Prevention of Future Deaths reports · 2020

Andrew Wing

Regulation 28 report to prevent future deaths, reference 2020-0089, written 3 Apr 2020. A coroner writes one of these when an inquest reveals a risk that could cause further deaths unless something changes.

Date of report3 Apr 2020
Reference2020-0089
DeceasedAndrew Wing
CoronerCaroline Topping
Coroner areaSurrey
CategoryHospital Death (Clinical Procedures and medical management) related deaths
Sourcejudiciary.uk record · original PDF
Responses published2

The report

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

IN THE SURREY CORONER’S COURT 

IN THE MATTER OF: ANDREW SPENCER WING  

__________________________________________________________ 

The Inquest Touching the Death of Andrew Spencer Wing  

A Regulation 28 Report – Action to Prevent Future Deaths 

__________________________________________________________ 

THIS REPORT IS BEING SENT TO: 

  Dr Katherine Henderson, President of the Royal College of 

Emergency Medicine   

  Dame Clare Marx Chair of the General Medical Council 
  Sue Webb, President of the College and Society of 

Radiographers 

1  CORONER 

Caroline Topping HM Assistant Coroner, for the County of Surrey 

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 

An inquest into the death of Andrew Spencer Wing was opened on 23rd 
May 2019  and resumed on the 2nd April 2020 and concluded on 6th March 
2020  I concluded with a narrative conclusion that:  

Andrew Wing suffered an acute onset of pain in his chest at 1am on the 
13th January 2019. He attended at St Peter’s Hospital, Chertsey at 16.47 
where he was seen in the minor injuries department by which time his 
pain had diminished and presented as mild. He underwent 
investigations which ruled out a myocardial infarction. An aortic 
dissection was one of the differential diagnoses the possibility of which 
was recognised and for which the necessary diagnostic investigation was 
a CT Aorta. Despite the index of suspicion being sufficient to require this 
to be undertaken it was not and had it been it would have identified an 
aortic dissection. He was discharged and died from the effects of the 
aortic dissection on the 15th January 2019 at the Ship Hotel in Weybridge. 
Had a dissection been identified on the 13th January 2019 prior to 
discharge he would have been subject to the necessary emergency 
surgery which he would have survived. 

The cause of death was : 

1a Haemopericardium 

1b Aortic Dissection  

1c Hypertension  

I concluded with the narrative conclusion set out above.  

4  CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE DEATH 

Andrew Wing had a long history of untreated hypertension having 
refused medication for the condition. In the early hours of the 13th 
January 2019 he suffered an acute onset of severe pain in his left side. He 
attended St Peter’s Hospital, Chertsey by which time the pain had 
diminished. He underwent investigations, an ECG, Chest Xray and blood 
tests. The blood tests did not show a rise in troponin levels.  The Chest 
Xray was read by 2 emergency clinicians who thought it appeared 

 
 
 
 
 normal. He was discharged from hospital and died on the 15th January 
2020 from the effects of the aortic dissection. Aortic dissection was one of 
the differential diagnoses considered but a CT Aorta was not undertaken.  

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 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 showed that: 

1.  The chest Xray taken on the 13th January 2019 showed an image 

which was at least at the upper end of normal and in the context of 
a differential diagnosis of aortic dissection should have led to a CT 
Aorta being undertaken. Plain X rays are not diagnostic of aortic 
dissections. The consultant radiographer who reviewed the X ray 
remotely on the 14th January 2019 reported it as normal but had 
not been made aware of the differential diagnosis of aortic 
dissection.  If he had been made aware of this he would have 
advised that a CT Aorta be undertaken.  

2.  It is common practice for reviews of X rays to be undertaken by 

radiographers. The clinical information provided to them is sparse. 
More detailed and specific information would assist them in 
undertaking their reviews.  

6  ACTION SHOULD BE TAKEN 

In my opinion action should be taken to prevent future deaths and I 
believe your organisation 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 29th May 2020, 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;  

St Peter’s Hospital, Chertsey.  

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  Signed: 

Caroline Topping 

Dated this 3rd April 2020.

Responses

2 responses 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 General Medical Council (PDF)
From the Chief Executive and Registrar 

27  May 2020 

Miss Caroline Topping 
HM  Coroner's Court 
Station  Approach 
Woki ng 
GU22  7AP 

Dear Miss Topping 

General 
Medical 
Council 

Regent's Place 
350 Euston  Road 
London NW1 3JN 

Email: gmc@gmc-uk.org 
Website: www.gmc-uk.org 
Telephone: 0161 923 6602 

Chair 
Dame Clare Marx 

Chief Executive and  Registrar 
Charlie Massey 

Mr Andrew Spencer Wing (Deceased) 

I  am writi ng to you following  receipt of  the  Regulation 28  Report dated 3 Apri l 
2020.  I  am sorry to hear about the death of Mr Andrew Spencer Wing and I  am 
grateful to you  for bringing this to my attention. 

I  have noted the contents of the report and  have forwarded this matter to our 
Employer Liaison Adviser to discuss with the Trust.  If the Trust identify any 
individual cl inicians whose fitness to practise  may be  impaired,  they will  refer to us 
to consider in line with our usual procedures. 

Please do feel  free to contact me  if you  would  like to discuss this further. 

Yours sincerely 

Charlie  Massey
Response from The Society of Radiographers (PDF)
Chief Executive Officer 
Richard Evans OBE 

Ms Caroline Topping 
HM Assistant Coroner for the County of Surrey 
By email to: 

Dear Ms Topping 

Re Regulation 28 Report: Andrew Spencer Wing 

Thank you for contacting the Society of Radiographers (SoR) in connection with the inquest 
following the death of Andrew Spencer Wing, concluded on 6th March this year.  I am the 
current President of the SoR, having taken over the role from 
 in July 2019. 
We note your concerns that appropriate actions might help avoid future deaths in similar 
circumstances. The SoR is pleased to provide the following perspectives and actions. 
The Ionising Radiation (Medical Exposure) Regulations 2017 (IR(ME)R 17) is the legislative 
framework governing all clinical imaging that uses x-rays. The regulations stipulate the legal 
requirements for all aspects of any x-ray procedure, including the responsibilities surrounding 
referral of a patient for imaging. 

In the case of Mr Wing, the clinician that referred him for the chest x-ray should have been 
aware of the requirements to provide sufficient clinical information to justify the procedure 
and to enable a diagnostic report to be subsequently made. The employer has an over-arching 
responsibility to ensure all referrers within their authority are trained in the requirements of 
IR(ME)R 17. 

From your report it seems likely that the referral for Mr Wing to have a chest x-ray did not 
include the details of the differential diagnosis of dissecting aortic aneurysm. Had these 
details been included, the radiographers involved in taking the chest x-ray and in providing 
the clinical report could have recommended further imaging, including the CT scan which 
could have provided a more definitive diagnosis. 

The SoR works in partnership with the Royal College of Radiologists and the Institute of 
Physics and Engineering in Medicine to promote understanding of IR(ME)R 17. We do this 
through a collaborative body, the Clinical Imaging Board. New guidance is currently in 
preparation and is expected to be approved in the near future. This will include the 
responsibilities of employers and referrers under the legislation. The following extract is from 
an advanced draft: 

Referrer 
The referrer must be a registered healthcare professional (10) as defined in IR(ME)R.  In 
Northern Ireland, this also includes medical practitioners registered with the Medical 
Council of Ireland. 

Quartz House,  207 Providence  Square,  Mill  Street, London  SE1  2EW 
T: 0207 740 7200 E: info@sor.org   W: www.sor.org 
The Society of Radiographers is a company limited by guarantee registered in England under No. 169483 
Registered Office: 207 Providence Square, Mill Street, London SE1 2EW

Related reports

Other reports by Caroline Topping

See all →

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

See all →

Track Hospital Death (Clinical Procedures and medical management) related deaths

See every Prevention of Future Deaths report matching Hospital Death (Clinical Procedures and medical management) related deaths, 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.