Prevention of Future Deaths reports · 2021
Regulation 28 report to prevent future deaths, reference 2021-0343, written 14 Oct 2021. A coroner writes one of these when an inquest reveals a risk that could cause further deaths unless something changes.
| Date of report | 14 Oct 2021 |
|---|---|
| Reference | 2021-0343 |
| Deceased | Kirsty Doodes |
| Coroner | Andrew Cox |
| Coroner area | Cornwall and Isles of Scilly |
| Category | Mental Health related deaths · Hospital Death (Clinical Procedures and medical management) related deaths · Suicide (from 2015) |
| Source | judiciary.uk record · original PDF |
| Responses published | 1 |
Text extracted from the PDF text layer. Reproduced verbatim, including the scan's own layout.
Information Classification: CONTROLLED REGULATION 28: REPORT TO PREVENT FUTURE DEATHS (1) REGULATION 28 REPORT TO PREVENT FUTURE DEATHS THIS REPORT IS BEING SENT TO: Dr Partnership (Foundation) Trust , Medical Director, Cornwall 1 CORONER I am Andrew Cox, the Senior Coroner for the coroner area of Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly. 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 14/10/21, I concluded an inquest into the death of Kirsty Marie Doodes who died on 27/3/20. . The medical cause of death was recorded as: I recorded a Conclusion of a death from Suicide. 4 CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE DEATH Kirsty was a 37-year-old lady with a long history of mental ill-health and an established diagnosis of an emotionally unstable personality disorder. Following a deterioration in her presentation she was admitted under s2 MHA to Carbis ward, Longreach on 3 March 2020. She attempted to on five occasions. On 18 March 2020, an appropriate decision was made to discharge her from section and the ward. This coincided with the national lockdown due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Kirsty deteriorated at home. She was attended upon by mental health staff on 24 March 2020 and informed that she would either require a lengthy detention in a specialist unit or she could try to work with clinicians in a community setting. She opted for the latter. On 27 March 2020, . She Kirsty was taken to Derriford Hospital but could not be resuscitated and died from her injuries. 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. – Insufficiency of note-keeping. i) ii) in the RiO records was described by an independent expert, The note made by Dr Dr , as extremely brief. I accept that medical notes should not be defensive in nature but there is nothing at all in it to justify the view expressed that Kirsty was safe to 1 Information Classification: CONTROLLED go home. In a context where she has, over a very recent period, attempted to on five occasions, the rationale explaining how it was felt she was safe to go home should, in my view, have been set out. Of perhaps more significance is that there was nothing in the note to assist clinicians with understanding how the future care plan was to be organised. That was in a context where a national lockdown was imminent. Given the unprecedented circumstances, it seems apparent to me that there was all the more reason to provide detail in this regard. The fact it was not set out, it seems to me, implies that there was doubt on the part of Dr about how the plan to continue treating Kirsty was to be organised. My fear is that . this simply passed the burden of the management of the risk to This reached an entirely foreseeable crisis in the early hours of 23 March. Kirsty had deteriorated to the point she was described as very suicidal. was exhausted from his desperate efforts to keep his wife safe. He rang the ward for assistance. There was advised to call the emergency was no one available to help him. services. He rang the police who told him to ring the ambulance service who told him to ring the CMHT in the morning. This should not have happened. A detailed plan with how to manage an acute deterioration could have prevented it. At the time, Doctor was effectively carrying the burden of two consultant was away from work. I indicated at inquest that if this was psychiatrists in that Dr due to under-resourcing of the Trust, I would write to those responsible for funding. I was advised that, in fact, the problem may be due to a scarcity of consultant psychiatrists nationally. I would be grateful if you could please let me know the position. iii) Lack of involvement of family/carer in discharge process The Trust’s own discharge policy states: 3. Principles The decision to discharge someone from hospital must be in keeping with the Care Programme Approach (CPA), (DH 1991, 2008) and governed by the following principles: The patient, carer and / or advocate, must be actively involved in all aspects of the discharge plan, where practicable. Arrangements for discharge should be negotiated with everyone likely to be concerned with the service user’s aftercare. was Kirsty’s carer. He had not been ‘actively involved in all aspects of the discharge plan.’ He had a phone call to come and collect her and on arriving at the hospital he found her bag to be packed. He did not feel as though he was given any choice. I acknowledged at inquest that there were extenuating circumstances in that Kirsty's discharge coincided with the first national lockdown during the COVID pandemic. Nevertheless, I think it is appropriate to bring to your attention whether there is a need to remind clinicians to involve families and carers in a meaningful way during the discharge process. 6 ACTION SHOULD BE TAKEN In my opinion action should be taken to prevent future deaths and I believe you [AND/OR 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 10/12/21. I, the coroner, may extend the period. 2 Information Classification: CONTROLLED 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: (mother) and (daughter.) (husband,) 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] 14.10.21 [SIGNED BY CORONER] 3
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.
8th December 2021
Interim Medical Director
Head Office
Carew House
Beacon Technology Park
Dunmere Road
Bodmin
PL31 2QN
Dear Mr Cox
Regulation 28 - Prevention of Future Deaths report following the inquest into the death of Mrs
Kirtsy Doodes (concluded 14 October 2021)
Thank you for your Regulation 28 Report, issued following the Inquest into the death of Mrs Doodes. I
am replying as the Medical Director for Cornwall Partnership NHS Foundation Trust.
I would first like to offer my sincere condolences to Mrs Doodes’ family and to say that I am truly sorry
for their devastating loss. Every death in such circumstances is a tragedy and the implementation of
learning from this is my absolute priority.
I have discussed the concerns raised with our Director for Mental Health Services, our Nurse
Consultant for Mental Health Inpatients and Targeted Services (MH&TS), and the Care Quality Lead
for MH&TS. We considered the circumstances around Mrs Doodes’ discharge and the experience of
Mr Doodes, and I set out below the response to the matters you have raised.
Discharge Process
I am aware of
provided following her discharge. Having reflected on these concerns, and the concerns you outlined
in the Regulation 28 report, I feel it is important to highlight a number of general points:
’ concerns regarding Mrs Doodes discharge from hospital and the care
We would firstly like to identify that the general length of stay on our hospital wards for the full range of
patients is not short - we currently have an average length of stay that is significantly greater than that
of the national average and the reasons for this are multi-facetted which I will not expand on here.
Additionally, where a patient is deemed to have capacity, and has been removed from section under
the Mental Health Act, they are able to make the decision to return home which, in some instances,
may be against our advice.
Mrs Doodes’ had repeatedly expressed her desire to leave the ward and had been positively engaging
with the clinical team in an effort to achieve this in the days prior to her eventual discharge on the 18
March 2020. A referral had been made to the Trust’s Home Treatment Team in preparation for this
event and for further safety planning in the community setting. The decision to discharge Mrs Doodes
was accepted as an appropriate decision at Inquest, as reflected in section 4 of the Prevention of
Future Deaths report.
Moving to a ‘at home’ care setting after risk has appeared to escalate on the in-patient ward, can seem
counterintuitive and may be hard to accept. However, it is a practice supported by the best evidence
.
Head Office: Carew House, Beacon Technology Park, Dunmere Road, Bodmin, PL31 2QN
Tel: 01208 834600 Email: cpn-tr.enquiries@nhs.net
www.cornwallft.nhs.uk
and is particularly the case where staff and teams are very familiar with the person and have
experience of engaging and working with them, such as was the situation with Mrs Doodes.
As a NHS Trust, we endeavour to provide the best possible care and work as closely to National
Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) Guidance as possible. The NICE guidance for
patients with a personality disorder, which was the diagnosis given to Mrs Doodes, states that
inpatient hospital admission is rarely helpful and can indeed worsen the risk of self-harm, and goes
further, to state that inpatient admissions should ideally be limited to no more than 72 hours. Helping
patients and their families and carers to understand this and recognise the profoundly destabilising
effect of anything other than a brief crisis admission can be very difficult, particularly as Mrs Doodes
had had a number of longer admissions in the past.
With the above factors in mind, we have identified learning for us in that we need to support our
clinicians to improve the discharge process and we therefore intend to review the Trust’s mental health
acute ward discharge policy to support this.
The current discharge policy is lengthy, with many pages of checklists - our concern is that a
preoccupation with these numerous less important factors may distract from those most vital to a safer
and more satisfactory discharge. Therefore, to improve the quality of our discharges we will prioritise
the most important steps within the policy with a refreshed knowledge of the roles and responsibilities
of the multi-disciplinary team. Our priorities around discharge are:
• Communication with families and carers
• Communication with the patient’s GP
• Medication
• Care following discharge
• Crisis information
Additionally, we are committed to working on the length of stay in our hospitals in an attempt to ensure
that it is closer to the national average whilst continuing to work in line with best evidence such as the
NICE Guidelines. This will often (and perhaps more frequently) mean that families and carers may
find the rationale for discharge contrary to their wishes and/or counterintuitive. For this reason, time to
enable families to work through, question and hopefully accept this will need to be prioritised as
although Mr Doodes was involved in his wife’s discharge planning, we recognise that he did not feel
as supportive of the plan as we would have liked.
Clinical Documentation and staffing levels
The Trust’s clinical staff view a patient’s medical documentation holistically to support clinical decision
making, taking into account the views of all services involved rather than a relying on a single entry. In
Mrs Doodes’ case appropriate clinical documentation had been completed by members of the wider
clinical team, including risk assessments and care planning. However, we acknowledge that at times,
documentation and paperwork is not always as robust as we would like.
Sadly, services are finite and we have to balance the extent to which we prioritise the most
comprehensive documentation, against the time available for clinical care with patients and their
families. As part of our plan to improve mental health services we will be reviewing our accepted
documentation standards, with the aim of supporting and directing our clinicians to spend the
maximum amount of time providing compassionate, person-centred care, while minimising what may
ultimately be, unhelpfully defensive documentation. This approach will also allow clinicians as much
time as possible time to have difficult discussions with families and carers, for example around
discharges from hospital. As such, consideration will be given as part of the review of the discharge
policy (described above) to include a template for documenting inpatient discharge decisions. This
template will support effective communication and will be designed to make note keeping concise with
space to succinctly include the rationale used, which we hope will be helpful in supporting staff to
Page 2
evidence their decision making; and also aid the members of the wider multi-disciplinary team in
explaining clinical decisions to families and carers in the future.
You also requested clarity around the availability of consultant psychiatry staffing. This is an ongoing
nationally recognised problem and The Royal College of Psychiatry national census in 2019,
estimated 9% of consultant posts as being vacant, this is thought to have since exceeded 10%, and in
general, services manage this gap by the employment of locums. We recognise this challenge more
acutely in Cornwall where there has been a significant shift in the vacant posts in past 2 years as
recruitment to the county has become more difficult. At present the number of vacant consultant posts
filled by locum staff in Cornwall varies between 15-20%. We work very hard to recruit substantively to
posts whenever a vacancy appears, and we will also promptly appoint a locum psychiatrist to ensure
that gaps in service provision do not lead to unnecessary pressures on services. Despite our best
efforts, at times these gaps can emerge and we have other contingencies that we can use in urgent
situations.
At the time of her discharge, Mrs Doodes was under the care of our general psychiatry service where
consultants work as ‘pairing partners’ - which means that they cross-cover one another for periods of
absence or leave. Both Mrs Doodes’ lead consultant and his pairing partner are substantive
consultants employed by the Trust. Mrs Doodes’ lead consultant was stranded in India as the Covid
19 pandemic began to surge, resulting in the ‘pairing partner’ consultant overseeing her care. These
arrangements for cross cover are well tested and colleagues are familiar with them, needing to adapt
their working week when providing a period of cover.
As a Trust, we continue to struggle with profound shortages of a wide range of trained and untrained
staff across many of our services. For this reason, we are especially focussed on the time we spend
with patients and their families and would like to thank you for the opportunity to explain how we intend
to maximise this, whilst adhering to best practice and working in very pressing circumstances. It is
important to note that we are making extraordinary effort to increase our workforce in all professions.
Measures we are taking to expand our mental health workforce include:
•
Introduction of new roles to complement our existing workforce, e.g. mental health workers in
GP surgeries, Peer Support Workers (people with lived experience of mental ill health) and
Clinical Associate Psychologists among others,
• Undertaking our first international nurse recruitment programme, the first cohort are expected
to be in our employment by March 2022,
• Significantly increasing our number of apprentice roles, including mental health nurse
•
apprentices.
Improving retention of staff by making us a great employer, creating better career pathways
and more obvious opportunities for progression as an expert clinician.
Thank you again for bringing your concerns to my attention - they are clearly relevant and important
issues around a crucial aspect of care at the point of discharge from hospital. I trust that this response
provides assurance that action is being taken to address the matters that you have raised.
Yours sincerely
Interim Medical Director
Page 3
See every Prevention of Future Deaths report matching Mental Health 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.