Prevention of Future Deaths reports · 2018

Mary Ryder

Regulation 28 report to prevent future deaths, reference 2018-0323, written 27 Sep 2018. A coroner writes one of these when an inquest reveals a risk that could cause further deaths unless something changes.

Date of report27 Sep 2018
Reference2018-0323
DeceasedMary Ryder
CoronerAlison Mutch
Coroner areaManchester South
CategoryHospital Death (Clinical Procedures and medical management) 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

REGULATION 28 REPORT TO PREVENT FUTURE DEATHS

THIS REPORT IS BEING SENT TO: The Secretary of State for Health
CORONER

| am Alison Mutch ,Senior Coroner, for the coroner area of South
Manchester

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 21% August 2017 | commenced an investigation into the death of
Mary Barbara Ryder. The investigation concluded on the 26"
September2018 and the conclusion was one of short narrative-Died from
| a pulmonary embolism - a recognised complication of necessary cancer
| surgery diagnosed on admission to Tameside General Hospital and
exacerbated by an infection of her surgical wound.

The medica! cause of death was 1a Pulmonary embolism 1bSurgery for
bladder cancer
Il Resection of bladder cancer

|

4 | Mary Barbara Ryder was diagnosed with bladder cancer. She underwent
surgery on 10th July 2017 at Stepping Hill Hospital. Post-operatively she
was given Clexane for 28 days. She was discharged on 27th July 2017.
She self-administered Clexane for the remaining period of 10 days.
Further Clexane was not prescribed. Her mobility remained decreased.
There was no further clinical review regarding Clexane. Her wound was
large and was treated in the community by the District Nursing Team in

accordance with the Tissue Viability Service Plan. On 18th August 2017

she saw the surgical consultant. He referred her for an out-patient CTPA.
NICE guidance states that in such a situation, a D-dimer should be
obtained - one was not done. Her would was clean and heaithy and she
returned home. On 19th August 2017 her health deteriorated significantly.
On 20th August 2017 she had pronounced chest pains and was admitted
to Tameside General Hospital.

It was identified that her wound was infected. Antibiotics were given. Her
D-dimer was very high and a pulmonary embolism was diagnosed.
Anticoagulation was given. She deteriorated rapidly on the evening of
20th August 2017. She died on 21st August 2017 at Tameside General
Hospital. :

CORONER'S CONCERNS

During the course of the inquest, the evidence revealed matters giving
tise 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 inquest heard that:

The guidance nationally is to prescribe clexane for 28 days after an
operation. However, the guidance does not suggest that some cases may
require longer where a patients mobility remains reduced. There does not
appear to be an emphasis on the need to review the situation throughout
the post-operative period after a discharge home.

ACTION SHOULD BE TAKEN

In my opinion, action should be taken to prevent future deaths and |
believe you 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 22nd November 2018. |, the coroner, may
extend the period.

nN

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 —_ ae of Mary Ryder,
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.

Alison Mutch OBE
HM Senior Coroner
27.09.2018

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 Social Care (PDF)
ay From Caroline Dinenage MP-

D ep artm ent Minister of State for Care
of Health & 39 Victoria Street
Social Care SWiK OEU

020 7210 4850

Your Ref: 8041/CH
PFD-1151078

Ms Alison Patricia Mutch
HM Coroner's Court

1 Mount Tabor Street
Stockport SK] 3AG

Reor as (dude,

Thank you for your correspondence of 27 September to Matt Hancock about the
death of Ms Mary Barbara Ryder. I am replying as Minister with responsibility for
patient safety and hospital care quality.

14% Nov 2018

Firstly, I would like to say how saddened I was to read of the circumstances
surrounding Ms Mary Ryder’s death. If you have the opportunity, please pass on my
sincerest condolences to Ms Ryder’s family and loved ones.

My officials have made enquiries with the National Institute for Health and Care
Excellence (NICE) on the matter of concern you have raised.

I am advised that NICE has considered carefully the concern raised but does not find
that its guidelines require amendment. I hope this reply will explain NICE’s position.

NICE’s guideline on ‘Venous thromboembolism (VTE) in over 16s: reducing the risk
of hospital-acquired deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism”, NG89
published in March 2018, includes a section on abdominal surgery that recommends
to consider extending pharmacological VTE prophylaxis (which may be low
molecular weight heparin (LMWH, such as Clexane) or fondaparinux sodium) to

28 days postoperatively for people who have had major cancer surgery in the
abdomen.

1.14.3 Add pharmacological VTE prophylaxis for a minimum of 7 days for people
undergoing abdominal surgery whose risk of VTE outweighs their risk of bleeding,

1 https: www.nice,org.uk/puidance ng89

taking into account individual patient factors and according to clinical judgement.
Choose either:

0 LMWH[4jor
* — fondaparinux sodium[ 5]. [2018]

1.14.4 Consider extending pharmacological VTE prophylaxis to 28 days
postoperatively for people who have had major cancer surgery in the abdomen.
[2018]

Tam further advised that this guideline also says that all medical, surgical and
trauma patients at risk of VTE (that is, deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary
embolism (PE)) and bleeding should be reassessed at the point of consultant review
or if their clinical condition changes (Recommendation 1.1.8).

In addition, NICE has published a guideline on ‘Venous thromboembolic diseases:
diagnosis, management and thrombophilia testing", CG144, last updated in 2015,
which includes recommendations on investigating for possible PE and on when to
offer a D-dimer test and computed tomography pulmonary angiogram (CTPA).

The guideline recommends offering a D-dimer test in patients in whom PE is
suspected and with an unlikely two-level PE Wells score (clinica! prediction rule for
estimating the probability of DVT and PE ~ see Recommendation 1.1.10 and table 2
of the guideline).

The guideline goes on to recommend that patients with active cancer and confirmed
proximal DVT or PE should be offered LMWH, and to continue the LMWH for

six months. At six months, the risks and benefits of continuing anticoagulation should
then be assessed (Recommendation 1.2.2).

Based on the information available, NICE’s assessment is that the guidelines make
appropriate recommendations on this topic, and do not need to be amended at this
time.

[ hope this reply is helpful. Thank you for bringing these concerns to our attention.
CAAA

ite ai =

1 hitng:l/www nice, org ul/guidance’ ‘www, nice.org.uk/guidance-cg144

Related reports

Other reports by Alison Mutch

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.