Prevention of Future Deaths reports · 2018

Michael Drewell

Regulation 28 report to prevent future deaths, reference 2018-0259, written 30 Aug 2018. A coroner writes one of these when an inquest reveals a risk that could cause further deaths unless something changes.

Date of report30 Aug 2018
Reference2018-0259
DeceasedMichael Drewell
CoronerPhilip Holden
Coroner areaWest Yorkshire (Eastern)
CategoryHospital Death (Clinical Procedures and medical management) related deaths
Organisation namedLeeds Teaching Hospitals 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.

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:

Dr Yvette Oade, Chief Medical Officer, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS
Trust, Trust Headquarters, Beckett Street, Leeds, LS9 7TF

1 | CORONER

| am Philip Holden, Assistant Coroner, for the coroner area of West Yorkshire (Eastern)

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 T INVESTIGATION and INQUEST

On3” January 2018 | commenced an investigation into the death of Michael John
Drewell, aged 57. The investigation concluded at the end of the inquest on 22" August
2018. The conclusion of the inquest was that Mr Drewell died of a pulmonary
thromboembolism.

aI CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE DEATH

On the 16"" November 2017 Mr Drewell fell of his bike whilst travelling to work. He
attended at Leeds General Infirmary and was diagnosed with a displaced ultra capsular
fracture of his right hip. He subsequently underwent surgery and his hip fracture was
fixed with cannulated screws.

On the 17 November 2017 his treating Consultant advised that he take Tinzaparin for
six weeks to reduce the risk of Deep Vein Thrombosis.

He was discharged from hospital on the 22" November 2017 and was provided with a
four week prescription for Tinzaparin. That prescription was given in accordance with
National Guidelines but was not for the period of time, (ie six weeks), as advised by the
Consultant. The prescription ended two days prior to his death.

It is not possible to say whether the ending of the prescription more than minimally
contributed to his death.

On the 22™ December 2017 he suffered a cardiac arrest at home. Paramedics attended
but were unable to resuscitate him. He was then taken to the Leeds General Infirmary
and death was pronounced at 2355 hours that day.

He died of a pulmonary thromboembolism which was likely a complication of his earlier
hip surgery.

[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. —

The treating Consultant advised that Mr Drewell, because of his height and weight, be
given the anti-coagulant Tinzaparin for six weeks rather than four weeks as was usual.
He recorded his advice on the handwritten records at hospital following a ward round the
day after surgery.

When the Junior Doctor came to prescribe Tinzaparin several days later he likely did not
consult the handwritten notes and only prescribed four weeks Tinzaparin immediately
before Mr Drewell’s discharge from hospital.

Evidence was heard that Junior Doctors would not be expected to consult the
handwritten notes when prescribing drugs in accordance with NICE Guidelines.

It is of concern that the advice of a Senior Clinician was not followed and, further, that
his advice was not placed upon the electronic notes.

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 25" October 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

| 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.

30” August 2018

Philip Holden
Assistant Coroner
West Yorkshire (Eastern)

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 Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust (PDF)
The Leeds Teaching Hospitals

Date: 22 October 2018 NHS Trust
Our ref: YO/bb

Mr P Holden
Assistant Coroner 2¢

West Yorkshire (Eastern) Uy
Coroner’s Office and Court %
71 Northgate
Wakefield WF1 38S

www. leedsth.nhs.uk
Dear Sir UAT? jalee| uc (MQ. 22.P-\P

Inquest touching the death of Michael John DREWELL

i refer to your correspondence of 30th August 2018, received on 31st August
regarding the inquest touching the death of Michael John Drewell and the Regulation
28 Report fo Prevent Future Deaths in respact of this case. Your letter has been
forwarded on for me as Chief Medical Officer for the Trust to respond to.

| can confirm that the contents of your Regulation 28 Report have been shared with
the relevant staff to enable us to provide you with a comprehensive response.

in your report you highlight that your matters of concern are:

(1) The treating consultant advised that Mr Drewell, because of his height and
weight, be given the anticoagulant Tinzaparin for six weeks rather than four weeks
aS was usual. He recorded his advice on the handwritten records at hospital
following a ward round the day after surgery. When the junior doctor came to
prescribe Tinzaparin several days later he did not consult the handwritten notes and
only prescribed four weeks Tinzaparin immediately before Mr Drewall's discharge
from hospital.

(2) The advice of a senior clinician was not followed and, further, that his advice
was not placed upon the electronic notes.

The team has considered the contents of your correspondence very carefully and the
responses fo the matters of concem you have ralsed in the report are detailed below.

The clinical team have advised me that Mr Drewell was a 57-year-old gentleman
who fell from his bicycle whilst travelling to work on 16th November 2017. He
attended Leeds General Infirmary and was diagnosed with a displaced fracture of his
right hip. On the day following surgery, the orthopaedic consultant advised that Mr,

Chair Dr Linda Pollard cee. Hono Chief Executive Julian Hartley ee,
The Leeds Teaching Hospitals incorporating: Cs x mbes df
Chapel Allerton Hospital Leeds Dental Institute Seacroft Hospital Leeds Children’s Hospital NH ee

St James's University Hospital Leeds General Infirmary Wharfedale Hospital Leeds Cancer Centre bane nner rataaaal wrasa

Drewell take Tinzaparin for six weeks to reduce the risk of deep vein thrombosis, He
was discharged on 22nd November and was provided instead with a four week
course of Tinzaperin, a prescription given in accordance with NICE guidance.

On 22nd December 2017 Mr Drewell suffered a cardiac arrest at home and
paramedics were unable to resuscitate him. He was pronounced dead at 23.55 that
day. A post-mortem examination revealed that Mr Drewell had suffered a pulmonary
embolism. The course of Tinzaparin had stopped two days prior to Mr Drewell’s
collapse.

At the inquest it was accepted that it was not possible to say that the ending of the
prescription more than minimally contributed fo his death. The Trust provided a root
cause analysis summary that concluded that the correct dose of Tinzaparin had
been prescribed for a gentleman of Mr Drewell’s height and weight and that there
had been no lapses in care. Tinzaparin was prescribed at discharge according to
NICE guidance. The trust has therefore determined that, notwithstanding the request
by an individual consultant, Tinzaparin was correctly prescribed for Mr Drewell and it
is not possible to say that a longer course of the anticoagulant would have prevented
his death.

In your Regulation 28 Report you hightight the fact that the junior doctor did not
consult the hand-written medical records before prescribing the discharge
medication. | am sure that you will agree that it is impractical for junior doctors to
comprehensively review the medical record in its entirety when completing the
electronic discharge advice note (EDAN) and prescription. It is therefore imperative
that if individual clinicians decide to prescribe ‘off protocel’ they either action this
themselves personally, or leave clear unambiguous Instructions within the electronic
record. This can be done in two ways; either the eMeds electronic prescribing chart
can be annotated or the EDAN can be pre-populated with specific discharge advice.
It is regrettable that neither of these were done on this occasion and | have written to
the Clinical Directors and asked that they remind all clinicians about the importance
of robust handover and communication.

| can reassure you that good practice is already embedded within many clinical
areas throughout the Trust. For example, Elderly Medicine patients with pelvic
fractures who are being discharged to care in the community (CIC) beds have
Tinzaparin continued until they are weight bearing after discharge. An instruction to
this effect is added to the electronic drug chart and this information is then pulled
through automatically to the EDAN. In addition, our pharmacists will also add
electronic notes regarding discharge medication advice following multi-disciplinary
team meetings with treating clinicians.

Thank you for bringing these matters to my attention. I do hope that this response
has assured you that the Trust has given careful consideration to the matters of

The Leeds Teaching Hospitals

concern you have raised. If | can be of any further assistance pleadgigd! Abt hesitate
to contact me.

Kind regards.

Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust

Chair Dr Linda Pollard cee 01 Henou Chief Executive Julian Hartley

The Leeds Teaching Hospttals Incorporating:
Chapel Allerton Hospital Leeds Dental Institute Seacroft Hospital Leeds Children's Hospital
St James's University Hospital Leeds General Infirmary Wharfedale Hospital Leeds Cancer Centre

Related reports

Other reports by Philip Holden

See all →

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

See all →

Track Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust

See every Prevention of Future Deaths report matching Leeds Teaching Hospitals 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.