Prevention of Future Deaths reports · 2019

Graham Tailby

Regulation 28 report to prevent future deaths, reference 2019-0092, written 19 Mar 2019. A coroner writes one of these when an inquest reveals a risk that could cause further deaths unless something changes.

Date of report19 Mar 2019
Reference2019-0092
DeceasedGraham Tailby
CoronerJohn Hobson
Coroner areaManchester City
CategoryHospital Death (Clinical Procedures and medical management) related deaths
Organisation namedPennine Care NHS Foundation Trust · Pennine Acute Hospitals NHS Trust · Greater Manchester Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust · Salford Royal NHS Foundation Trust
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 

This report is made under paragraph 7, Schedule 5, of the Coroners and 
Justice Act 2009 and regulations 28 and 29 of the Coroners 
(Investigations) Regulations 2013. 

Recipients 
This report is being sent to: 

  Prof Matthew Makin, MD of NMGH, Penine Acute Hospitals NHS Trust 

Copied to: 

  Greater Manchester Mental Health NHS Trust c/o Hempsons Solicitors 

Coroner 

I am John Hobson, Assistant Coroner for the Manchester City Area. 

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. 

Investigation and Inquest 

On 19th January 2016 an investigation was commenced into the death of Graham 
Tailby, aged 58.  The investigation concluded at the end of a jury inquest on 8th 
March 2019 and which was heard before me. 

The cause of death was found to be: 

Broncopneumonia 

1a 
1b   Combined sertraline and fentanyl toxicity 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 The conclusion of the inquest was as follows:  

Mr Tailby died as a result of a combined toxicity of prescribed drugs but it was 
unclear as to how that toxicity occurred or developed. 

Circumstances of death 

Mr Graham Tailby was a patient detained under the Mental Health Act 1983 on 
Juniper Ward, Park House, North Manchester General Hospital, Delaunays Road, 
Crumpsall, Manchester. 

On the evening of 22nd December 2015 Mr Tailby was discovered unresponsive in 
his room during a 1:15 minute observation of a type and frequency that had been 
carried out consistently throughout the day and during which no concerns were 
raised by staff tasked with completing observations. 

Upon discovering Mr Tailby to be unresponsive, an alarm was raised followed by a 
crash call by way of dialling emergency line 2222.  

The crash team attended Mr Tailby’s room on the ward where CPR had been 
commenced by staff attending in response to the alarm. 

Assessment and appropriate medical interventions were carried out by the crash 
team utilising equipment from the crash trolley which had been brought to the room, 
but despite all efforts the decision was taken to cease further action and Mr Tailby’s 
death was confirmed at 20:00 hours. 

Coroner’s concerns 

During the course of the inquest the evidence revealed a matter 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 is as follows.   

The leader of the crash team gave comprehensive and clear evidence as to 
the appraisal of Mr Tailby’s situation upon his emergency arrival on the ward 
in response to the crash call and the decisions that were then taken.   

His evidence was that he whilst struggling to gain intravenous access to 
administer relevant drugs to Mr Tailby he had considered the possible use 
and assistance of a piece of equipment known as an intraosseous drill. The 
equipment however wasn’t present on the crash trolley which had been 
brought to Mr Tailby’s room. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 In the event he was in fact able to secure intravenous access and proceed 
accordingly. He also acknowledged that whilst the use of an intraosseous drill 
was an option with which he was familiar, that might not be the case for others 
and in any event is not a core requirement of expertise of those involved in 
emergency responses such as that which took place. 

The point that I raise is that the provision of the intraosseous drill on crash 
trolleys may provide another route of intervention for those familiar and 
trained in its use in other circumstances in the future, and having that option 
may prevent deaths in the context of emergency crash responses to wards for 
which the Trust has responsibility. 

Action should be taken 

In my opinion action should be taken to prevent future deaths and I believe your 
organisation has 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 Wednesday 15th May 2019. I, John Hobson, 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 

I have sent a copy of my report to the Chief Coroner and to the following Interested 
Persons:  

Greater Manchester Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust 

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. 

John Hobson 
H.M. Assistant Coroner – Manchester City Area 

Date: 19th March 2019

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 Northern Care Alliance NHS Group (PDF)
Ref: CB 

Date: 2 April 2019  

Sent via email on 02 April 2019 

Chris Brookes  
Chief Medical Officer/Deputy Chief Executive  
Group Headquarters 
3rd Floor 
Mayo Building 
Stott Lane 
Salford 
M6 8HD 

Telephone: 0161 206 4657  

Dear Mr Hobson 

Inquest touching the death of Graham Tailby 

I write in relation to the above inquest that was held before you on 8 March 2019.  

Following  the  inquest,  you  issued  a  Regulation  28  report  dated  19  March  2019,  addressed  to 
Professor  Matthew  Makin,  Medical  Director  of  North Manchester  General  Hospital,  Pennine  Acute 
Hospitals NHS Trust (“the Trust”). The Regulation 28 report is copied to Greater Manchester Mental 
Health NHS Trust c/o Hempsons solicitors.   

Coroner’s concerns 

The matter of your concern is as follows:  

The  leader  of  the  crash  team  gave  comprehensive  and  clear  evidence  as  to  the  appraisal  of  Mr 
Tailby’s  situation  upon  his  emergency  arrival  on  the  ward  in  response  to  the  crash  call  and  the 
decisions that were then taken.    

His evidence was that he whilst struggling to gain intravenous access to administer relevant drugs 
to Mr Tailby he had considered the possible use and assistance of a piece of equipment known as 
an  intraosseous drill. The equipment  however  wasn’t  present  on the  crash trolley  which had been 
brought to Mr Tailby’s room. 

In  the  event  he  was  in  fact  able  to  secure  intravenous  access  and  proceed  accordingly.  He  also 
acknowledged that whilst the use of an intraosseous drill was an option with which he was familiar, 
that might not be the case for others and in any event is not a core requirement of expertise of those 
involved in emergency responses such as that which took place. 

The provision of the intraosseous drill on crash trolleys may provide another route of intervention for 
those familiar and trained in its use in other circumstances in the future, and having that option may 
prevent  deaths  in  the  context  of  emergency  crash  responses  to  wards  for  which  the  Trust  has 
responsibility. 

 
 
 
 Response 

Crash  trolleys  are  managed  by  Pennine  Care  NHS  Foundation  Trust  and  not  the  Pennine  Acute 
Hospitals NHS Trust. Consequently it is our view that the direction of the Regulation 28 report to the 
Pennine Acute Trust on this occasion is incorrect. May I respectfully recommend that the Regulation 
28  report  should  be  addressed  to  Pennine  Care  NHS  Foundation  Trust  who  are  in  a  position  to 
effect change following your recommendation.  

The Trust has discussed this matter with HM Senior Coroner Mr Meadows and he kindly sent over 
full disclosure. As discussed it would have been beneficial if we had of been notified of the inquest 
as we would have been better placed to assist and been able to provide a response to explain that 
the trolleys are not serviced by ourselves. I also note the staff member who gave evidence was not 
working  for  the  Trust  at  the  time  of  giving  evidence  nor  where  the  legal  team  aware  that  he  had 
given a statement previously. 

May I also draw to your attention that Regulation 28(3) of the Regulations states  “A report may not 
be made until the coroner has considered all the documents, evidence and information that in the 
opinion of the coroner are relevant to the investigation”. 

Furthermore,  at  this  inquest,  it  is  understood  that  you  heard  evidence  from  Greater  Manchester 
Mental  Health  NHS  Trust,  but  did  not  hear  any  live  evidence  from  Pennine  Acute  Hospitals  NHS 
Trust or hear any submissions on behalf of the Trust. 

It  was  therefore  unfortunate  that  the  Trust  was  not  aware  of  the  Inquest,  had  not  been  made  an 
Interested  Person  or  provided  with  disclosure.  Consequently  the  Trust  was  not  provided  the 
opportunity to submit any evidence to your investigation and was first aware of this inquest following 
receipt of the Regulation 28 report. 

Had the Trust been invited to respond to this issue prior to the issuing of the Regulation 28 report, 
the correct information would have been provided so that the concerns raised would be directed to 
the appropriate body with the power to effect change and implement learning. 

I am deeply sorry that Mr Tailby’s family have had a further unnecessary delay in obtaining answers 
due to the Regulation 28 process. The Trust would have preferred to have addressed the concerns 
at the inquest for the benefit of Mr Tailby’s family and your investigation and thus avoided the need 
to issue the Trust with a regulation 28. 

Yours sincerely 

Chris Brookes 
Consultant Emergency Medicine 
Executive Medical Director, Salford Royal NHS Foundation Trust 
Chief Medical Officer and Deputy Chief Executive Northern Care Alliance  
(Incorporating Salford Royal NHS Foundation Trust and Pennine Acute NHS Trust)

Related reports

Other reports by John Hobson

See all →

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

See all →

Track Pennine Care NHS Foundation Trust

See every Prevention of Future Deaths report matching Pennine Care 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.