Prevention of Future Deaths reports · 2020

Peter Sudlow

Regulation 28 report to prevent future deaths, reference 2020-0012, written 17 Jan 2020. A coroner writes one of these when an inquest reveals a risk that could cause further deaths unless something changes.

Date of report17 Jan 2020
Reference2020-0012
DeceasedPeter Sudlow
CoronerJoanne Lees
Coroner areaShropshire, Telford & Wrekin
CategoryHospital Death (Clinical Procedures and medical management) related deaths
Organisation namedThe Shrewsbury and Telford Hospital NHS Trust
Sourcejudiciary.uk record · original PDF
Responses publishednone published

The report

Text extracted from the PDF text layer. Reproduced verbatim, including the scan's own layout.

REGULATION 28 REPORT 

REGULATION 28 REPORT TO PREVENT FUTURE DEATHS 

THIS REPORT IS BEING SENT TO:  The Shrewsbury and Telford Hospital NHS Trust 
CORONER 

1 

I am Mrs Joanne Lees Assistant Coroner for Shropshire, Telford & Wrekin 

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 17/07/2019 I commenced an investigation into the death of Peter SUDLOW. The investigation 
concluded at the end of the inquest 17th January 2020. The inquest concluded with a narrative 
conclusion as follows; 

The deceased died from a naturally incurring infection of a pressure sore which originated during a 
hospital stay following a prolonged period of immobility on a background of ischaemic myelopathy and 
profound persisting paraplegia. 

My findings as recorded in box 3 were as follows; 

Between 23/1/19 and 23/2/19 the deceased was a hospital inpatient having been diagnosed with 
ischaemic myelopathy with paraplegia.  During his stay on the ward he developed a sacral tissue injury 
which developed to at least a grade 2 pressure sore. On 23/2/19 he was discharged to a nursing home 
where the pressure sore deteriorated and became infected. Despite antibiotics the deceased continued 
to deteriorate and was readmitted to hospital on 16/3/19 at which point the infected sacral pressure 
sore had become necrotic and developed to grade 4.   Despite an initial improvement the deceased was 
placed on palliative care and discharged to a hospice where he later sadly passed away on 8/4/19.  It is 
likely that the sacral pressure ulcer was more than a grade 2 at the time of discharge but deteriorated to 
ungradable whilst at the nursing home despite appropriate preventative and management measures 
being undertaken.  

4 

5 

CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE DEATH 
The deceased was admitted in January 2019 to hospital following sudden onset of weakness in both legs 
and diagnosed with Ischaemic Myelopathy and paraplegia. On the ward he developed a sacral would 
than developed into a pressure sore. He also developed pressure damage to his heels.   After 
approximately one month he was discharged to a nursing home where he was found to have a significant 
sacral pressure ulcer which was classified as ungradable by the nursing home.   The nursing home 
contacted Tissue Viability Nurse and Safeguarding in relation to the pressure sore due to concerns.  The 
deceased deteriorated, the pressure sore became infected and despite antibiotics the deceased 
continued to deteriorate, and he was admitted back to back to hospital on 160319 with infected pressure 
sore (blood cultures were positive).  His prognosis was discussed with Vascular surgeons who deemed 
surgery not an option due to depth of sore. IV antibiotics given with no improvement. Best supportive 
care decided with family and discharged to Hospice and he sadly passed away in the hospice on 8/4/19.   
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)  During the period of time the deceased spent in hospital between 23/1/19 and 23/2/19 there was 

no referral to the Tissue Viability Nurse (TVN) at any time. 

(2)  There was no referral to the TVN when the sore was categorised as a grade 2.   
(3)  There was no referral to the TVN when the Waterlow score of the deceased increased to 17.   
(4)  There was no referral to the TVN when the deceased was readmitted to hospital on 16/3/19 and the 

pressure sore determined to be Grade 4 until 22/3/19.   

(5)  There was no clear guidance as to when and in what circumstances a referral to the TVN should be 

made.   

(6)  The deceased presented with additional risks as determined by the Waterlow score with paraplegia 
and there was no clear guidance as to when a TVN referral should be made for those patients with 
additional risks such as paraplegia or neurological deficit for the purpose of seeking advice as to the 
prevention of pressure sores. 

(7)  There was no clear guidance as to the involvement of the TVN in developing a plan to prevent 

pressure sores in those patients presenting with additional risks such as paraplegia or a neurological 
deficit.  

(8)  There was no clear guidance as to the relationship between the determination of the Waterlow 

score and referral to the TVN to assist nursing staff. 

(9)  The new Pressure Ulcer Prevention and Treatment 2 week booklet (PUPT) makes no reference to a 

TVN referral until a pressure ulcer has reached Category or Grade 3. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 6 

ACTION SHOULD BE TAKEN 

In my opinion action should be taken to prevent future deaths and I believe you The Shrewsbury and 
Telford Hospital NHS Trust 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 
17/3/20.  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 Persons 

(daughter of the deceased) and Morris Care Limited.   

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 

17/01/2020 

Signature
Mrs Joanne Lees Assistant Coroner Shropshire, Telford & Wrekin

Related reports

Other reports by Joanne Lees

See all →

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

See all →

Track The Shrewsbury and Telford Hospital NHS Trust

See every Prevention of Future Deaths report matching The Shrewsbury and Telford 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.