Prevention of Future Deaths reports · 2019

Pamela Evans

Regulation 28 report to prevent future deaths, reference 2019-0333, written 4 Oct 2019. A coroner writes one of these when an inquest reveals a risk that could cause further deaths unless something changes.

Date of report4 Oct 2019
Reference2019-0333
DeceasedPamela Evans
CoronerAmy Street
Coroner areaBedfordshire and Luton
CategoryHospital Death (Clinical Procedures and medical management) related deaths
Organisation namedBedford Hospital NHS 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 BEING SENT TO:  

Stephen Conroy, Chief Executive, Bedford Hospital NHS Trust, Bedford 
Hospital, South Wing, Kempston Road, Bedford MK42 9DJ  

1 

CORONER 

I am Amy Street, Assistant Coroner for Bedfordshire & Luton 

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. 
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/1629/part/7/made 

3 

INVESTIGATION and INQUEST 

On 8 November 2018 the Senior Coroner for Bedfordshire & Luton commenced an 
investigation was into the death of Pamela Evans, aged 87.  The investigation 
concluded at the end of the Inquest held by me, on 25 July 2019, when my 
determinations and conclusion were delivered.  The medical cause of death was found 
to be: “1a Large right-sided acute on chronic subdural haematoma”. 

The Conclusion of the Inquest was a Narrative Conclusion: “Pamela Evans died as a 
result of becoming dizzy and falling in hospital, hitting her head. At the time of the fall 
she had been appropriately attended by nursing staff and the fall was not preventable. 
The cause of the fall was medical, rather than mechanical, although the precise cause is 
unknown. She was under cardiac investigation for dizziness, fainting and falls which had 
so far proved inconclusive.” 

4 

CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE DEATH 

Pamela Evans was admitted to Bedford Hospital on 18th October 2018 after she fell and 
hit  her  head  at  home  (having  experienced  recurrent  falls  following  dizziness/fainting). 
She was admitted to the coronary care unit. On 26th October 2018 an implantable loop 
recorder was inserted in order to record heart rhythm and she was due to be discharged 
on 29th October 2018. On 29th October 2018 at 0345 she was on her way to the toilet 
with her frame and one nurse, in accordance with the mobility care plan. Before entering 
the toilet she was stationary with her frame in front of her and the nurse behind her, and 
she  became  dizzy  and  fell,  twisting  forwards,  between  the  wall  and  toilet,  hitting  her 
head.  Greater  assistance  from  nursing  staff  was  not  warranted  and  would  have  risked 
compromising  her  mobility  and  independence,  and  the  fall  could  not  have  been 
prevented.  She  subsequently,  albeit  not  immediately,  deteriorated.  Despite  the 
increasing concern of nursing staff, she was not seen by a doctor until 0600; the relevant 
medical team was attending a cardiac arrest and the critical care outreach team was not 
called. However earlier medical review would have made no difference to the outcome. 
A  CT  scan  around  0625  showed  a  large  right-sided  acute  on  chronic  subdural 
haematoma.  This  had  been  caused  by  the  fall  earlier  that  morning.  Following 
consultation with family members, palliative care only was provided. Pamela Evans died 
at Bedford Hospital on 4th November 2018.    

5 

CORONER’S CONCERNS 

1 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   
 During the course of the inquest the evidence revealed matters giving rise to concern. In 
my opinion, there is a risk that future deaths could 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 evidence at the Inquest revealed: 

(i) 

      A mismatch between: 

(a)  on the one hand, the expressed intention of senior nursing staff as to 
when nurses should call the critical care outreach team if the relevant 
medical team is unable to attend, namely that nurses should call when 
they have concerns about a patient, irrespective of the patient’s NEWS 
score  

and  

(b)  on the other hand, the understanding of at least some nurses that they 
cannot or will not call the outreach team, despite having concerns, 
unless the NEWS score exceeds a specific number (5 or above, 
according to the cardiac nurse practitioner who cared for the deceased; 
7 or above, according to a doctor setting out her experience of some 
nurses’ practice).   

(ii)        The absence of a means (eg audit) of assessing the understanding held by 

those who need to know (eg nurses), of when the critical care outreach 
team could/should be called; and therefore a lack of knowledge within the 
Trust of whether training on this point has been effective and 
comprehensive to all relevant people or whether further/different training 
needs to take place. 

(iii)   Even if the critical care outreach team had been called, a doctor would not 
initially attend, but rather a critical care nurse with limited power to take 
action – eg could not request a CT scan. I am therefore concerned that, if 
the relevant medical team is busy dealing with another emergency, a patient 
(eg with a head injury needing a CT scan) may still face delay receiving 
potentially life-saving measures, even if the critical care outreach team is 
called.   

(iv)  Incorrect recording of this patient’s NEWS and associated score after her fall 

which could in other circumstances influence whether/when potentially life-
saving measures for future patients take place. Significantly, the deceased’s 
confusion at some point after 0500 should have been recorded as 3 under D 
(“consciousness”) but was never noted at all. It was not clear why; the 
cardiac nurse practitioner was aware of it and thought the clinical support 
worker completing the chart had been made aware. Further: first, vomiting 
after 0500 should have given a nausea score of 2 but was only scored 1; 
secondly, while a heart rate of 160 after 0500 was noted in the nursing 
records, only 93 was recorded in the NEWS observation chart at 0515.   

(v)  That points (i)-(iv) had not been detected by the Trust despite its carrying out of 

a serious incident investigation. I am therefore concerned that significant 
and potentially life-saving learning may be missed by the Trust in the future 
even if serious incident investigations are carried out.      

2 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 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 29 November 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 Pamela Evans’ family as 
interested persons. I have also sent it to 
Outreach Forum, who may find it useful or of interest.   

, Chair of the National 

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 

4 October 2019    SIGNED BY ASSISTANT CORONER:  

3

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 Bedford Hospital NHS Trust (PDF)
INHS

Bedford Hospital

NHS Trust

Ms Amy Street

Assistant Coroner for Bedfordshire and Luton
The Court House

Woburn Street

Ampthill

MK45 2HX

AV/ED/HMC/evans
22 November 2019

Dear Ms Street,

Re: Inquest touching the death of Pamela EVANS

Thank you for your letter of 7 October 2019 enclosing a Regulation 28 (Prevent Future
Deaths) report in relation to an inquest touching the death of Mrs Pamela EVANS on 25 July
2019.

| would like to begin by expressing my condolences to Mrs Evans’ family and saying how
deeply sorry | am for her passing.

As you know, the trust initiated a serious incident investigation following Mrs Evans’ death,
the outcome of which was shared with you; and you received live testimony at the inquest.
The investigation found there was a delay in Mrs Evans being reviewed by a doctor following
her fall due to other clinical emergencies happening at the same time; your regulatory notice
acknowledged any earlier review or intervention would not have changed the outcome for
Mrs Evans.

While the hospital’s serious incident investigation and your own inquest was unable to
determine whether Mrs Evans suffered an event that caused her io fall, or the subsequent
bleed was caused by the fall, you concluded Mrs Evans ‘had been appropriately attended by
nursing staff and the fall was not preventable.’

However, during the course of the inquest you heard evidence that, while accepting the fall
was not preventable nor would there have been a different outcome, you believe this gave
rise of sufficient concern to issue a Regulation 28 notice highlighting five issues. | am
enclosing an action plan to provide you with assurance of specific actions in mitigation of
your concerns, and | would also like to provide you with some context on the issues and for
the sake of clarity | will address those in order.

NEWS training and escalation

Following every inquest the chief executive and | receive an update from my representatives.
Whilst our commitment and expectation is to ensure all 1363 nursing staff are trained,
including temporary staff, it is disappointing that one bank nurse was not able to
communicate to the court her training record and understanding of implementing NEWS2. It
is additionally disappointing as | understand two of my senior nursing team provided
evidence in articulating the training and teaching of NEWS2 across the trust.

INS)

Bedford Hospital
NHS Trust

The Trust takes patient safety seriously and is compliant with our duties to implement

national patient safety initiatives. NEWS2 was launched in September 2018 and the trust

had to report compliance by April 2019 and undertook:

e Direct clinical training with all nursing staff highlighting that escalation is based on
experience and professional curiosity as well as numerical scoring

e Launched a new NEWS score sticker to be incorporated into patient notes to evidence
escalation.

« Communicated through hospital cascade mechanism the use and expected compliance
of NEWS2

| have asked for some actions to be taken to provide assurance to myself.

Absence of evidence that staff know the routes of escalation for deteriorating patients

| apologise if at the time of the inquest Trust representatives were not able to provide you

with assurance on staff knowledge regarding the routes for escalation for deteriorating

patients. The trust has undertaken substantial work over the past two years on identifying

and escalating deteriorating patients. Part of which has been to:

e Provide tools and mechanisms to identify patients who are deteriorating

e Being clear on routes of escalations and that clinical experience and knowledge is used
as well as numerical scoring

e Use trust-wide training opportunities across the trust such as annual clinical updates,
monthly shared learning sessions, patients safety update bulletins

e Capture data on training through regular ward quality huddles; daily safety huddles;
regular audits of compliance

e Capture data of associated tools of measurement such as the use of treatment
escalation plans (TEP) and regular clinical audits

| have asked for some actions to be taken to provide assurance to myself.

Critical care outreach team initial response
| understand from my representatives they sought to give clarity regarding the clinical
experience and ability of the critical care outreach team. | am sorry if this was not clear.

The critical care outreach team is a multidisciplinary team utilising highly qualified staff,
predominately nurses, who have undergone at least three years training in critical care,
deteriorating patients, multi-organ failure and treatment plans. These nurses are integral to a
first line response for escalation and have the skills and authority to develop treatment plans
for patients, asking ward staff to closely monitor and continue to escalate for further advice.
They have access to the twenty-four hour critical care medical team. In addition, all patients
reviewed by the outreach team will be reviewed Monday to Friday by a designated critical
care consultant.

It would be wrong to suggest the critical care outreach team response must be by a doctor in
order to safeguard patient welfare. The disciplines and patient-review process of the critical
care outreach team at Bedford hospital is in line with national standards for the provision of
outreach services.

| am aware you highlighted a situation where a CT for a patient was needed and the critical
care outreach nurse would not be able to do that. To be clear, nurses do not request scans
such as CT, and any request would be escalated to an appropriate doctor. | am not aware of
any patient that has been adversely affected by the critical care outreach nurses attending a
patient rather than a doctor.

INS)

Bedford Hospital
NHS Trust

Calculating consciousness in NEWS2

| understand during the live evidence you heard that the NEWS2 algorithm now includes the
status of ‘new confusion’ as an additional scoring metric and that while the notes recorded
Mrs Evans had a degree of confusion , this was omitted on the scoring sheet leading to an
inaccurate calculation.

This was wrong and | have asked my director of nursing to ensure all nurses are reminded of
their duty to assess, score and record properly a patients overall observations . However,
while you have rightly drawn to my attention the mis-scoring, the absence of the confusion
score had no effect on Mrs Evans as her overall deterioration was recognised and escalated
to the medical team in a timely manner.

Hospital SI report did not acknowledge or highlight these issues

Thank you for drawing my attention to these issues. As you know a serious incident report is
to ensure gaps in care, root causes and learning are identified order to protect future
patients and improve our practice.

The serious incident investigation reviewed in detail the actions, decision making, escalation
and factors that contributed or impacted on Mrs Evans fall and subsequent deterioration.

However, for clarity, the serious investigation did consider elements of actions and decision
making that may have impacted on Mrs Evans and which led to a number of
recommendations in the report including:

e Ensuring assessments and patient observations are carried out

e Review of the post falls protocols and level of escalation

e Shared learning and reminder on contacting the critical care outreach team

e Using multi-channel communications to share learning from this investigation

| do not believe the investigation fell short of what it intended.

| hope you have found my points of clarity constructive and please find enclosed the trust’s
action plan in relation to your regulatory notice; some of which specifically refer to ongoing
actions such as continual audits and training. | remain satisfied that immediate actions and
learning have been completed. In addition to the recommendations from our internal
investigation we have listened to the evidence from the inquest, the family’s concerns, and
your recommendations and | am confident this action plan does support ongoing care for
deteriorating patients.

For your information to ensure ongoing patient safety learning the trust is holding monthly
lunchtime learning sessions, open to all clinicians, where we present learning from serious
incidents and | have asked Mrs Evans case and your concerns are highlighted at a
forthcoming session. These sessions will be led by my medical director and | have asked
him to ensure ongoing learning and compliance extending from this investigation and
inquest.

INHS|

Bedford Hospital
NHS Trust

While, patient safety is a key priority for Bedford hospital and | know it to be a safe,
compassionate and caring hospital with staff committed to ensuing patients are well cared
for, we can always learn and | appreciate your feedback.

Please do not hesitate to contact me should you need any further information.

Yours sincerely,

ost

Eileen Doyle
Deputy Chief Executive

CC Ms Emma Whitting — Senior Coroner for Bedfordshire and Luton

Related reports

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

See all →

Track Bedford Hospital NHS Trust

See every Prevention of Future Deaths report matching Bedford Hospital 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.