Prevention of Future Deaths reports · 2018

Peter O’Donnell

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 report20 Mar 2018
Reference2018-0201
DeceasedPeter O’Donnell
CoronerSimon Nelson
Coroner areaManchester (West)
CategoryHospital Death (Clinical Procedures and medical management) related deaths
Sourcejudiciary.uk record · original PDF
Responses published1

The report

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

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 Department of Health (PDF)
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.

Related reports

Other reports by Simon Nelson

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.