Prevention of Future Deaths reports · 2019
Regulation 28 report to prevent future deaths, reference 2019-0077, written 1 Feb 2019. A coroner writes one of these when an inquest reveals a risk that could cause further deaths unless something changes.
| Date of report | 1 Feb 2019 |
|---|---|
| Reference | 2019-0077 |
| Deceased | Stephen Harte |
| Coroner | James Bennett |
| Coroner area | Birmingham and Solihull |
| Category | Hospital Death (Clinical Procedures and medical management) related deaths · Mental Health related deaths |
| Organisation named | Birmingham and Solihull Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust |
| Source | judiciary.uk record · original PDF |
| Responses published | 2 |
Text extracted from the PDF text layer. Reproduced verbatim, including the scan's own layout.
REGULATION 28 REPORT TO PREVENT FUTURE DEATHS THIS REPORT IS BEING SENT TO: 1) Birmingham and Solihull Clinical Commissioning Group 2) Care Quality Commission 1 CORONER I am James Bennett Assistant Coroner for Birmingham and Solihull. 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 04/09/2018 I commenced an investigation into the death of Stephen Keith Harte. The investigation concluded at the end of an Inquest with a jury on 13th February 2019. The jury’s conclusion was the death was Drug Related. 4 CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE DEATH At 4.33hrs on 18/08/18 Stephen Harte was found unresponsive in his room at the Tamarind Centre (a medium secure mental health unit). Despite emergency medical treatment he could not be resuscitated, and he was pronounced deceased at the scene. A post-mortem blood test revealed he had taken a recognised fatal dose of heroin. Mr Harte had a long history of illicit drug use but appeared to have been abstinent since 2016. Following a post mortem the medical cause of death was determined to be: 1a. Heroin toxicity. 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. – 1) I heard evidence about the potential routes for drugs to enter the medium secure unit. This included: (a) Residents are allowed unsupervised telephone calls to order food from external ‘takeaways’ of their choice and the food is not searched upon arrival. Historically, residents were only allowed to order from an approved list of ‘takeaways’. However, following a Care Quality Commission inspection the CQC deemed this was too restrictive and asked that the unit relax its rules. The evidence was unclear whether the CQC had similarly asked other units to relax their rules. (b) Those residents allowed unsupervised leave are not typically searched upon their return. They walk thought a scanner, but this is unlikely to reveal small quantities of drugs on their person. 2) The author of Birmingham and Solihull Mental Health Foundation NHS Trust’s Root Cause Analysis report gave evidence that in his opinion these two routes were the most likely mechanism by which Stephen Harte obtained the drugs that killed him, and that the rules around ‘takeaways’ needed revisiting. I also heard evidence that staff are not typically searched upon entering the unit. They also walk thought the scanner, but this is unlikely to reveal small quantities of drugs on their person. Further, whilst they are required to leave personal belongings in lockers, they are allowed to take their own food on to the unit which is also not searched. 3) 4) My ongoing concern is that drugs can too easily enter the unit. 6 ACTION SHOULD BE TAKEN In my opinion action should be taken to prevent future deaths and I believe 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 26 April 2019. 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: 1) Stephen Harte’s Next of Kin. 2) Birmingham and Solihull Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust. 3) West Midlands Police. I have also sent it to NHS England who may find it useful or of interest. 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. 9 01/02/2019 Signature James Bennett Assistant Coroner Birmingham and Solihull
2 responses 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.
Roisin Fallon-Williams
Chief Executive Officer
Trust Headquarters, B1
50 Summer Hill Road
Brimingham B1 3RB
Mr James Bennett
Assistant Coroner, Birmingham and Solihull
Birmingham Coroner’s Court
50 Newton Street
Birmingham
B4 6NE
26 September 2019
Dear Mr Bennett,
REGULATION 28 PREVENTION OF FUTURE DEATH REPORT – STEPHEN HARTE DECEASED
On 4 September 2018 you commenced an investigation into the death of Stephen Keith Harte. The
investigation concluded at the end of an Inquest with a jury on 13th February 2019. The jury’s
conclusion was the death was Drug Related. At 4.33hrs on 18 August 2018 Stephen Harte was found
unresponsive in his room at the Tamarind Centre (a medium secure mental health unit). Despite
emergency medical treatment he could not be resuscitated, and he was pronounced deceased at the
scene. A post-mortem blood test revealed he had taken a recognised fatal dose of heroin. Mr Harte
had a long history of illicit drug use but appeared to have been abstinent since 2016.
During the course of the inquest the evidence revealed matters giving rise to concern as follows:-
1) The potential routes for drugs to enter the medium secure unit. This included:
(a) Residents are allowed unsupervised telephone calls to order food from external ‘takeaways’ of
their choice and the food is not searched upon arrival. Historically, residents were only allowed to
order from an approved list of ‘takeaways’. However, following a Care Quality Commission inspection
the CQC deemed this was too restrictive and asked that the unit relax its rules. The evidence was
unclear whether the CQC had similarly asked other units to relax their rules.
Following the CQC inspection of Birmingham and Solihull Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust in
March 2017, the Trust received notification from the CQC that it was in breach of regulation 13 due to
the restrictions that it had in place for service users to select takeaway food from establishments with a
hygiene rating of 4 and above. This was considered to be a ‘blanket restriction’. The CQC stated in
their report ‘The trust had taken a blanket approach to searches and ordering of food from take away
restaurants. The decisions made at board level in relation to the restrictions did not take account of
individual risk assessment or patient choice’. The Trust was required to remove this restriction and
service users now have the ability to order takeaway food from any establishment of their choice. We
note that this regulation 28 report has been issued to the CQC and await their response to you on this
matter.
Chair: Sue Davis, CBE
Chief Executive: Roisin Fallon-Williams
Customer Relations Mon – Fri, 8am – 8pm Tel: 0800 953 0045 Text: 07985 883 509
Email: bsmhft.customerrelations@nhs.net Website: www.bsmhft.nhs.uk
(b) Those residents allowed unsupervised leave are not typically searched upon their return. They
walk though a scanner, but this is unlikely to reveal small quantities of drugs on their person.
The Trust Policy on the searching of service users in our secure care inpatient wards states that a
search will be conducted on all service users returning from unescorted leave. This is in addition to
service users walking through the scanner. We recognise that service users may at times secrete
drugs in body cavities and that our regular search approach may not identify these. In addition to this,
we have therefore implemented a wide range of additional controls to detect any drugs entering the
unit. These include:-
A full urine drug screen across site if there is any suspicion that drugs are on the unit
Random environmental searches ie room/ ward searches are conducted on the wards again based
on intelligence, positive responses from the drug dog or just ward based regular random searches
Service users have at least one random monthly drug screen, but may vary dependent on
individualised risk and care plans
The drug dog attends fortnightly. We are working closely with our local police liaison officer to see
whether we can use their police dogs on the premises in addition to our regular search dog
Random change of clothes search following service users returning from unescorted community
leave if particular concerns are noted about individualised patients
Increased security on site including the perimeter of the grounds of our inpatient unit
Testing of the waste water supply to try to detect whether substances are potentially in the unit.
The purchase of an amnesty box specifically for drugs. This idea came from a presentation at the
Physical Health link workers day, from a gentleman from City Hospital who spoke about how an
A&E department trialled it and it was successful
Implementation of a monthly substance misuse meeting
In addition to the above, we now have a substance use strategy in place in our secure care services.
The substance use programme in the BSMHFT secure services is a multidisciplinary and multisite
programme. It supports the patients throughout their care pathway. The programme operates on
principles of harm minimisation. The intervention starts before admission to the units, at time of
assessment.
a) Assessment :
1) There are specific parts in the admission assessment documentations dealing with the substance
use. This helps to identify the immediate needs and identifies patients in need of more detailed
substance use assessment.
2) Every eligible patient will have an initial substance use assessment completed post admission.
3) Where a need is identified a comprehensive assessment will be undertaken by the specialist
members of substance use programme.
4) In addition substance use issues are identified as part of risk reduction work, mental illness work
and physical health assessments.
b) Treatment
1) The treatment starts as early as possible and is directed through the care plans. Treatment is
delivered through CBIT model. Based on the needs group as well as individual treatments being
available. The treatments are delivered by professionals trained in CBIT. The groups run in two
phases- phase 1 is focussed on psychoeducation and phase 2 on relapse prevention.
2
2) Random and regular drug screening is available. We use oral fluid or urine samples. The samples
are tested using state of art machines and can test more than a 1000 substances depending on
needs and suspicions.
3) In addition to staff delivered interventions, every patient will be offered peer delivered interventions
through a 12 step NA programme that is run within the hospitals.
4) Individual patients will have needs based pharmacological interventions.
5) Substance use treatment is delivered as part of risk reduction work where necessary.
6) Relapse prevention work is also available in the community on 1-1 basis.
c) Education:
1) An educational programme relating to substance use runs regularly including 2 day training
sessions for clinical staff at all levels (level 2) and supplementary ward based training sessions.
2) Supervision is on offer for nursing staff members on the ward and other members of the substance
use programme.
3) Patient education through the CBIT level 1 and key worker sessions is available.
4) The no abstinence (NA) education programme has developed a specific poster highlighting the
risks of opiate use after a period of abstinence The NA programme serves to improve patient
education from peers and other ex users.
5) Bespoke training programmes are available around specific substance use issues.
d) Resources:
1) Currently the substance use programme has two dedicated band 7 nurses and two dedicated band
5 substance use practitioners. The programme is led by a consultant forensic psychiatrist and
supported in advisory and development capacity by a psychologist, an occupational therapist, a
senior nurse and a pharmacist. Every ward has a minimum of one identified substance use lead.
2) Specific guidelines are developed and regularly updated on various aspects of substance use.
Reduction in risk of deaths by a drug overdose strategy
A separate strategy is in development around reduction of harm from drug overdose. This strategy
development process predates the incident leading to Mr Harte’s death.
1) The first step was development of patient and staff information leaflets about the risk of opiate use
after a period of abstinence. The leaflet was co produced by the substance use lead and a patient.
The leaflet has been available in the Trust since the Summer of 2018.
2) One of the significant outcomes has been the development of a very comprehensive risk
assessment tool to identify patients all high risk of drug overdose.
3) The proposed strategy for reducing the clinical risk of overdose at high risk times for example
during external leave and discharge, includes identification of high risk individuals early in the
admission, administration of a specifically developed risk assessment for suitable patients, offering
targeted educational sessions to the identified individuals, consideration of starting the patients on
opiate replacement in patients where the risk of opiate use continues to be high. The strategy is
also considering making available naloxone to patients to reduce risk of death on discharge.
The strategy is yet to be finalised, however it is anticipated that this will be approved and in place
from January 2020.
3
3) I also heard evidence that staff are not typically searched upon entering the unit. They also walk
thought the scanner, but this is unlikely to reveal small quantities of drugs on their person. Further,
whilst they are required to leave personal belongings in lockers, they are allowed to take their own
food on to the unit which is also not searched.
Our current arrangement within our inpatient facilities is that staff are not typically searched upon
entering the unit and that this would only occur if we had clear grounds for concern that particular staff
members were facilitating access to drugs on the unit. We do however have the drug dog which visits
our secure care and acute care wards and would detect any traces of drugs or illicit substances on
members of staff.
It may be of interest to note that since April 2019, there has been one incident of illicit substances
being detected within our secure care ward environments, in comparison to a total of 9 incidents
during the previous six months. We continue to monitor the impact of our approach to minimise the
risk of drugs entering the unit. We hope that the additional controls that we describe above will
continue to have a sustained impact on safety within our secure care inpatient wards and would like to
take this opportunity to both thank you for bringing this to our attention and to express our sincere
condolences once again to the family of Mr Harte.
Yours sincerely
Roisin Fallon-Williams
Chief Executive Officer
4
For the attention of James Bennett Assistant Coroner Birmingham and Solihull 03/10/2019 Dear Mr Bennett Care Quality Commission Citygate Gallowgate Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 4PA Telephone: 03000 616161 Fax: 03000 616171 Re: Stephen Keith Harte (deceased) Regulation 28 report to prevent future deaths: Thank you for bringing to our attention your concerns regarding the death of Mr Stephen Keith Harte. May I apologise for not responding on time to your previous request to the Regulation 28 notice we received. Matters of concern: Residents are allowed unsupervised telephone calls to order food from external ‘takeaways’ of their choice and the food is not searched upon arrival. Historically, residents were only allowed to order from an approved list of ‘takeaways’. However, following a Care Quality Commission inspection the CQC deemed this was too restrictive and asked that the unit relax its rules. The evidence was unclear whether the CQC had similarly asked other units to relax their rules. Those residents allowed unsupervised leave are not typically searched upon their return. They walk through a scanner, but this is unlikely to reveal small quantities of drugs on their person. The author of Birmingham and Solihull Mental Health Foundation NHS Trust’s Root Cause Analysis report gave evidence that in his opinion these two routes were the most likely mechanism by which Stephen Harte obtained the drugs that killed him, and that the rules around ‘takeaways’ needed revisiting. I also heard evidence that staff are not typically searched upon entering the unit. They also walk thought the scanner, but this is unlikely to reveal small quantities of drugs on their person. Further, whilst they are required to leave personal belongings in lockers, they are allowed to take their own food on to the unit which is also not searched. My ongoing concern is that drugs can too easily enter the unit. The Care Quality Commission commenced a comprehensive inspection of Birmingham and Solihull Mental Health Foundation NHS trust 27th - 31st March 2017 and published the reports 2nd August 2017. At that inspection we found the trust had implemented blanket restrictions with regards to the ordering of food from takeaways and in relation to patient searches. We informed the trust that it was appropriate for them to provide patients with information on hygiene ratings and to explain the benefits. However, patients with mental capacity had the right to order takeaways from the shop of their choice, and the policy did not promote an individualised approach to patient’s choice or risk. We 1 informed the trust in our report that the decision of the trust board in relation to searches and ordering of food from take away restaurants did not take account of individual risk assessment or patient choice. Because of our findings we told the trust that they must ensure that it undertakes active individual assessment of risks posed by patients returning from leave. We told the trust that they should review practice of not allowing patients to buy food from a takeaway shop of their choice. We found that the blanket restrictions imposed on patients was a breach of Regulation 13 HSCA (RA) Regulation 2014 Safeguarding service users from abuse and improper treatment. A requirement notice was placed on the trust for them to address the breach of Regulation 13. The Care Quality Commission did not ask the trust to relax its rules in relation to takeaways but as stated above the trust was asked to review its practice of not allowing patients to buy food from a takeaway shop of their choice if they had capacity to make that decision. In the case of other health providers who had similar blanket restrictions the Care Quality Commission would ask them to consider those restrictions in relation to people’s capacity to make their own informed decision or where the organisations mental health assessment shows there is a risk to that patient. The Care Quality Commission did tell the trust that it must ensure that active and individual assessment of risks posed to patients who return from leave and use this to base decision on searches. The trust carried out a comprehensive review of its search policy and implemented a security policy and a new search policy in response to our requirement notice. During our inspections we do not review the searching of staff entering units although for some services we would review the security arrangement. Any decisions to search staff would be a decision taken by each individual organisation. The Care Quality Commission would review what action an organisation was taking if they informed us they had a problem of drugs entering their units and would comment on the issue within our reports. We visited the trust in November and December 2018 and carried out a comprehensive inspection as part of our regular inspection programme. At that inspection we found the trust had reviewed and implemented a new search and security policy based on risk assessment. We did not find any breaches related to blanket restrictions. I hope this response helps to address your concerns. However, if you require any further information please do not hesitate to contact me. Yours sincerely Head of Hospital Inspection Hospitals Directorate Care Quality Commission 2
See every Prevention of Future Deaths report matching Birmingham and Solihull Mental Health NHS Foundation 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.