Prevention of Future Deaths reports · 2018
Regulation 28 report to prevent future deaths, reference 2022-0036, written 5 Nov 2018. A coroner writes one of these when an inquest reveals a risk that could cause further deaths unless something changes.
| Date of report | 5 Nov 2018 |
|---|---|
| Reference | 2022-0036 |
| Deceased | REDACTED |
| Coroner | Henrietta Hill QC |
| Coroner area | London Inner (South) |
| Category | Community health care · 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.
REGULATION 28: REPORT TO PREVE!\ff FUTURE DEATHS
THIS REPORT IS BEING SENT 1'0;
(1) The Broadgate General Practice
(2) The General l\lledical CouncH
lam HENRIETTA HILL QC, Assistant Coroner, for the coroner area of Inner
South District of Greater London.
I make thls report under paragraph 7, Schedule 5, of the Coroners and Justice
Act 2009 and regulations 28 and 29 of the Coroners (lnvestigations) Regulations
2013.
3
INVESTIGATION and INQUEST
THE DECEASED, who was born on
St Thomas's Hospital, London. An investigation and an inquest into his death
were opened. The inquest was conducted before me, sitting alone, from
, died on 22 November 2017 at
. I summed up the evidence and gave my conclusions on
.
The medical cause of the deceased's death was recorded as follows:
!(a) hypoxic-ischaemic encephalopathy
l(b) hanging.
J returned a conclusion of suicide.
4
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE DEA TH
The deceased died on 22 November 2017 at St Thomas's Hospital, London as a
result of the braln damage he sustained when he hanged himself at his home on
20 November 2017.
Prior to his death, The deceased had been seen on several occasions by two
GPs working at the Broadgate General Practice, Dr A and Dr B.
------t-,.----:--c,-:-�----c:---------�---------------1
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 wm occur unless action
is taken. In the circumstances it is my statutory duty to report to you.
The MATTERS OF CONCERN are that:
1. On 6 September 2017 the deceased teleohoned his
GP who
1
prescribed him Zopiclone, Ven!afaxine and Propanolol.
2. On 26 September 2017 the deceased saw Dr A. Dr A decided to change
his medication and prescribed him Duloxetine and Zolpidem.
3. On 5 October 2017 the deceased saw Dr A again. The Zolpidem
was swapped to Nitrazepam, a more potent sedative, as the deceased
had said that after 2 weeks he had not found the� effective.
Expert evidence adduced at the inquest from___. was to the
effect that the deceased's presentation at this�d have triggered
a further inquiry into his psychiatric history ...... said that he
would have contacted the deceased's home GP.
4. On '19 October 2017 the deceased saw Dr A again. He said he was
feeling better on the Duloxetine but was still stressed and anxious and got
a few anxiety attacks. Dr A prescribed him Propanol, Nitrazepam and
Xanax. Dr A also prescribed the deceased 6 months' worth of
Duloxetine. - - evidence was that it was "most unusuaf' to
prescribe such a large amount of medication (6 months' worth of
Duloxetine) during the initial period where a patient's medication had
been switched and where close monitoring was needed. He opined that
the first 6 weeks of the 'switch' period were ones in which the patien mi
ht et better, might get worse and might develop suicidal thoughts. -
said that such a volume of medication was not merited clinica y an cou d
create a risk of overdose.
5. On 8 and 9 November 2017 the deceased saw Dr B. She made no
notes of his presentation or diagnosis on any occasion when she saw
him which she accepted she should have done. She �t note her
rationale for changing his medication which again ..... said
should have happened. He also considered that Dr B should have
examined the past records for the deceased which she accepted she had
not done in full.
6. There are a series of further issues with the medication Dr B prescribed
the deceased and her records of the same. The electronic patient
notes reflect a prescription for Xanax but she said in evidence that the
deceased had not in fact accepted this. She prescribed him Temazepam
but this is a controlled drug in this country and cannot be prescribed in
the usual way. She changed this to Nitrazepam but the dose was
incorrect and this was refused by the pharmacy. The next day she
prescribed him Lorazepam without him returning the Nitrazepam
prescription to her. She made an error in the dose for Lorazepam and
had to correct that. When he attended on 15 November 2017 asking
for more medication she made no note of his attendance.
7 ....... evidence was that the multiple changes to the medication
"regiriie"'iie by Dr B were not medically indicated and that the
deceased clearly needed an urgent psychiatric referral. He said this
was the case by 8 November 2017.
8. Overall - said his impression was that Dr B did not understand
what she was prescribing.
9. I accepted
opinion on the various issues set out above.
2
10. Large numbers of boxes of medication were found at the deceased's flat
after his death by the police and his family. There remains some
uncertainty as to where he obtained all the medication from, and what
exactly he had taken and when.
6 ACTION SHOULD BE TAKEN
In my opinion action should be taken to prevent future deaths and I believe both
organisations named above 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. The date would normally be 31 December 2018. Allowing for the
holiday period I have extended this to 7 January 2019. I, the Coroner, may
extend the period further.
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 �ief Coroner and to the following
Interested Persons:----(the deceased's parents), Dr A, Dr B
and the South London and Maudsley NHS Trust, who were recognised as
Interested Persons in the inquest.
A copy of this Report is also being provided to the Care Quality Commission
("the CQC"), pursuant to the Memorandum of Understanding between the
Coroners Society and the CQC, paragraph 33.
I am also 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 ..... .. Henrietta Hill QC .......................................... .
Assistant Coroner
5 November 2018
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.
RESPONSE TO REGULATION 28 CORONER'S REPORT TO PREVENT FUTURE DEATHS 1 THIS RESPONSE IS MADE ON BEHALF Of The General Medical Council 2 REGULATION 28 REPORT This response follows a report by Assistant coroner Henrietta Hill QC dated 6 November 2018 INVESTIGATION AND INQUEST 3 The inquest in question relates to the death of the deceased, who died on 22 November 2017 at St Thomas's Hospital, London. An inquest into his death concluded on . The medical. cause of the deceased's death was recorded as follows: (a) hypoxic�isthaemic encephalopathy (b) hanging. A conclusion of suicide was returned. _CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE DEATH 4 The deceased died on 22 November 2017 at St Thomas's Hospital, London as a . result of the brain damage he sustained when he hanged himself at his home on 20 November 2017. Prior to his death, the deceased had been I seen o working at the Broadgate General Practice, Dr CORONER'S CONCERNS 5 - - • I asions by two GPs and Dr B (Dr The matters of.concern set out by the Coroner are that: 1. On 6 September 2017 the deceased telephoned his GP who prescribed him Zopiclone, Venlafaxine and Propanolol. 2. On 26 September 2017 the deceased :Saw Dr A. Dr A decided to change his meqication and prescribed him Duloxetine and Zolpidem. 3. On 5 October 2017 the deceased saw Dr A again. The Zolpidem was swapped to Nitrazepam, a more potent sedative, as the deceased had said that after 2 weeks he had not found the Zolpidem to be effective. Expert evidence adduced at the inquest from Dr the deceased's presentation at this point should have triggered a further inquiry into his psychiatric history. D�said that he would have contacted the deceased's home GP. was to the effect that 4. On 19 October 2017 the deceased saw Dr A again. He said he was feeling better on the Duloxetine but was still stressed and anxious and got a few anxiety attacks. Dr A rescribed him Pro anol Nitraze am and Xanax. Dr A also prescribed the deceased 6 momhs' worth of Duloxetine. Dr- evidence vvas that it was "most unusual to prescribe such a large amount of 1 medication (6 months worth of Duloxetine) during the initial period where a patient's medication had been switched and where close monitoring was needed. He opined that the first 6 weeks of the 'switch' period were ones .in which the patient mi� better, might get worse and might develop suicidal thoughts. D� said that such a volume of medication was not merited clinically and could create a risk of overdose. 5. On 8 and 9 November 2017 the deceased saw Dr B. She made no notes of his presentation or diagnosis on any occasion when she saw him which she accepted she should have done. She also did not note her rationale for changing his medication which again Dr-said should have happened. He also considered that Dr B should have examined the past records for the deceased which she accepted she had not done in full. 6. There are a series of further issues with the medication Dr B prescribed the deceased and her records of the same. The electronic patient notes reflect a prescription for Xanax but she said in evidence that the deceased had not in fact accepted this. She prescribed him Ternazepam but this is a controlled drug in this country and cannot be prescribed in the usual way. She changed this to Nitrazepam but the dose was incorrect and this was refused by the pharmacy. The ne:xt day she prescribed him Lorazepam without him returning the Nitrazepam prescription to her. She made an error in the dose for Lorazepam and had to correct that. When he attended on 15 November 2017 asking for more medication she made no note of his attendance. 7. Dr evidence was that the multiple changes to the medication regime 8. Overall Dr- said his impression was that Dr B did not understand what made by Dr B were not medically indicated and that the deceased clearly needed an urgent psychiatric referral. He said this was the case by 8 November 2017. she was prescribing. 9. The coroner accepted Dr opinion on the various issues set out above. 10. Large numbers of boxes of medication were found at the deceased'ss flat after . his death by the police and his family. There remains some uncertainty as to where he obtained all the medication from, and what exactly he had taken and when. 6 ACTION TAKEN/TIMESCALE 1. · As a result of a referral from the Metropolitan Police Service dated 4 May 2019 in relation to D� and the care provided to the deceased, an investigation was opened by the GMC. An Expert Report was requested and this has now been received. Under Rule 7 of the Fitness to Practise Rules 200� will now be written to formally to: (a) inform them of the allegation and state the matters which appear to raise a question as to whether their fitness to practise is impaired; (b) provide them with copies of any documents received by the General Council in support of the allegation; · (c) invite them to respond to the allegation with written representations within the period of 28 days from the date of the letter; and (d) inform them that representations received from them will be disclosed, where appropriate, to the maker of the allegation (if any) for comment. At the end of the investi ation and followin the 28 da eriod allowin for ? · comments from the case will be referred to two senior GMC staff known as case examiners, one medical and one non-medical, who will · review all the evidence collected and make a decision on the outcome of the investigation (Rule 8). The outcome of an investigation can be to: • • • • • conclude the case with no further action the doctor being given advice · the doctor being issued a warning the doctor agreeing to undertakings to address a problem, or refer the case to the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service (MPTS) for a hearing. Medical practitioners tribunals consist of specially trained people, both lay and medical, who will hear all the evidence and decide at the end of the hearing whether the doctor's fitness to practise is impaired and, if so, what sanction may be needed to protect the public. If the tribunal finds that the dbctor!s fitness to practise is impaired they can do one of the following: • place conditions on the doctor's registration so that they are only allowed to do medical work under supervision or so that they are restricted to certain areas of practice • suspend the doctor's name from the medical register so that they • cannot practise during the suspension period remove the doctor's name from the medical register so that they cannot work as a doctor in the UK for at least five years, and possibly for life. In the event of a referral to MPTS, the estimated timeframe for the hearing to commence is 9 months after the decision to refer has been made. 2. Following the conclusion of the Inquest on an investigation has been opened in relation to Dr GMC to requ'1U1 Expert Report to comment on the care the deceased received from Drllll Expert Reports can take around two months to produce. Upon receipt of the Expert Report a decision will then be made as to how the case should progress. It is likely that the investigation will progress to Rule 7 and follow the same process as detailed above but this will be assessed upon receipt of the Expert Report, It is the intention of the 7 THIS RESPONSE HAS BEEN PREPARED BY Head of Re ional Investi ation Team General Medical Council 8 DATE OF RESPONSE 7 Janua 2019
See every Prevention of Future Deaths report matching Community health care, 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.