Prevention of Future Deaths reports · 2019

Julie Barrow

Regulation 28 report to prevent future deaths, reference 2019-0325, written 30 Sep 2019. A coroner writes one of these when an inquest reveals a risk that could cause further deaths unless something changes.

Date of report30 Sep 2019
Reference2019-0325
DeceasedJulie Barrow
CoronerAlison Mutch
Coroner areaManchester South
CategoryHospital Death (Clinical Procedures and medical management) related deaths
Organisation namedStockport NHS Foundation 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.

REGULATION 28: REPORT TO PREVENT FUTURE DEATHS

REGULATION 28 REPORT TO PREVENT FUTURE DEATHS

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

CORONER

! am Alison Mutch, Senior Coroner, for the Coroner Area of Greater
Manchester South

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

INVESTIGATION and INQUEST

On 37 April 2019 | commenced an investigation into the death of Julie
Ann Barrow. The investigation concluded on the 12" September 2019
and the conclusion was one of Accidental Death. The medical cause of
death was 1a) Traumatic Brain Injury

CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE DEATH

Julie Ann Barrow had significant learning disabilities. She was
to undergo an elective examination at the Manchester Royal
Infirmary on 24 August 2018. On the 17 August 2018 she
attended Stepping Hill Hospital with perianal pain and rectal
bleeding. She was admitted. No reasonable adjustment care
plan was completed. She was reviewed over the next few
days with a plan to transfer to the Manchester Royal Infirmary
for the elective procedure on 24" August 2018.

On 23"¢ August 2018 the Manchester Royal Infirmary said she
should stay at Stepping Hill Hospital for treatment. She was
distressed by the decision. A CT scan at Stepping Hill Hospital
on 28" August 2018 was followed by a discharge. On 8"
September 2018 she was readmitted with suspected painful

haemorrhoids. A planned examination on 11 September
2018 was cancelled after she had waited all day on nil by
mouth. On 12 September 2018 it went ahead and identified
haemorrhoids. No surgical intervention was deemed to be
required. No best interests meeting took place. On 9th
November 2018 she presented with further pain but was too
distressed for a full examination to take place.

On 12" November 2018 she was diagnosed with adjustment
disorder in the context of the recent traumatic events around
her bleeding, the investigations and the surgical procedures
she had undergone. She was given diazepam and
chlorpromazine to manage her anxiety and distress. These
had a significant sedative effect on her. On 18 April 2019 she
fell on the stairs at the family home. She was admitted to
Stepping Hill Hospital and then Salford Royal Hospital. An un-
survivable brain injury was diagnosed. She died at Salford
Royal Hospital on 2 April 2019.

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.The inquest heard that despite two in-patient stays, there was no best
interests meeting held to discuss her care;

2. On each of her admissions her parents took her needs passport in with
her. The inquest was told that this should be used to develop the
reasonable adjustments care plan and be accessible to all staff caring for
her. On her first admission there was no reasonable care plan put in
place despite the fact that she had clear and significant disabilities that
would have benefited from an effective plan and her passport was
available. Her passport location was not known by all staff caring for her;

3. Julie Ann Barrow was cared for devotedly in hospital by her parents

who are in their 80s. Their evidence to the inquest was that Julie was

never effectively communicated with by clinicians treating her and her
needs not understood. So far as her needs were concerned she was |

“invisible” to staff. An approach that recognised just how traumatic a
hospital stay and medical treatment was for her would have significantly
reduced the trauma that led to her developing adjustment disorder. The
consultant psychiatrist who gave evidence to the inquest was very clear
that the pain and trauma of the hospital stays had caused the acute
adjustment disorder;

4. Her parents stayed with her 24/7 to try and support her and reduce the
trauma. Despite their age; their importance to her and the need for them
to stay with her, staff at the trust expected them to sleep overnight on
standard hospital bedside chairs. It was only when a complaint was
escalated that attempts were made to find them alternatives to the chair:

5. The inquest was told by the safeguarding team that cuts by the Local
Authority that had resulted in the loss of the learning disability liaison role,
had reduced the ability of the safeguarding team to support people with

learning disabilities within the hospital.
6 | 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 25"" November 2079. |, 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 Persons namely Miss Barrow’'s parents, 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
30.09.2019 (

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 The Department of Health and Social Care (PDF)
MG From Caroline Dinenage MP’

D e p artm ent Minister of State for Care
of Health & 39 Victoria Street

. don
Social Care SWIHOEU

020 7210 4850

97 FEB 2020

HM CORONER
MANCHESTER SOUTH

Your Reference: 12641/MG
Our Reference: PFD-1192586

Ms Alison Patricia Mutch

HM Senior Coroner, Manchester South
HM Coroner's Court

1 Mount Tabor Street

Stockport

SK1 3AG

Ss February 2020

Thank you for your correspondence of 30 September 2019 to Matt Hancock about the
death of Julie Ann Barrow. | am replying as Minister with responsibility for learning
disabilities and | am grateful for the additional time in which to do so.

| would like to say how saddened | was to read of Julie Barrow's death and the tragic
circumstances surrounding it. This must be a distressing time for her family and | offer my
most sincere condolences to them. The loss of a child is deeply distressing and | can only
imagine how painful it must be when there are concerns about the care provided.

Your report highlights concern around healthcare professionals not having an adequate
understanding of Julie Barrow’s needs or recognising the importance of making
reasonable adjustments to support her during her stay in hospital. | would like to provide
reassurance that we are taking steps to address such concerns to improve the quality of
care delivered to people with learning disabilities.

In June 2018, NHS Improvement published Learning Disability Improvement Standards for
NHS trusts in England’. The Standards are intended to help NHS trusts measure the
quality of service they provide to people with learning disabilities, autism or both. The four
Standards concem respecting and protecting rights; inclusion and engagement; workforce;
and, specialist learning disability services.

In terms of respecting and protecting rights, NHS trusts must demonstrate that they have
made reasonable adjustments to care pathways, have mechanisms in place to identify and
flag patients who may require reasonable adjustments, and measures to promote anti-
discriminatory practice in relation to people with learning disabilities, autism or both.

The Standards also require staff to be trained and then routinely updated in how to deliver
care to people with learning disabilities, autism or both, in a way that takes account of their ~
rights, needs and health vulnerabilities. Guidance on implementing the Standards
suggests that this should include ensuring staff have been trained in learning disability and
autism awareness; health issues associated with learning disabilities and autism;
supporting people with challenging needs; safeguarding; human rights and mental
capacity and best interest’s assessments.

Compliance with the Learning Disability Improvement Standards is part of the NHS
Standard Contract for 2019/20, which is mandated by NHS England for use by
commissioners for all healthcare services other than primary care. While the Learning
Disability Improvement Standards currently only apply to NHS Trusts, the NHS Long-Term
Plan outlines that this would apply to all NHS-funded care by 2023/242.

Adherence to the Learning Disability Improvement Standards will help NHS organisations
meet the recommendations from the Learning Disabilities Mortality Review (LeDeR)
Programme. The LeDeR Programme was established in 2015 to support local areas to
review the deaths of people with learning disabilities, identify learning from those deaths,
and take forward the learning into service improvement initiatives.

| am advised that a Learning Disabilities Mortality Review of the care that Julie Barrow
received has been completed and that the review concluded that the care provided fell
short of good practice. Leamings have been identified and | am clear that Stockport NHS
Foundation Trust must take the required action to improve services for people with
learning disabilities.

The most common learning points and recommendations arising from local LeDeR reviews
relate to the need for inter-agency collaboration and communication, as well as greater
awareness of the needs of people with learning disabilities.

The Government's response to the second LeDeR report, published in September 2018°,
outlined a series of actions, as well as work already underway, to address these issues
and the health inequalities that people with learning disabilities experience. The key
theme throughout our response is that of facilitating better care of people with learning
disabilities by sharing information on their needs, and making reasonable adjustments to
improve access, and the responsiveness of services to meet those needs.

The Government's response to the second LeDeR report highlighted a number of
initiatives already in place or under development to strengthen information sharing. These
include the piloting, by NHS Digital, of a reasonable adjustment flag on patient records to
indicate the support needs and reasonable adjustments that an individual may require.
The flag supports improved communication between patients, their carers’ and clinicians,
leading to more personalised and safer care and better outcomes. In the trial, staff access
information through the patient's record on the Summary Care Record, which is designed

2 https:/Awww.longtermplan.nhs.uk/

* https://assets publishing. service.qov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/739560/govemment-

response-to-leder-programme-2nd-annual-report.pdf

to share key information about patients. In the longer term, the flag will be integrated

‘ within local clinical systems. The NHS Long-Term Plan commits to a digital flag in the
patient record by 2023/24, to ensure that staff know whether a patient has a learning
disability or autism.

Local LeDeR reviews have also demonstrated that health and social care staff do not
always have the skills and knowledge to provide effective, compassionate and safe care to
people with learning disabilities. For this reason, we have consulted on the introduction of
mandatory learning disability and autism training for health and care staff.

In the Governments response to the consultation’, published on 5 November 2019, we set
out a series of proposals that will ensure that health and social care staff will, over time,
receive training consistent with the Core Capability Frameworks for People with a Learning
Disability and Supporting Autistic People’,

These Frameworks set out the core skills and knowledge that staff supporting people with
a learning disability or autism should have, depending on the nature and intensity of care
or support they give. This will ensure that staff have the skills and knowledge that are
appropriate to their role. In this regard, we will work with professional bodies and the
Devolved Administrations to align pre-registration training as closely as possible with the
two Core Capability Frameworks and work towards a common curriculum for pre-
registration training in due course.

Health Education England is developing an e-learning disability awareness training
package for Tier 1 of the Core Capabilities Framework for Supporting People with a
Learning Disability. This was a commitment made by the Government in its response to
the second LeDeR report. This online tool is scheduled to be completed by the end of
March 2020 and will be available on the Mind-Ed Platform — a free educational resource.

For Tier 2 training we will develop and test a learning disability and autism training
package through 2020/21 in a number of geographical and service settings. We will
undertake an evaluation of the training package to inform the final design of training and
wider roll out.

To mandate the training, we will amend the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated
Activities) Regulations 2014§, to require NHS and social care providers carrying out
regulated activities to ensure that their staff have relevant levels of training in learning
disability and autism. Other levers will be used to mandate training for staff working in
non-regulated activities.

Finally, turing to your concern about cuts to Local Authority funding and the loss of the
disability liaison officer, | can advise that due to a range of Government actions, Stockport
Metropolitan Borough Council will receive an additional £21.1million for adult social care in

4 https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/844356/autism-and-
leaming-disability-training-for-staff-consultation-response.pdf

5 httos://www.skillsforhealth.org.uk/services/item/945-capabilities-frameworks

§ https:/Awww.legislation.qov.uk/ukdsi/2014/9780111117613/contents

2019/20, including £1.3million allocated from the £240million Winter Funding announced at
the 2018 Budget. :

With fuli take-up of the social care precept’ in 2019/20, based on their previous decisions,
Stockport Council could receive a total of £52.8million additional funding between 2017/18
and 2019/208. It is for local authorities to determine how this funding is used to support
adult social care services.

| hope this response is helpful. Thank you for bringing these concerns to my attention.

FROLINE DINENAGE

7 The Government has allowed local authorities that provide adult social care services to increase their council tax by up
to 2% for local adult social care.

® Nominal terms.

Related reports

Other reports by Alison Mutch

See all →

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

See all →

Track Stockport NHS Foundation Trust

See every Prevention of Future Deaths report matching Stockport 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.