Prevention of Future Deaths reports · 2022
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 report | 17 Jul 2022 |
|---|---|
| Reference | 2022-0212 |
| Deceased | Darren Jones |
| Coroner | Alison Mutch |
| Coroner area | Manchester South |
| Category | Hospital Death (Clinical Procedures and medical management) related deaths |
| Organisation named | Stockport NHS Foundation Trust |
| 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 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
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.
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
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.