Prevention of Future Deaths reports · 2020

Elsie Taylor

Regulation 28 report to prevent future deaths, reference 2020-0281, written 14 Dec 2020. A coroner writes one of these when an inquest reveals a risk that could cause further deaths unless something changes.

Date of report14 Dec 2020
Reference2020-0281
DeceasedElsie Taylor
CoronerJoanne Lees
Coroner areaBlack Country
CategoryEmergency Services related deaths
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 (1) 

REGULATION 28 REPORT TO PREVENT FUTURE DEATHS 

THIS REPORT IS BEING SENT TO: 

1. West Midlands Ambulance Service

1 

CORONER 

I am Joanne Lees, Area Coroner for the coroner area of the Black Country Jurisdiction 

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 30/9/20 I commenced an investigation into the death of Elsie Yvonne Taylor dob 
14/2/52. The investigation concluded at the end of the inquest on 7/12/20.   The 
conclusion of the inquest was a short form conclusion of accident.    

The medical cause for the death was established at post mortem as; 

1a) Pneumothorax 
1b) Rib Fractures 
1c) Fall 

2) COPD and IHD

4 

CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE DEATH 

(1). The deceased was a 68-year-old lady who had a past medical history of chronic 
obstructive pulmonary disease, atrial fibrillation on anti-coagulation and ischaemic heart 
disease with stents.  

(2) On 15/9/20 she suffered a fall at her home address whereby she fell into a rose bush
landing on her left-hand side.  The fall was witnessed by a neighbour who helped her
up.  An ambulance was called approximately 1.5 hours later.

(3) Paramedics attended and recorded left sided pain and bruising.  There was no loss
of consciousness and she was advised to take painkillers, was referred to her GP (with a
discharge notice left) and verbally informed to contact emergency services if the pain or
her breathing should worsen.

(4) A further ambulance was called some 4 hours later where the deceased reported
worsening pain and some difficulties breathing.  A facial swelling was also noted with
suspected allergic reaction.

(5) She was taken to hospital where she had a chest drain inserted and was presenting
as peri arrest.  A cardiac cause was ruled out but sadly she deteriorated and passed
away later the same day.

(6) A post mortem revealed a pneumothorax and rib fractures consistent with a fall.

1 

 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.  –  

(1) The attending paramedic gave evidence at the inquest that on 15/9/20 the deceased 
had declined a hospital admission against advice due to concerns about Covid-19. This 
was not recorded in the EPR and the first time the family became aware of this was 
when a statement was received from the paramedic 2 days before inquest; 

 (2) The EPR did not record that the deceased had been advised to go to hospital nor 
that she understood any such advice and she was not asked to sign a disclaimer;   

(3) There was no information left by the attending paramedic crew to reflect the decision 
of the deceased to decline admission or the advice given by paramedics.  The family of 
the deceased were not present during the consultation and as a consequence they did 
not know what symptoms to look out for which might suggestion a deterioration in the 
condition of the deceased;   

(4)  There was no note left by the attending paramedic crew detailing the outcome of the 
consultation;   

(5) the discharge notice left by paramedics contained her observations only and the 
wording suggested she had been referred to her GP as an alternative to a hospital 
admission;  

(6) The deceased lived alone and suffered with COPD and IHD.  No attempt was made 
to contact the GP of the deceased or a family member despite the fact it was known that 
the deceased lived alone (it was noted in the EPR).  

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 8/2/21. 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 the CQC.   

I am also under a duty to send a copy of your response to the Chief Coroner and all 
interested persons who in my opinion should receive it.   

I may also send a copy of your response to any other person who I believe may find it 
useful or of interest.  

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.  

2 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 You may make representations to me, the coroner, at the time of your response, about 
the release or the publication of your response. 

9 

14/12/20                         

Joanne Lees Area 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 West Midlands Ambulance Service (PDF)
Your Ref: N/A 
Our Ref: 

Ms J Lees  
Area Coroner for Black Country 
Jack Judge House 
Halesowen Street  
Oldbury 
B69 2AJ 

8th January 2021 

Dear Ms Lees 

Re: Regulation 28 Report to Prevent Future Deaths – Elsie Taylor (Deceased) 

Thank you for your email dated 11 December 2020 attaching your Regulation 28 Report.  
In your Regulation 28 Report. 

Please see our response to your concerns, which has been formulated following a clinical 
review with the paramedic who attended the Inquest. 

Concern 1 
The attending paramedic gave evidence at the inquest that on 15/9/20 the deceased had 
declined a hospital admission against advice due to concerns about Covid-19. This was 
not recorded in the EPR and the first time the family became aware of this was when a 
statement was received from the paramedic 2 days before inquest; 

Response  
During  the  meeting  with  the  paramedic,  he  stated  the  patient  was  advised  to  attend 
hospital but refused, this refusal was not documented on the EPR. The  paramedic also 
made admissions that he did not thoroughly check the EPR which the student paramedic 
had  completed  prior  to him  signing  it.    The importance  of  the  EPR  and  the  information 
contained in it was reiterated to the paramedic. Both crew members have attended further 
training  which  covered  the  Trusts  expected  standard  of  completing  and  checking 
documentation.  

We would like to apologise for the delay you experienced in receiving the statement. The 
local management team for the Black Country have been reminded of the importance of 
providing statements for your office in a timely manner.  

Concern 2 
The EPR did not record that the deceased had been advised to go to hospital nor that she 
understood any such advice and she was not asked to sign a disclaimer;   

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Response 
The  paramedic  acknowledged  that  the  patient  was  on  anti-coagulation  medication,  he 
informed  the  clinical  review  meeting  that  he  advised  the  patient  that  she  should  go  to 
hospital but the patient refused due to concerns about COVID -19. This discussion was 
not documented on the EPR. A safety net was put in place and the patient was asked to 
contact her GP or call 111/999 in the case of an emergency, this was documented on the 
EPR and discharge sheet. The patient was not asked to sign the EPR, this should have 
taken place for a non conveyance. As part of the further training attendend by the crew 
the importance of asking the patient to sign the non conveyance section of the EPR was 
covered. 

Concern 3 
There was no information left by the attending paramedic crew to reflect the decision of 
the deceased to decline admission or the advice given by paramedics.  The family of the 
deceased were not present during the consultation and as a consequence they did not 
know what symptoms to look out for which might suggestion a deterioration in the condition 
of the deceased;   

Response 
A discharge sheet was left with the patient, which detailed that the patient was to contact 
the GP or in the case of an emergency to call 999/111. The paramedic has confirmed that 
there was no family present but there was neighbour in attendance throughout the whole 
consultation. The neighbour was shown the bruise on the patient ribs and she informed 
the crew that she would stay with the patient for some time to keep an eye on her. 

Concern 4 
There  was  no  note  left  by  the  attending  paramedic  crew  detailing  the  outcome  of  the 
consultation;   

Response  
Please refer response under concern 3 

Concern 5 
The discharge notice left by paramedics contained her observations only and the wording 
suggested she had been referred to her GP as an alternative to a hospital admission; 

Response  
The box ticked on the discharge form states that the patient had been advised to contact 
or attend her GP practice.  If a referral had been made on behalf of the patient one of the 
boxes at the top of the form would have been ticked. 

Concern 6 
The deceased lived alone and suffered with COPD and IHD.  No attempt was made to 
contact the GP of the deceased or a family member despite the fact it was known that the 
deceased lived alone (it was noted in the EPR). 

Response  
There was a neighbour in attendance throughout the consultation including at the point of 
discharge  and  it  was  the  crews  belief  that  she  would  stay  with  the  patent.  The  patient 
stated that her daughter was at work and that she did not want her to be disturbed. 

Please be assured that both crew members have attended our training school and have 
completed a number of refresher training sessions to ensure they are fully trained in the 
areas discussed in their clinical case reviews. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 Can I please take this opportunity to pass on my sincere condolences to the family of Ms 
Taylor 

I hope this response provides you with the appropriate level of assurance that as a Trust 
we have dealt with the concerns highlighted within your report. 

If you require any further assistance, please do not hesitate contact me. 

Yours sincerely 

Chief Executive Officer

Related reports

Other reports by Joanne Lees

See all →

More reports categorised “Emergency Services related deaths”

See all →

Track Emergency Services related deaths

See every Prevention of Future Deaths report matching Emergency Services 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.