Prevention of Future Deaths reports · 2018
Regulation 28 report to prevent future deaths, reference 2018-0201, written 20 Mar 2018. A coroner writes one of these when an inquest reveals a risk that could cause further deaths unless something changes.
| Date of report | 20 Mar 2018 |
|---|---|
| Reference | 2018-0201 |
| Deceased | Peter O’Donnell |
| Coroner | Simon Nelson |
| Coroner area | Manchester (West) |
| Category | Hospital Death (Clinical Procedures and medical management) related deaths |
| Source | judiciary.uk record · original PDF |
| Responses published | 1 |
Text extracted from the PDF text layer. 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 Secretary of State for Health, Jeremy Hunt MP, House of Commons, London SW1A 0AA 1 CORONER I am Simon Raymond Nelson, HM Assistant Coroner for the Coroner Area of Manchester West. 2 CORONER’S LEGAL POWERS I 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 the 25th of January 2017 I commenced an investigation into the death of Peter O’Donnell, aged 77 years. The investigation concluded at the end of the inquest on the 13th March 2018. The conclusion of the Inquest was:- Against a background of extensive pre-existing natural disease Peter O’Donnell died from a recognised complication of necessary surgical intervention. The medical cause of death was certified as:- Ia Multiple organ failure Ib Sepsis Ic Hospital acquired pneumonia following hip replacement II Ischaemic heart disease 4 CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE DEATH The deceased was admitted to the private Beaumont Hospital on the 14th January 2017 for an elective right total hip replacement which proceeded uneventfully. On the morning of the 16th January he presented with symptoms of a chest infection. Thereafter by reason of ineffective communication between professionals; irregular observations and inadequate documentation opportunities to escalate his care were missed. Antibiotic therapy was significantly delayed. The deceased’s subsequent deterioration in particular from shortly before midnight on the 17th January 2017 went unrecognised until the decision to transfer him to the Royal Bolton Hospital was made at approximately 11:00 hours on the 18th January 2017. He suffered a cardiac arrest at 20:25 hours that day following which he did not regain consciousness with the fact of death being confirmed at 16:20 hours on the 21st January 2017. 1 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 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: During the Inquest evidence was heard that:- 1. Whilst an in-patient the care afforded to the deceased was consultant led. The consultant in question was an independent consultant orthopaedic surgeon who confirmed the absence of any formal agreement regarding the criteria in which he would be subsequently called into the hospital to undertake a review of his patient. The consultant maintained that it would be useful to have a document that detailed the circumstances of any future intervention. In the course of the inquest I was handed a copy of a report entitled “No Safety without Liability” written by the Centre for Health and the Public Interest (available at www.chpi.org.uk). Within that report is a recommendation that private hospital companies should directly employ surgeons, anaesthetists and physicians who work at their hospitals and should take on responsibility for monitoring their activities and appraising their performance. In this instance neither communication nor escalation procedures were documented. 2. A single Junior Doctor (Resident Medical Officer) was the sole Clinician providing post-operative care for patients. He was on duty 24/7 and asserted that a daily review of each patient would be adequate (although this would be a minimum and would depend on the condition of the individual patient). Both the monitoring and appraisal of each RMO remained with an outside Employment Agency rather than the private hospital in which they were based. Responsibility for training was similarly unclear. 3. Neither protocols nor procedures existed for the transfer of unwell patients to local acute hospitals. Following the death of Mr O’Donnell the Beaumont and local acute Hospital Trust liaised to formulate a proforma document which would detail the rationale for the transfer as well as including all relevant clinical information which would benefit the receiving Hospital. It is by no means certain that such procedures and documentation exist beyond this jurisdiction of Manchester West. 4. Private hospitals should be required to adhere to the same reporting requirements as NHS Hospitals in order to improve the chance of harm to patients being detected. 5. Following Mr O’Donnell’s death BMI Healthcare on behalf of the Beaumont Hospital instigated a root cause analysis investigation in the course of which it became clear that two registered General Nurses who were involved in the care afforded to Mr O’Donnell made a number of additions to both the observations chart and nursing notes after Mr O’Donnell had been transferred to the acute Hospital in direct contravention of Clause 10.3 within the Code detailing professional standards of practice and behaviour for Nurses and Midwives issued in 2015. 2 Whilst the BMA instigated its own independent disciplinary investigation I believe that the Nurse’s actions should have been reported forthwith to the Nursing and Midwifery Council as I believe would be the case in the public sector. Reporting should be mandatory in the private hospital sector. 6 ACTION SHOULD BE TAKEN In my opinion urgent action should be taken to prevent future deaths and I believe that you have the power to take such action. 7 YOUR RESPONSE You are under a duty to respond to this report within 56 days of the date of this report, namely by 15th May 2017. I, 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. 8 COPIES and PUBLICATION I have sent a copy of my report to the Chief Coroner and to the following Interested Persons:- (Sister) 1. 2. Fieldings Porter Solicitors 3. BMI Healthcare 4. 5. Royal Bolton Hospital 6. Hempsons Solicitors – 7. Centre for Health and Public Interest NES Healthcare I 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. Dated Signed 20th March 2018 Simon R Nelson, Assistant Coroner 3
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.
s = | Department | of Health | Your reference: MJL/YD/104-18 Ze Our reference: PFD 1125666 Mr Simon R Nelson ~ HM Coroner’s Court Paderborn House Howell Croft North Bolton BLI 10Y [May 2018 Thank you for your letter of 20 March to the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care about the death of Mr Peter O’Donnell. 1 am responding as Minister with responsibility for hospital care quality and patient safety. I was very saddened to read of the circumstances surrounding Mr O’Donnell’s death. Please pass my condolences to his family and loved ones. I appreciate this must be a difficult time for them. / Your Report raises several matters of concern and my officials have made enquiries with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) and the Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) in preparation of this reply. Firstly, I would like to make clear that independent hospitals are expected to meet the same Fundamental Standards for quality and safety of care just as any other registered provider. Indeed, you may be aware that the Secretary of State wrote to independent sector hospital provider chief executives on 7 May seeking their co-operation on a number of safety and quality issues’. Patient safety must be paramount in all healthcare settings which is why all NHS and independent hospitals are rated by the CQC. | ‘ pas gov ul/government/oublications/pasient-safety-letter-to-independent-healtheare-pravisers | i Independent hospitals are required to submit the monitoring data for NHS patients as expected by never events are reported to the stra and surgical outcomes are reported to the Natio would then be monitored as part of the contrac NHS. This is not mandatory for non-NHS monitoring system in place for i part of CQC’s inspection process their own robust internal system monitor quality of service provisi it to i Tam advised that the CQC carri Healthcare, Beaumont Hospital unannounced visit on 17 Septe patients were cared for out of part of its comprehensive ins hospitals. Overall, BMI Beaumont Hospital was rated as ‘Good’. The CQC’s of this service included a review df assessment and monitoring of pati processes in case of emergency) a same quality and safety NHS trusts. For example, ve information system (STEIS) nal Joint Registry. Outcomes tual monitoring process with the tegic executi patients and there is no other mandatory dependent healthcare services. However, as would expect providers to have developed identify, monitor and mitigate risks and On. ed out an announced inspection of BMI on 2 and 3 September 2015, and an mber between 6 and 7.30pm to check how hours. pection programme of independent healthcare The CQC carried out this inspection as inspection training and appraisal rates, staffing levels, ent risk (including escalation and transfer d monitoring of patient outcomes. A copy of the report can be found at Wwww.cd¢.org uk/location/1-128758526. i Registered providers must notify the C incidents that affect their service o; injury and death of a person using |the required can be found at www.caclor acute-hospitals. [am advised that BMI Beaumont EH regarding the death of Mr O’Donn responsible for this service contact’ incident and the enquiry was closed internal investigation. Information will now be used as part of the CQ the next inspection. I can provide assurance that the C IC and protocols as part of its inspeetin QC about certain changes, events and € people who use it. This includes serious service. A full list of the notifications -uk/guidance-providers/independent- th ospital submitted a statutory notification ll on 27 January 2017. The CQC inspector d the registered manager to discuss the pending the outcome of the inquest and from both the investigation and the inquest "s monitoring intelligence in the planning of reviews escalation and transfer procedures N process under Regulation 12: Safe care | | | “— : Department of Health | and Treatment, Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. In accordance with Regulation | 12 (2) (i) CQC would expect that where responsibility for the care and treatment of service users is shared with, or transferred to, other persons, there are systems in place for working with such other persons to ensure that timely care planning takes place to ensure the health, safety and welfare of service users. The independent health care sector is diverse and many independent providers deliver a wide range of services for both adults and children, including specialist and enhanced healthcare in an array of settings and in a number of ways. However, we recognise that the sector delivers many of the same types of services as acute NHS providers, and is increasingly being commissioned to deliver services on behalf of the NHS. While the CQC’s regulatory model is tailored to each sector and type of service, it does also take into account the need to ensure providers are treated equally when delivering similar types of services and that all providers are regulated in an appropriate and proportionate way. This is critical to providing assurance about the quality and safety of these services. CQC has therefore, where possible, aligned its regulatory model for the independent health sector with other sectors including the NHS acute and primary medical services. The CQC published its analysis of the quality and safety of care provided by independent acute hospitals across England on 11 April. The report, ‘The state of care in independent hospitals’ is available at www.cqc.org.uk/publications/major-report/state- care-independent- acute- hospitals, and provides for the first time a comprehensive picture of the quality of care provided. While the report found that the majority of independent acute hospitals are providing high quality care for patients, 41 per cent of hospitals were rated as requiring improvement and | per cent, inadequate, for safety. Relevant to the concerns of your Report, the CQC identified a lack of formalised governance procedures, meaning that hospitals were not effectively monitoring the work of consultants, and a failure to monitor clinical outcomes and to prepare for the possibility of clinical deterioration in a patient’s condition. As outlined above, the CQC is working with providers through its inspections and enforcement powers to help independent hospitals understand where improvements are needed and t to hold ther to account for delivering those improvements. Also of importance to the matters of concern you raise is the Paterson Inquiry, set up following the conviction of the surgeon Jan Paterson, to learn lessons from Ian Paterson’s malpractice and other past and current practices to enhance the safety and quality of care both in the independent sector and the NHS. The Paterson Inquiry will address issues relating to the conditions under which doctors provide services within independent hospitals, including levels of supervision, The Terms of Reference include: ‘A comparison of the accountability and responsibility for the safety and quality of care received between the independent sector and in the NHS; including the roles of hospital providers and others in appraising, reporting, considering concerns and monitoring as regards healthcare professionals’ activity levels, conduct and performance, .. And will consider, among other issues, the ‘...arrangements for assuring that healthcare professionals maintain appropriate professional standards and competence, including appraisal, revalidation, scope of practice, and the role of hospital providers, professional and quality regulators, and other oversight bodies’. i [ if The full Terms of Reference ate available at www. patersoninquiry.org.uk/terms-of-reference/ . We expect the Inquiry to report and make its recommendations in the summer of 2019. Given the relevance of the concerns you have raised, you may wish to share these with the Paterson Inquiry. The contact details for the Inquiry are: Email: enquiries@patersonin ui org.uk Tel. no: 0207 972 1295 Or you can write to the Inquiry at PO Box 879, LS1 9RZ i Finally, with regard to your last area of concern, pertaining to the referral of registered nurses to the NMC, I can confirm that the NMC’s guidance applies to all employers of nurses and midwives, whether NHS or independent sector. It is for the employer to decide whether to make a referral based on the circumstances of the case. Referrals must always be made if the employer believes the conduct competence, health or character of a nurse or midwife : i i } H B Department | | of Health | presents a risk to patient safety. Further details can be found at www.nme.org.uk/concerns-nurses-midwives/dealing-concerns/services- employers/ f i i I hope that you find this information helpful. Tha k you for bringing the circumstances of Mr O’Donnell’s death to my attention.
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.