Prevention of Future Deaths reports · 2022
Regulation 28 report to prevent future deaths, reference 2022-0272, written 4 Sep 2022. A coroner writes one of these when an inquest reveals a risk that could cause further deaths unless something changes.
| Date of report | 4 Sep 2022 |
|---|---|
| Reference | 2022-0272 |
| Deceased | Asher Sinclair |
| Coroner | Lydia Brown |
| Coroner area | West London |
| Category | Child Death (from 2015) · Community health care and emergency services related deaths |
| Source | judiciary.uk record · original PDF |
| Responses published | 2 |
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: 1. NHS England 2. CCG 3. Chief Coroner 1 CORONER I am Lydia Brown, Acting senior coroner, for the coroner area of West London 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 24 October 2019 I commenced an investigation into the death of Asher William Robert Sinclair, age 3. The investigation concluded at the end of the inquest on 24 January 2022. The conclusion of the inquest was Medical cause of death - 1a Hypoxic Ischaemic Brain Injury 1b Out of Hospital Cardiac Arrest 1c Displaced Tracheal Tube (Trachael tube dependant) II Neonatal enterviral myocarditis and encephalitis (trachael ventilator dependant and cardiac pacemaker) Asher died on 8th October 2019 in Great Ormond Street hospital when his life support mechanisms were withdrawn. Asher Sinclair was entirely dependent on artificial ventilation due to a neonatal brain stem injury and required 24 hour care at a ratio of 2:1 at all times. The parents provided much of this care, but a complex community package was also commissioned and should have been operated to meet his clinical needs. There were deficiencies in the training, planning and oversight of the package of care by both the care agency and the commissioning body. Near misses and warning signs were not escalated appropriately or at all, and the clear problems were not addressed, leaving Asher, his parents and those directly responsible for providing the care in a repeatedly dangerous situation. Reviews at all levels were inadequate, perfunctory and not fit for purpose. On 3rd October 2019 Asher was left in the care of a sole nurse. His tracheostomy tube became dislodged and the nurse failed to follow the emergency procedure or use the full kit that was readily available in the same room. The first aid she did provide was ineffective as she did not secure his airway first. He was deprived of oxygen until the paramedic crews arrived over 9 minutes later and only then was the airway secured. He sustained a hypoxic injury from which he did not recover. Asher's death was a direct and foreseeable consequence of the failings in delivery of his care package. Neglect by the agency, commissioners and nurse 1 on duty contributed to this tragic outcome. 4 CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE DEATH See above 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 could occur unless action is taken. In the circumstances it is my statutory duty to report to you. The MATTERS OF CONCERN are as follows. – Asher was entirely dependent upon a complex package of care as a highly vulnerable ventilator dependent child. Evidence at inquest was that on numerous occasions he was not provided with the prescribed 2:1 care. The care package, despite being described as one of the most complex and most expensive was not appropriately reviewed and there was no mandatory system of quality checks or formal review when there was a significant change in family circumstances. Quarterly reviews were not carried out without explanation. The primary responsibility fell upon the family members, namely Asher’s parents, who were also responsible for other children in the family and employed as teachers. Concerns raised by the parents were not taken for discussion to case conference or professional’s meetings and essentially not followed up at all, leaving the situation in the house dangerous with an ultimately calamitous outcome. There was a lack of scrutiny or reconciliation of Asher’s care package, which could have identified gaps that needed to be addressed. Training for the staff involved was unclear to the court and seemingly not in place or inadequate. A high turnover of staff was cited as one of the reasons, but this should have highlighted a need for increased training and scrutiny. The court was advised that new structures would be in place by July 2022. The production of this report therefore has been delayed to give the opportunity for those systems to be in place and reported to the court. 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, 2 namely by 31 October 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 local safeguarding board where the deceased was under 18 and to the following Interested Persons • Family • First Option Healthcare • CCG – I am also under a duty to send a copy of your response to the Chief Coroner and all interested persons who in my opinion should receive it. I may also send a copy of your response to any other person who I believe may find it useful or of interest. 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. 29th July 2022 Lydia Brown 9 Acting Senior Coroner 3
2 responses 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.
Lydia Brown
Acting Senior Coroner
West London Coroner’s Service
25 Bagley’s Lane
Fulham
London
SW6 2QA
Dear Ms Brown
National Medical Director
NHS England
Wellington House
133-155 Waterloo Road
London
SE1 8UG
02 December 2022
Re: Regulation 28 Report to Prevent Future Deaths – Asher William Robert
Sinclair who died on 08 October 2019
Thank you for your Report to Prevent Future Deaths (hereafter “Report”) dated 29 July
2022 concerning the death of Asher Sinclair on 8 October 2019. In advance of
responding to the specific concerns raised in your Report, I would like to express my
deepest condolences to Asher’s family and loved ones and I am very sorry to hear
about the tragic circumstances of Asher’s death. NHS England are keen to assure the
family and the Coroner that the concerns raised about Asher’s care have been listened
to and reflected upon, in the hope that an incident such as this one never occurs
again.
I am grateful for the further time granted to respond to your Report, and I apologise to
the family for the delay, as I appreciate this will have been an incredibly difficult time
for them.
Following the inquest, you raised concerns in your Report regarding:
1) The care package was not appropriately reviewed and there was no mandatory
system of quality checks or formal review when there was a significant change
in family circumstances. Quarterly reviews were not carried out, without
explanation.
2) Concerns raised by the parents were not taken for discussion to case
conference or professional’s meetings and were not followed up at all, leaving
the situation in the house dangerous.
3) There was a lack of scrutiny or reconciliation of Asher’s care package, which
could have identified gaps that needed to be addressed.
4) Training for the staff involved was unclear and seemingly not in place or
inadequate. The high turnover of staff reported should have highlighted a need
for increased training and scrutiny.
The National Tracheostomy Safety Project (NTSP) exists to provide a wide range of
resources and materials to support those providing care to these patients, both in
hospital and in the community. This also extends to children with permanent/long term
tracheostomies where it is recognised that care requires significant skill, knowledge
and training. The NTSP has a bespoke and comprehensive paediatric section relevant
to this.
I understand that the incident described in your Report occurred in October 2019.
Additional work has been done since then to further improve tracheostomy care,
including the 2020 Safer Tracheostomy Care program, which was delivered via a
Safety Improvement Programme through NHS England (NHSE).
As well as this, the child health outcome programme, commissioned by the Healthcare
Quality Improvement Partnership (HQIP), on behalf of NHSE, looked at long-term
ventilation in children and young people aged 0-25 years and published their findings
in
https://www.hqip.org.uk/resource/child-health-long-term-
ventilation/#.Yys6bnbMKUk. The recommendations in the report included the need for
emergency healthcare plans and planning/commissioning integrated care.
February
2020:
I have had sight of NHS North West London’s (NWL’s) response dated 27 October
2022, which addresses training and supervision, as well as the planning and oversight
of care packages. I understand that the NWL children’s continuing care team still work
within the Department of Health’s National Framework for Children and Young
People’s Continuing Care, published in January 2016. In addition, NWL confirm that a
parental agreement has been developed which sets out expectations and
responsibilities in respect of parental responsibility, and how parents can escalate
concerns regarding the care of their child.
NWL’s response also explains the position regarding the dissolution of clinical
commissioning groups (CCGs) into new structures called integrated care boards
(ICBs), which took place in July 2022, and how commissioning responsibilities are now
delivered. I have therefore not addressed this further in NHSE’s response.
I would like to provide further assurances on the national NHSE work taking place
around the Reports to Prevent Future Deaths. All reports received are discussed by
the Regulation 28 Working Group, comprising Regional Medical Directors and other
clinical and quality colleagues from across the regions. This ensures that key learnings
and insights around events, such as the sad death of Asher, are shared across the
NHS at both a national and regional level, and helps us to pay close attention to any
emerging trends that may require further review and action.
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,
National Medical Director
NHS England
Ms Lydia Brown HM Acting Senior Coroner Ref: 313438 Dear Ms Brown, Chief Nursing Officer 15 Marylebone Road London NW1 5JD 27th October 2022 Re. Response to regulation 28 report to prevent future deaths, following your investigation into the death of Asher William Robert Sinclair. NHS North West London have reviewed your findings in relation to the sad death of Asher William Robert Sinclair on 8 October 2019. We are committed to ensure that we learn from Asher’s death, to prevent future deaths under these circumstances. At the time of Asher’s death, the children’s continuing care service was delivered by borough based teams, covering North West London’s eight local authorities. Each team had developed its own local processes for managing children’s continuing care. This led to varying levels of service delivery being in place. Since Asher’s death, the national dissolution of clinical commissioning groups (CCGs) into integrated care boards (ICBs) has resulted in a number of changes being made in the way previous commissioning responsibilities are delivered. There is now one North West London children’s continuing care team in place that is responsible for providing a consistent, safe, effective and equitable service. The Team comprises of registered nurses, experienced in the management of children’s continuing care, including assessment and on-going case management. Each case manager has a designated caseload and is overseen by a senior experienced manager. All members of the team receive monthly supervision and regular caseload review. The Team continue to work within the national children’s continuing care framework (2016). A standard operating procedure has been put in place and a clear process for referral, assessment and delivery of a package of care has been developed. In accordance with the national framework, reviews are undertaken of all children’s packages of care, initially at three months from a new package of care commencing and then on an annual basis or more frequently where there is a need/change of circumstance identified by the family, care provider or health/social care professional. All reviews are now undertaken with the family and the multidisciplinary team involved in the child’s care. Reviews are now recorded and discussed formally - 2 - within a multi-disciplinary panel. The responsibility for the performance monitoring of reviews is undertaken by senior managers within the team. The children’s continuing care case managers now meet at quarterly intervals with the clinical leads for the provider commissioned to provide a children’s care package, within this meeting, the appropriate lead professional for the child is also involved, to identify any clinical concerns and monitor the provision of the package of care, as well as identifying and ensuring that the child’s clinical needs are being safely and appropriately met. When commencing a package of care, an NHS standard contract is issued to all providers commissioned by NHS North West London which sets out specific key performance indicators, including; the requirement to return monthly reports on provision of care quality checks required staff competencies assurance required to safely meet the health needs of the child risk assessments, associated with the provision of the care package Senior Managers responsible for children’s continuing care and our care brokerage officer meet with commissioned care providers on a quarterly basis to monitor the care packages. In addition, an individual care contract is issued for each separate children’s package of care, setting out individual requirements, for example: the need for 2:1 support and who provides this what elements of care are delivered as support to the family as opposed to respite periods? Benchmarking of care is now undertaken to identify hours of support to meet assessed children’s clinical needs. This is also peer reviewed, to ensure safe, fair and consistent packages of care are provided. A parental agreement has been developed which sets out expectations and responsibilities in regard to parental responsibility. Where parents feel that they are unable to maintain parental responsibility for the care of their child, parents can escalate their concerns initially via their names case manager, continuing healthcare senior manager or via NHS North West London’s complaints team. During the initial continuing care assessment and planning stage, all families are now informed of this process for raising concerns, in addition to further information provided both in a paper based information leaflet, as well as within NHS North West London’s website. In my new role as the Chief Nursing Officer for NHS North West London, I am currently meeting along with our Director of Nursing, responsible for all age continuing care, with the local Borough Directors of Children’s services. One of the outcomes of these meetings is to ensure that joint care is seamless between the NHS and local authority. NHS North West London acknowledge that this is essential for children with complex health needs, where families have siblings that require support from local authority partners, to facilitate parental responsibility for their child’s health needs. The NHS procures care packages for children with increasingly challenging complex clinical care needs. Supporting children and families to allow care to be provided outside of the hospital setting, continues to present risks for care providers and the NHS. The ability to reduce these risks will continue to be the responsibility of NHS North West London and I hope that the steps that we have taken since Asha Sinclair’s death will assure you of our commitment to provide children and their families with safe, effective and consistent care. - 3 - Yours sincerely Chief Nursing Officer NHS North West London
See every Prevention of Future Deaths report matching Child Death (from 2015), 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.