Prevention of Future Deaths reports · 2019
Regulation 28 report to prevent future deaths, reference 2019-0402, written 29 Oct 2019. A coroner writes one of these when an inquest reveals a risk that could cause further deaths unless something changes.
| Date of report | 29 Oct 2019 |
|---|---|
| Reference | 2019-0402 |
| Deceased | Charlotte Grace |
| Coroner | Nicholas Shaw |
| Coroner area | Cumbria |
| Category | Hospital Death (Clinical Procedures and medical management) related deaths · Mental Health related deaths |
| Organisation named | Cumbria, Northumberland, Tyne and Wear NHS Foundation Trust |
| Source | judiciary.uk record · original PDF |
| Responses published | 1 |
Text extracted from the PDF text layer. Reproduced verbatim, including the scan's own layout.
Kally Cheema LLB HM Senior Coroner for County of Cumbria REGULATION 28 REPORT TO PREVENT FUTURE DEATHS THIS REPORT IS BEING SENT TO: , Cumbria, Northumberland, Tyne and Wear NHS Trust 1 CORONER I am Dr Nicholas Shaw Assistant Coroner for County of Cumbria 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/ukpga/2009/25/schedule/5/paragraph/7 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/1629/part/7/made 3 INVESTIGATION and INQUEST On 16/10/2018 I commenced an investigation into the death of Charlotte Grace. The investigation concluded at the end of the inquest 29th October 2019. The conclusion of the inquest was Charlotte (Lottie) Grace suffered from a complex personality disorder, she had a long history of suicidal ideation and had made two previous suicide attempts. Despite intensive support from mental health services and her friends she took her life by hanging at East Curthwaite, Cumbria on 21st September 2018. Hanging. 4 CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE DEATH Lottie was discharged from Yewdale Ward, West Cumberland Hospital on the afternoon of 20th September 2018, the following evening, having been missing all day she was found hanging in a barn near the cottage where she lived alone. At inquest evidence was given that Lottie was at chronic high risk of suicide, and that while she had requested her nominated next of kin be present at discharge meeting they were not invited, neither was the Home Treatment Team to whom she had been referred for follow up care. It was acknowledged that discharge rather than continued in patient stay was a better option therapeutically and that there were no grounds for detention under the mental health act. 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. – [BRIEF SUMMARY OF MATTERS OF CONCERN] (1) Lottie was discharged despite there being no input from those to whose care she was being entrusted. 2 years ago I sat on an inquest in Carlisle which found that a gentleman hanged himself 2 days after a discharge from the Carleton Clinic when again the Home Treatment Team were expected to take over but not invited to the discharge meeting. I understand this is now less likely to occur in Carlisle and would be generally desirable. I am concerned that agencies to whom a patient is discharged and families or friends [with consent] who will need to be supportive are not routinely involved in the discharge process. Fairfield, Station Road, Cockermouth, Cumbria. CA13 9PT Tel: 0300 303 3180 Fax: 01900 706915 (2)‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ (3)‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 6 ACTION SHOULD BE TAKEN In my opinion action should be taken to prevent future deaths and I believe your NHS Trust has 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 27th December 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 [nominated by Lottie as next‐of‐kin] 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 29/10/2019 Dr Nicholas Shaw Assistant Coroner County of Cumbria
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.
22nd January 2020 Dr N Shaw HM Coroner for County of Cumbria Fairfield Station Road Cockermouth Cumbria CA13 9PT Executive Suite 1st Floor St Nicholas Hospital Jubilee Road Gosforth Newcastle upon Tyne NE3 3XT (0191) 245 6801 Dear Dr Shaw RE: Inquest into the death of Charlotte Grace Regulation 28 Report to Prevent Future Deaths Response I write in response to your Regulation 28 Report dated 29th October 2019 following your investigation into the death of Charlotte Grace. This response has been prepared by Cumbria, Northumberland, Tyne and Wear NHS Foundation Trust (“The Trust”) and addresses the concerns as set out by HM Coroner. As you are aware Mental Health Services at the time of Ms Grace’s death were provided by Cumbria Partnership NHSFT. As of 1st October 2019, those services are now provided by Cumbria, Northumberland, Tyne and Wear NHS Foundation Trust. The issue you raised at the time of the inquest and within your regulation 28 report is as follows: Agencies to whom a patient is discharged and families or friends (with consent) who will need to be supportive are not routinely involved in the discharge process. The evidence at the inquest confirmed that it was clearly documented within Ms Grace’s records/care plan that her next of kin was to attend discharge planning however, the discharge meeting was changed at short notice and Ms Grace’s next of kin did not attend. The evidence at the inquest confirmed that following the Serious Incident Investigation, a recommendation was made to improve clinical staff attendance at discharge planning meetings, a recommendation that the Home Treatment Team should be involved in discharge planning and where necessary attend meetings. The evidence of Consultant Psychiatrist and that this recommendation was not being consistently implemented at the time. also indicated that whilst he had requested a conference telephone so that meetings could take place, this was not yet available. , Team Leader, Home Treatment Team, indicated , Response The Trust recognises the concerns that have been raised with regards to attendance at discharge meetings. The Trust is committed to ensuring that lessons are learned when any serious incident occurs and therefore following the investigation into Ms Grace’s death, and as a result of matters raised at the inquest, the Trust has put in place a number of measures to ensure optimal attendance at all future discharge meetings. These changes can be summarised as follows: 1. A learning review was carried out following the investigation on 16th November 2018 in which it was discussed that attendance of significant clinicians involved with the patient’s care at the time and those responsible for providing future care would be best practice. The learning review suggested that where geographical barriers or workloads prevent face to face attendance at meetings, teleconferencing / videoconferencing could be used as an alternative. 2. Where geographical restrictions exist, teams utilise phone dial in and will move to Skype facilities within the next 3 months as part of the Trust’s IT mobilisation planning and roll out. 3. In order to ensure family/next of kin collaboration each admission will detail family/next of kin involvement. The Trust currently holds a weekend family clinic at the Hadrian ward at the Carlton Clinic to work with families in terms of their support and collecting additional supportive information as part of each admission. This clinic is purposely held on a weekend in order to support working families. It is the Trust’s intention to extend this process to each inpatient ward as part of the long term family engagement plan. The Trust intend to extend this within a 3 month timescale. This reflects a broader plan to increase and improve family engagement in all aspects of the admission in the service. 4. In order to ensure that the relevant teams/services are invited to discharge meetings, this is monitored as per the Trust’s discharge flow chart. This flow chart provides prompts for teams to be invited and indicates that meeting arrangements will be agreed at least 2 days ahead unless urgent. Where attendance is not possible the flow chart states that this should be escalated to team leaders. Although this flow chart was in existence at the time of the incident, it is apparent that it was not being used consistently however, following a safer discharge project staff have been reminded to utilise this. The project includes a commitment to ensure that an agreed follow up is in place within 48 hours of discharge. 5. In addition to the above, weekly interface meetings take place which incorporate all community and inpatient services and ensure that complex cases are discussed alongside discharge meetings. If issues with attendance are identified, this is raised and actioned with clinical leads. Where regular non-attendance is identified, this is now being escalated to the Associate Director of the Clinical Business Unit. 6. In order to monitor the discharge process the Trust use a safer discharge audit. This audit is used on each ward and monitors the following information: a. The dated the discharge meeting was held; b. Was the Community Mental Health Treatment Team/Home Treatment Team invited; c. Did family/carer attend; d. Did the care co-ordinator/allocated worked attend the meeting; e. Was a discharge 48 hour follow up visit agreed prior to the discharge; f. Who has agreed to undertake the 48 hour follow up. 7. As a result of the concerns raised by this case, the audit was amended to ensure that family/carer attendance is also now monitored. 8. This audit is reviewed on a weekly basis at a Clinical Business Unit meeting with the clinical managers and ward managers. This acts as a check to ensure that discharge is not arranged without prior family involvement or communication. The audits have so far shown a consistent compliance with the new safer discharge process and will continue to be reviewed on a weekly basis. 9. The audits are reported through monthly quality standards meeting as a record and audit trail. I hope that the information provided offers you the necessary assurances that the Trust have invested time, effort and resource into investigating the issues you have highlighted with a view to improving patient care and safety and reducing the risk of any adverse incidents or outcome in the future. Yours sincerely JOHN LAWLOR Chief Executive
See every Prevention of Future Deaths report matching Cumbria, Northumberland, Tyne and Wear 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.