Prevention of Future Deaths reports · 2022

Emily Caldicott

Regulation 28 report to prevent future deaths, reference 2022-0092, written 23 Mar 2022. A coroner writes one of these when an inquest reveals a risk that could cause further deaths unless something changes.

Date of report23 Mar 2022
Reference2022-0092
DeceasedEmily Caldicott
CoronerDavid Reid
Coroner areaWorcestershire
CategoryHospital Death (Clinical Procedures and medical management) related deaths · Mental Health related deaths · Alcohol, drug and medication related deaths
Organisation namedHerefordshire and Worcestershire Health and Care 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 TO PREVENT FUTURE DEATHS 

THIS REPORT IS BEING SENT TO: 

The Chief  Executive, Herefordshire & Worcestershire Health and Care NHS Trust  

1  CORONER 

I am David Donald William REID, HM Senior Coroner for Worcestershire. 

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 [the details below are fictional] 

On 31 March 2020 I commenced an investigation into the death of Emily Jane 
CALDICOTT. The investigation concluded at the end of the inquest. The conclusion of 
the inquest was as follows: 

“Emily Caldicott died as a result of tying a ligature around her neck. It is not possible 
to determine what her intention was at the time she did this. 
Please see questionnaire: 

QUESTIONNAIRE 
1. 
(a) At any point on the evening of 21 March 2020 did Emily lack capacity to make a
decision about accepting Lorazepam medication?
YES

(b) If YES, did staff on Holt Ward carry out an adequate assessment of Emily's
capacity at that point?
NO

2. If NO to Question 1(b):
(a) did a failure adequately to assess Emily's capacity to make that decision probably
cause or contribute to her death on 23 March 2020?
YES

(b) If NO or CANNOT SAY to Question 2(a), did a failure adequately to assess Emily's
capacity to make that decision possibly cause or contribute to her death on 23 March
2020? YES/NO/CANNOT SAY

3. On the evening of 21 March 2020 should staff on Holt Ward have administered IM
Lorazepam to Emily 'under best interests'?
Please note: if your answer to Question 1(b) was YES, you must answer this question
NO, and not answer Question 4.
YES

4. If YES to Question 3:
(a) did a failure to administer IM Lorazepam that evening probably cause or contribute
to Emily's death on 23 March 2020?
YES

1 

 (b) if NO or CANNOT SAY to Question 4(a), did a failure to administer IM Lorazepam 
that evening possibly cause or contribute to Emily's death on 23 March 2020? 
YES/NO/CANNOT SAY 

5. Following the first ligature incident on the evening of 21 March 2020, should staff on 
Holt Ward have removed the 
YES 

 which Emily had used to make that ligature? 

6. If YES to Question 5: 
(a) did their failure to remove the 
on 23 March 2020? 
CANNOT SAY 

 probably cause or contribute to Emily's death 

(b) if NO or CANNOT SAY to Question 6(a), did their failure to remove the 
possibly cause or contribute to Emily's death on 23 March 2020? 
YES 

Neglect 
If, but only if, you have answered YES to any or all of Questions 2(a), 4(a) or 6(a), you 
must also consider whether or not that particular failure by ward staff amounted to 
neglect. In order to do so, please first read and follow paragraphs 23-26 in the 
document 'Legal Directions (2)'. Once you have done so, please answer the following 
question: 

7. Was Emily's death contributed to by neglect? 
YES” 

4  CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE DEATH 

On 19th March 2020 Emily Jane Caldicott was admitted to Worcestershire Royal 
Hospital as a voluntary informal inpatient, in order to seek treatment, following an 
overdose of her medication. Emily had a background of significant mental health 
issues that stemmed from childhood sexual abuse and suffered from Emotionally 
Unstable Personality Disorder. On 21st March 2020 Emily was found unresponsive in 
her room on Holt Ward, Newtown Hospital, Worcester after tying a ligature around her 
neck, shortly after being detained under the Mental Health Act. She was then moved 
to Worcestershire Royal Hospital, where she died on 23rd March 2020 from 
pneumonia and cerebral anoxia due to the application of a ligature. 

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.  –  

(1) By their conclusion expressed above, the jury were satisfied that on the evening of 
21.3.20, when Emily tied the ligature which resulted in her death, staff on Holt Ward, 
Newtown Hospital, Worcester failed to carry out an adequate assessment of Emily's 
capacity to make a decision about taking Lorazepam to reduce her extreme anxiety 
and distress, and had they done so, they would have found that she lacked capacity in 
that regard, and would have administered an intramuscular injection of Lorazepam "in 
best interests"; 

(2) In the note which she made about these events on Care Notes, dated 22.3.20, 
staf f nurse MM recorded as follows: 

2 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 "I offered her Oral Lorazepam, but she refused, however [ Deputy Ward Manager ] 
stated unable to give IM Lorazepam due to her being an informal patient and had 
already had IM administered under best interest on 19.3.20. On the balance of 
probability, Emily had capacity to understand that she was informal and that we could 
not administer medication under MAPA therefore team decided that IM should wait for 
further guidance from medic following his assessment for section 5.2." 

(3) In her evidence, staff nurse 
when deciding whether or not to give IM Lorazepam to Emily, but was unable to 
explain why she had recorded otherwise in the Care Notes, and why she had not 
corrected herself when making her statement for the inquest only 2 weeks after the 
incident, save to say that she had been distressed by what had happened. 

 denied that this was the test which was applied 

said that the reason she had not 

(4) In her evidence, Deputy Ward Manager 
administered IM Lorazepam to Emily was because she had assessed her capacity to 
make a decision about such medication during an incident outside the nurses' office 
about an hour before the fatal ligature, and had concluded that she did have capacity 
to ref use it. She said that she had not formally assessed Emily's capacity thereafter 
because she did not think Emily required Lorazepam. She said that staff nurse 
had recorded the test she applied wrongly in the Care Notes, because she may not 
have understood what she ( 

 ) was saying. 

(5) By their conclusion, the jury found that if an adequate assessment of Emily's 
capacity had taken place, she would have been given IM Lorazepam "in best 
interests", that this would have quickly relieved her anxiety and distress, and that her 
death would probably have been prevented. 

(6) Although staff on Holt Ward were undoubtedly having to deal with a very difficult 
situation in this case, I am concerned that if a such a decision has to be made in 
similar circumstances in the future, staff may not apply the correct test under the 
Mental Capacity Act 2005, and there is therefore a risk of future deaths occurring. 

6  ACTION SHOULD BE TAKEN 

In my opinion action should be taken to prevent future deaths and I believe you, as 
Chief  Executive of Herefordshire & Worcestershire Health and Care 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 18 May 2022. 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: 

GT Stewart Solicitors and Advocates ( legal representatives of 
Emily’s father ); 

, 

 ( Emily’s mother ). 

I am also under a duty to send the Chief Coroner a copy of your response.  

3 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 The Chief  Coroner may publish either or both in a complete or redacted or summary 
f orm. He may send a copy of this report to any person who he believes may find it 
usef ul 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 

23 March 2022                                                      

David REID 
HM Senior Coroner for Worcestershire 

4

Related reports

Other reports by David Reid

See all →

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

See all →

Track Herefordshire and Worcestershire Health and Care NHS Trust

See every Prevention of Future Deaths report matching Herefordshire and Worcestershire Health and Care 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.