Prevention of Future Deaths reports · 2019

Francis Hodge

Regulation 28 report to prevent future deaths, reference 2019-0338, written 24 Sep 2019. A coroner writes one of these when an inquest reveals a risk that could cause further deaths unless something changes.

Date of report24 Sep 2019
Reference2019-0338
DeceasedFrancis Hodge
CoronerBriony Ballard
Coroner areaLondon Inner (South)
CategoryHospital Death (Clinical Procedures and medical management) related deaths
Organisation namedLewisham and Greenwich 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 

REGULATION 28 REPORT TO PREVENT FUTURE DEATHS 

THIS REPORT IS BEING SENT TO: 

The Chief Executive of University Hospital Lewisham 

1 

CORONER 

I am Briony Ballard, Assistant Coroner, for the coroner area of Inner London South 

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 23 November 2019 this jurisdiction commenced an investigation into the death of Mr 
Francis  Hodge.  The  investigation  concluded  at  the  end  of  the  inquest  on  30  August 
2019.  The  conclusion  of  the  inquest  was  that  Mr  Hodge  died  as  a  result  of  the 
unintended consequences of medical treatment.  

4 

CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE DEATH 

Mr  Hodge  died  on  16  November  2018  at  University  Hospital  Lewisham  due  to  a 
perforated  colon.  Seven  days  prior  Mr  Hodge  had  undergone  an  elective  laparoscopic 
repair  of  multiple  incisional  hernias.  These  had  developed  at  the  site  of  previous 
abdominal  surgeries.  Additionally  Mr  Hodge  suffered  with  pre-existing  diverticular 
disease.  The  surgery  had  proceeded  without  complication.  The  subsequent 
development of the perforation was within an area away from the operation site and was 
very  unexpected.  It  is  likely  it  represented  the  coincidence  of  a  bowel  rendered 
vulnerable  by  pre-existing  pathology  returning  to  normal  bowel  function  following 
surgery.  

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)   At  inquest  I  was  told  that  on  discharge  Mr  Hodge  was  given  inadequate 
discharge  advice.  He  was  advised  to  rest  as  much  as  possible  and  that  if  he 
were to remain in severe pain in a week’s time he should return.  

(2)  The consultant who undertook the surgery explained that such discharge advice 
was not what should have been provided to a patient following this surgery. The 
patient  should  have  been  told  to  be  concerned  about  and  to  look  out  for: 
breathlessness, pus or redness, and / or pain which would not settle.  

(3)  Mr Hodge was suffering breathless the night before his collapse and pain which 
would  not  settle.  He  however,  did  not  want  to  seek  medical  advice  I  am  told, 

1 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 because he was following what he had been told to do on discharge.  

(4)  I was also told that no patient information leaflet existed for this type of surgery 

as it was not a common type of procedure.  

6 

ACTION SHOULD BE TAKEN 

In my opinion action should be taken to prevent future deaths and I believe your 
organisation 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 13 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 the following Interested 
Person 

, the deceased’s son.   

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 

[DATE]                                              [SIGNED BY CORONER] 

2 

24 September 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 Lewisham and Greenwich NHS Trust (PDF)
University Hospital Lewisham  
Medical Director’s Office 
Lewisham High Street 
London 
SE13 6LH 

Tel: 020 8 333 3000 
www.lewishamandgreenwich.nhs.uk  

31 October 2019 

Ms B Ballard, HM Assistant Coroner 
HM Coroner’s Office – Inner London South 
Southwark Coroners Court  
1 Tennis Street  
London  
SE1 1YD 

Sent via email only to: 

Dear Ms Ballard 

Re: Mr Francis Hodge – Regulation 28: Prevention of Future Deaths 

I write in response to your Regulation 28 report following the inquest into the death of Mr Francis 
Hodge. Thank you for highlighting your concerns, in respect of this case, which I have now had the 
opportunity  to  look  into.    The  response  required  from  Lewisham  and  Greenwich  NHS  Trust 
(hereafter ‘the Trust’) is in relation to the following concerns: 

(1)  Mr Hodge was given inadequate advice on his discharge from hospital after surgery.  
(2)  No patient information leaflet existed for this type of surgery as it was not a common type of  

procedure.  

Mr  Hodge  underwent  an  elective  laparoscopic  repair  of  multiple  incisional  hernias  at  University 
Hospital Lewisham on 9 November 2018. Sadly, he died seven days later, on 16 November 2018, 
at the same hospital, from a perforated colon. 

On discharge from hospital, after his elective surgery, he was verbally advised to rest as much as 
possible and that, if he continued to be in severe pain, in a week’s time, he should return.  

 At  the  inquest,  the  consultant  who  undertook  the  surgery  explained  that  such  discharge  advice 
was not what should have been provided to a patient following this surgery. Mr Hodge should have 
been told to be concerned about and to look out for: 

 

breathlessness, pus or redness, and / or pain which would not settle.  

Mr  Hodge  was suffering from  breathlessness  the  night  before his  collapse and pain  which  would 
not  settle.  He,  however,  did  not  want  to  seek  medical  advice  because  he  was  following  what  he 
had been told to do on discharge.  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   
  
 
 
 
 
  
  
 
 Mr  Hodge  was  given  verbal  advice  only,  upon  his  discharge  from  hospital,  following  elective 
surgery.  Patients  listed  for  elective  surgery  at  the  Trust  should  be  given  an  information  leaflet  at 
their preoperative assessment appointment.   

About four years ago, the Trust commissioned a service from a company called Eido Healthcare, 
whereby  a  library  of  nearly  400  treatment-specific  patient  information  leaflets  can  be  accessed, 
printed and handed to patients at their preoperative assessment appointment.  These leaflets form 
part of the informed consent process and provide specific information regarding the procedure as 
well  as  relevant  phone  numbers for  the  patient to contact  in case  of  concerns.  Mr  Hodge  should 
have  been  handed  the  information  leaflet  specific  for  laparoscopic  hernia  repair.  However,  on 
review  of  his  case  notes,  it  cannot  be  demonstrated  that  this  leaflet  was  handed  to  him  and  I 
apologise for this omission. 

The Trust has commenced a communication exercise to remind staff in preoperative assessment 
to ensure  that  the  appropriate  information  leaflet  is  handed  to patients  and to document  that  this 
has been done.  An audit of the provision of these leaflets will be completed by December 2019 to 
ensure that the communication strategy has been effective. 

These  information leaflets  are  available online  and  their  availability  is  going  to be  included  in the 
induction  programmes  of  newly  appointed  medical  staff  with  an  emphasis  on  providing  these 
leaflets during consultation. 

I  sincerely  apologise  to  Mr  Hodge’s  family  for  the  distress  caused  by  his  untimely  death  after  a 
planned surgical procedure. 

Please  accept  my  assurances  that  lessons  have  been  learned  from  this  case  and  appropriate 
actions have been put in place to address the issues raised.  If you require anything further then 
please do not hesitate to contact me. 

Yours sincerely, 

Dr Elizabeth Aitken 
Medical Director

Related reports

Other reports by Briony Ballard

See all →

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

See all →

Track Lewisham and Greenwich NHS Trust

See every Prevention of Future Deaths report matching Lewisham and Greenwich 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.