Prevention of Future Deaths reports · 2022

Darren Jones

Regulation 28 report to prevent future deaths, reference 2022-0212, written 17 Jul 2022. A coroner writes one of these when an inquest reveals a risk that could cause further deaths unless something changes.

Date of report17 Jul 2022
Reference2022-0212
DeceasedDarren Jones
CoronerAlison Mutch
Coroner areaManchester South
CategoryHospital Death (Clinical Procedures and medical management) related deaths
Organisation namedStockport NHS Foundation Trust
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 

REGULATION 28 REPORT TO PREVENT FUTURE DEATHS 

THIS REPORT IS BEING SENT TO:  The Greater Manchester Health 
and Social Care Partnership 

1  CORONER 

I am Alison Mutch, Senior Coroner, for the Coroner Area of Greater 
Manchester South 

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 29th  October 2021 I commenced an investigation into the death of 
Darren Jones. The investigation concluded on the 6th  June 2022 and the 
conclusion was one of Narrative: Died from the complications of 
necessary catheterisation. The medical cause of death was 1a) 
Sepsis; 1b) Urinary Tract Infection on a background of long term 
catheterisation; II) Chronic bladder outflow obstruction, Chronic 
Kidney Disease 

4  CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE DEATH 

Darren Jones had severe learning disabilities and lacked capacity. He 
had a long term catheter fitted after developing urinary retention. He had 
chronic kidney disease as a consequence of his history of urinary 
retention. He was admitted to Stepping Hill Hospital following three 
unsuccessful attempts to change his catheter in the community. Further 
attempts in the Emergency Department were unsuccessful and he was 
admitted to Stepping Hill Hospital. At 10:04 on 21st  October 2021 he had 
a NEWS2 score of 8. At 11:38 he was placed on the sepsis pathway on 
patient track and intravenous antibiotics given. He deteriorated 
throughout the day despite treatment. On 22nd  October 2021 he died at 
Stepping Hill Hospital from sepsis. 

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 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. The Inquest heard that delivering care in the community to Mr
Jones in relation to his catheter care was impacted by the
significant demands on the District Nursing Team due to their
staffing levels against their caseload. The evidence was that the
District Nursing Teams were under significant pressure which
impacted the support and care they could deliver;

2. Mr Jones had significant learning difficulties which were not fully
recognised at the hospital to ensure that he was provided with
support and that an IMCA was put in place to ensure his best
interests were met. The Inquest heard evidence that it was
important that all clinicians and health care professionals were
clear and understood how to effectively support someone with a
learning disability to ensure they were given the best and most
appropriate care;

3. The Inquest heard that there was a dispute between two Local

Authorities regarding training in catheter care. This impacted the
provision of respite care and his health and wellbeing;

4. No LeDeR appeared to have been commissioned on the evidence

before the Inquest.

6  ACTION SHOULD BE TAKEN 

In my opinion action should be taken to prevent future deaths and I 
believe you 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 11th  September 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. 

2 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 8  COPIES and PUBLICATION 

I have sent a copy of my report to the Chief Coroner and to the following 
Interested Persons namely 1) 
Carer/Guardian; 2) Stepping Hill Hospital, who may find it useful or of 
interest. 

 Mr Jones’ 

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 

Alison Mutch OBE 
HM Senior Coroner 

17.07.2022 

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 NHS Greater Manchester (PDF)
E: 

Date: 9 September 2022 

Ms A Mutch  
HM Senior Coroner 
Coroner’s Court  
1 Mount Tabor  Street  
Stockport  
SK1 3AG 

Dear Ms Mutch 

Re: Regulation 28 Report to Prevent Future Deaths – Darren Jones 22/10/21 

Thank you for your Regulation 28 Report dated 17/07/22 concerning the sad death of Darren Jones on 
22/10/21. On behalf of NHS Greater Manchester Integrated Care (NHS GM), I would like to begin by 
offering our sincere condolences to Mr. Jones family for their loss. 

Thank you for highlighting your concerns during Mr. Jones Inquest which concluded on 6 June 2022. On 
behalf of NHS GM, I apologise that you have had to bring these matters of concern to our attention but it 
is also very important to ensure we make the necessary improvements to the quality and safety of future 
services.   

The inquest concluded that Darren’s death was a result of 1a) Sepsis; 1b) Urinary Tract Infection on a 
background of long-term catheterisation; II) Chronic bladder outflow obstruction, Chronic Kidney 
Disease. Following the inquest, you raised concerns in your Regulation 28 Report to NHS GM that there 
is a risk future deaths will occur unless action is taken. 

I hope the response below demonstrates to you and Mr. Jones family that NHS GM has taken the 
concerns you have raised seriously and will learn from this as a whole system.  

This letter addresses the issues that fall within the remit of NHS GM and how we can share the learning 
from this case. 

The evidence was that the District Nursing Teams were under significant pressure which impacted 
the support and care they could deliver  
The key issues in this case were in relation to nursing practice, specifically documentation and the failure 
to direct the patient to the most appropriate setting within the hospital.    

Documentation 
It  was  identified that documentation standards  were not  achieved in this  case;  Emis  (clinical  system) 
entries were not made following the second attendance and clinical observations were not recorded prior 
to the decision to refer Mr. Jones to the hospital. 

The team has been reminded of the importance of accurate and timely completion of all patient records 
and  there is  now  a  monthly  review of 10  sets  of  notes to  ensure that  standards  are  achieved  and 
maintained.   

4th Floor, Piccadilly Place, Manchester  M1 3BN   

 
  
 
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 The locality has confirmed that 1:1 feedback has been given to all of the nurses involved with the expected 
standards of documentation shared across the Stockport District Nursing Service during daily huddles, 
team meetings, ‘message of the week’ and the divisional lessons learnt newsletter.    

Referral into hospital  
In circumstance where a patient is transferred to Stockport NHS Foundation Trust (Stepping Hill Hospital) 
due to failed catheter insertion, the correct pathway is for the patient to be admitted and reviewed within 
the Surgical Assessment Unit (SAU) as opposed to the Emergency Department.  In this case  Mr. Jones 
was referred into the Emergency Department which was not the appropriate pathway for him.    

The team has been reminded of the appropriate pathway and management of a patient needing admission 
due to failed catheter insertion. 

In response to the general question of pressures within the District Nursing Service, there are pressures 
across the system including district nursing services.  However, the findings in this case were identified to 
be around individual practice and awareness as opposed to being due to pressures.  That said, it can be 
realistically accepted that wider pressures may have had an impact.   

The Action Plan  resulting from this case  has  been reviewed and the locality is satisfied that a  detailed 
review of the case has taken place and that the necessary actions have been taken to reduce the likelihood 
of a similar situation arising in the future.   

Mr. Jones had significant learning difficulties which were not recognised at the hospital to ensure 
that he was provided with support and to ensure that an IMCA was put in place to ensure his best 
interests 
In circumstances where a  patient with significant learning difficulties is admitted to hospital, there is  a 
robust process of referral to the safeguarding team for support and guidance; this is to ensure that the 
patient is supported and appropriate services, including the involvement of an IMCA made available to the 
patient. In this case, regrettably, the team were not contacted / alerted to the admission.   

In  response to  this  omission, arrangements  were made  for safeguarding supervision for the specific 
purpose of learning from this episode of care and to ensure improvement across the team.  The learnings 
here have been fed back to the whole of the Victoria Nursing Team. 

We are satisfied that there is a robust process in place for the support of patients with learning difficulties 
but acknowledge that the process failed on this occasion which is highly regrettable. Appropriate steps 
have been taken to ensure wider team awareness for the benefit of future patients.    

The inquest heard that there was a dispute between two local authorities in relation to training re 
catheter care and that this impacted on the provision of respite care and the health and wellbeing 
of Mr. Jones  
This is a  matter for the local authorities involved to address; what can   be confirmed is that the District 
Nursing Team are trained in catheter care 

No LeDeR Report appeared to have been commissioned in relation to Mr. Jones  
A LeDeR notification had been made to the system in respect of Mr. Darren Jones. The review was put on 
'hold' as per national and regional guidance as the case was being heard at inquest.  

Previous instructions were  that  in  circumstances where a  Coroner requests a  review be  completed, 
localities would be informed directly by the Coroner’s Office.  Such a request was not received in this case.   

4th Floor, Piccadilly Place, Manchester  M1 3BN   

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 A copy of the overall Action Plan resulting from this case is attached which I hope will offer reassurance.  

Actions taken or being taken to share learning across Greater Manchester.  

1.  Learning to be presented/shared with the Greater Manchester System Quality Group.  This 
meeting is attended by commissioners, including commissioners of specialist services, 
regulators, Healthwatch and NICE. 

2.  Shared learning from this and similar cases at Greater Manchester and borough level will be 

cascaded to professionals through relevant governance and learning forums. 

In conclusion, key learning points and recommendations will be monitored to ensure they are embedded 
within practice. NHS GM is committed to improving outcomes for the population of Greater Manchester.  

I hope this response demonstrates to you and Mr Jones family that NHS GM has taken the concerns you 
have raised seriously and is committed to work together as a system including our service users, carers  
and families to improve the care provided.  

Thank you for bringing these important patient safety issues to my attention and please do not hesitate 
to contact me should you need any further information. 

Yours sincerely 

Gill Gibson 
Interim Chief Nurse 
GM Integrated Care 

4th Floor, Piccadilly Place, Manchester  M1 3BN

Related reports

Other reports by Alison Mutch

See all →

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

See all →

Track Stockport NHS Foundation Trust

See every Prevention of Future Deaths report matching Stockport NHS Foundation 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.