: www.emas.nhs.uk

Our Ref: SB/Coroners

30 April 2018

Miss Rachel Syed

Assistant Coroner for Derby and Derbyshire
Coroner's Court

St Katherine’s House

St Mary Mary's Wharf

Mansfield Road

Derby DE1 3TQ

Dear Miss Syed
Re: Report to Prevent Future Deaths: Bernard Leslie GERRARD (deceased)

Thank you for your Regulation 28 Report to Prevent Future Deaths, dated 9th March
2018 (received on 12 March 2018), bringing to my attention HM Coroner's concerns
arising from the Inquest into the death of Mr Bernard Leslie Gerrard.

| would like to assure you that within the East Midlands Ambulance Service (EMAS) all
matters related to patient safety are taken extremely seriously. In particular, matters
arising from Coroners’ Inquests from which lessons can be learnt, including Prevention
of Future Death Reports, are discussed within the incident Review Group and Lessons

Learned Group.

This process has been applied to the Prevention of Future Deaths notice pertaining to
the Inquest into the death of Bernard Leslie Gerrard.

Chief Executive: Richard Henderson Chairman: Pauline Tagg

Emergency Care | Urgent Care | We Care

The MATTERS OF CONCERN specific to EMAS are as follows:

There was a 10 hour vehicle response delay to attend a Category 3 call. When
the call was eventually upgraded to a Category 2 response, there was a further
50 minute delay. EMAS report that they cannot cope with the current demands
placed on their service due to insufficient funding which is resulting in
unacceptable vehicle response times.

| set out below the actions that EMAS proposes to take and our response to HM
Coroner’s concerns as detailed in the PFD notice.

EMAS acknowledges its responsibility to enact a duty of care to all patients.

East Midlands Ambulance Service (EMAS) does not believe it is funded correctly
to deliver the service our patients require. As a result the EMAS 2016/17, Urgent
and Emergency Ambulance Contract, documented the agreement made between
the Commissioners and ourselves to undertake a jointly commissioned
Independent Strategic Demand and Capacity Review, to understand the number
of staff we require to deliver the nationally agreed standards. Within that
agreement EMAS formally committed to the implementation of the outcome of
the review, while Commissioners formally committed to support the
implementation of the outcome.

Due to the implementation of the national standards following the introduction
of the Ambulance Response Programme in July 2017, the review concluded at the
end of March. The review has confirmed that EMAS has a substantial resource
gap and requires approximately 295 additional frontline operational staff and 48
additional staff to work within the Emergency Operations Centre to enable us to
deliver the nationally defined performance standards.

Negotiations are currently on-going with our Coordinating Commissioner
regarding the contract settlement for 2018/19 and 2019/20. We are expecting
negotiations to be concluded in early May.

In anticipation of the settlement EMAS has produced a workforce and
recruitment plan which will enable us to recruit and train these new staff so that
they become operational during 2018/19 and the early part of 2019/20.

As part of this review the Trust has already established an Urgent Care Transport
Service (UCTS) which went live on Tuesday 3 April. We operate 25 crews on duty
across the region responding to patients who either require urgent admission to
hospital, as determined by their general practitioner or other healthcare
professional (HCP), or who have low acuity healthcare needs as assessed by our
Clinical Assessment Team or frontline emergency crews.

The crews are dispatched by a dedicated urgent care desk based in our Emergency
Operations Centre and we have noted a positive impact on the times patient wait
for an ambulance. Each day the crews are responding to over 90 patients,
ensuring they reach hospital safely and promptly. This has resulted at peak times
in a five hour reduction in the length of time patients are waiting for an
ambulance to arrive. The provision of the Urgent Care Team Service has reduced
the number of patients requiring an A&E response, which results in a reduction
in the number of patients experiencing a prolonged wait.

| hope that the measures set out in this letter provide you with the appropriate
level of assurance in relation to EMAS’ commitment to continuous improvement
of services.

Please do not hesitate to contact me should you require any additional
information, or any clarification, in connection with the above.

Yours sincerely

_#t S

Richard Henderson
Chief Executive

Related reports

Other reports by Rachel Syed

See all →

More reports categorised “Hospital Death (Clinical Procedures and medical management) related deaths”

See all →

Track East Midlands Ambulance Service NHS Trust

See every Prevention of Future Deaths report matching East Midlands 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.