Prevention of Future Deaths reports · 2023
Regulation 28 report to prevent future deaths, reference 2023-0157, written 16 May 2023. A coroner writes one of these when an inquest reveals a risk that could cause further deaths unless something changes.
| Date of report | 16 May 2023 |
|---|---|
| Reference | 2023-0157 |
| Deceased | Carl Thompson |
| Coroner | Anna Morris |
| Coroner area | Manchester South |
| Category | Alcohol, drug and medication related deaths · Mental Health related deaths |
| 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 Head of Patient Safety of Pennine Care NHS Foundation Trust 1 CORONER I am Anna Morris, Assistant 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 (Investigation) Rules 2013. 3 INVESTIGATION and INQUEST On 11th March 2022 an investigation was commenced into the death of Carl Garry Thompson. The investigation concluded on the 17th February 2023 and the conclusion was one of Drug-Related Death. The medical cause of death was 1a) Drug Toxicity; 2) Hypertensive Heart Disease 4 CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE DEATH At the time of his death on the 9th March 2022, Carl was on s.17 Mental Health Act (MHA) leave from the Arden Ward, Stepping Hill Hosptial where he was detained under s.3 MHA. Carl had been granted leave by his Responsible Clniican on the 4th March and his leave commenced on the 7th March. He was granted 5 days overnight leave and should have returned to the ward on the 11t March. The jury made the following findings in relation to the circumstances of Carl’s death: Carl Thompson was found unresponsive in the bedroom of his house at 01:00 by his daughter on 10th March 2022. Ambulance staff attended at 01:39 and declared him deceased as a result of a drug overdose. Mr Thompson had last been observed to be alive before 9:30pm on the evening of 9th March 2022, when he was thought to be in a deep sleep, observed by his daughter. Due to the post mortem condition of the deceased upon being found, it is likely that he died on the night of 9th 1 March 2022. Mr Thompson's death was probably contributed to by a failure of producing and regularly updating adequate risk assessments in relation to the planning of his section 17 leave and updating them following reported family concerns. In addition, it is possible that Carl's death was contributed to by a failure of both the hospital ward staff and the Community Mental Health Team. The response and lack of escalation following family concerns by ward staff was inadequate. Further to this, it was a failure by the Community Mental Health Team practitioner who assessed Carl via telephone on 9th March 2022. when in fact this should have been carried out face to face. 5 CORONER’S CONCERNS The MATTERS OF CONCERN are as follows. – 1. I am concerned that the jury have found that the risk assesments and risk planning for Carl’s s.17 leave in March 2023 was inadequate. This issue was not addressed in the Trusts’ internal investigation conducted by and I have not received any evidence that there have been reflections or changes following Carl’s deathon this issue to reassure me that there is not a continuing risk of future deaths. 2. I am concerned that the Trust’s own internal review found that whilst Carl was on leave from the 7th March, the clinical team were made aware of an increase in Carl’s risk factors when contacted by his motherwho outlined her concerns. 3. The review concluded that this represented a missed opportunity for the clinical team to understand how several factors may be combining to increase the risk for Carl, including his use of non- prescriptionmedication and illicit substance misuse. 4. The Trust’s own review concluded that the clinical team could have sought to understand these risk factors through direct contact with Carl. 5. The Trusts own review concluded that following such direct contact, consultation could have been sought with others within a legal framework to ask Carl to return to the ward with support from services or family. The review concluded that the nursing team could have escalated this information via the on-call system for further medical support. 6. The review concluded that a risk to Carl’s physical health was present especially in view of research and evidence for substance misusers starting to use again after periods of abstaining. 7. I am concerned that on the 9th March, Carl should have been seen 2 face to face by the CMHT, in line with Trust Policy. Instead he only received a telephone call from a duty worker who had never met him. 8. I am concerned that prior to his commencing leave on the 7th March, Carl had not been allocated a CMHT Care Coordinator, despite being an inpatient for over 3 months, since 31st December 2021. 9. gave evidence that although the Trust Review had identified a number of missed opportunites, the Trust Action plan, which contained 6 Action points was still “In progess”. was not able to identify a single action point that had been completed to date. 6 ACTION SHOULD BE TAKEN In my opinion action should be taken to prevent future deaths and I believe you (and/or your organisastion) 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 July 2023. I, the Coroner, may extend this 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, namely Mr Thompson’s Family, who may find it useful or of interest. 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. 3 9 Anna Morris HM Assistant Coroner 16.05.2023 4
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.
Corporate Services
Trust Headquarters
225 Old Street
Ashton Under Lyne
Lancashire
OL6 7SF
11th July 2023
Private & Confidential
Anna Morris
HM Assistant Coroner
Coroner’s Court
1 Mount Tabor Street
Stockport
SK1 3AG
Dear Ms Morris
I write in response to your Regulation 28 report dated 16th May 2023, and in respect
of the concerns you have highlighted after hearing evidence at the Inquest of Carl
Thompson on the 17th February 2023.
Your Matters of Concern below have been reviewed and Pennine Care's response is
outlined below.
Point 1
I am concerned that the jury have found that the risk assessments and risk planning
for Carl’s s.17 leave in March 2022 was inadequate. This issue was not addressed in
the Trusts’ internal investigation conducted by Sophie Marshall, and I have not
received any evidence that there have been reflections or changes following Carl’s
death on this issue to reassure me that there is not a continuing risk of future deaths.
The Trust policy CL019 Clinical Risk Assessment and Management V9 identified that
a risk assessment should be reviewed for inpatients at the point of:
- Admission.
- When granting leave or discharging from a Section.
- Following an incident.
- When information changes that significantly impacts on the risk status.
It is recognised that clinical risk assessment and management of the assessed risk is
a dynamic and continual process and risk formulation is pivotal to understanding a
person’s risk form a professional, service user and carer perspective.
Decisions involving clinical risk always involve balancing the health and safety of
service users and others with service users’ quality of life, their personal growth, and
their right to exercise choice and autonomy in the care they receive. It is
acknowledged that achieving this balance is often complex and absolute safety can
never be guaranteed.
Pennine Care supports the clinical position of positive risk taking or therapeutic risk
taking by clinicians with service users and a shared accountability with service users
where clinically appropriate.
Pennine Care has an approved Trust Risk Assessment Tool within the PARIS
electronic patient records (EPR). The risk assessment format for adult acute
inpatient services is more formulaic in approach and provides opportunity to give
greater narrative to sharing information about risk, the identification of the presenting
risk which drives a clearer formulation of the risk factors for the service user.
Regular multidisciplinary discussions with the patient and their loved ones in relation
to risk assessment and management are frequently held in weekly ward rounds, this
includes future planning and possible leave planning and safety panning.
To address this point, the steps the service has taken so far are:
- Shared learning for the staff team, this has been shared via supervision and
the Care Hub Quality Learning forum.
- Shared learning for the consultant team, this has been shared via the lead
consultant in the consultant meeting to support the importance of well-
considered and well documented risk assessments.
- Shared learning for the trust, this has been shared as trust wide learning for
all inpatient settings within the footprint to be aware of and learn from.
- Continued commitment to booking staff on the Clinical Risk Formulation
training and STORM (suicide prevention skills) training; ward manager and
service manager will monitor uptake and compliance with essential to role
training.
Further action:
-
Inpatient Learning forums have been agreed to be held in addition to training
and staff meetings to reflect on shared learning points. The learning from this
case is going to be shared in a learning forum on 30/06/2023.
Point 2
I am concerned that the Trust’s own internal review found that whilst Carl was on
leave from the 7th March, the clinical team were made aware of an increase in Carl’s
risk factors when contacted by his mother who outlined her concerns.
This point is being addressed in conjunction with point 1 (risk assessment) and point
5 (escalation process). Clinical risk training supports practitioners to understand and
act on concerns raised by families for patients on leave.
Point 3
The review concluded that this represented a missed opportunity for the clinical team
to understand how several factors may be combining to increase the risk for Carl,
including his use of non-prescription medication and illicit substance misuse.
This point and action links to point 1 in relation to good assessment and
management of risk.
Further to this and in relation to point 6, consideration has been given to raising
awareness of substance use within the inpatient service user group.
There is a growing body of literature and focus on mental health and drug use, and a
shift in strategy nationally around more collaborative approaches to empower people
to lead lives they want to lead and keep themselves and their families healthy ‘and
how practitioners on the front line can best be supported to deliver what matters to
servicer users within an ethos that maintains dignity and respect’ (HM Government –
No Health without Mental health).
The Department of Health’s Refocusing the Care Programme Approach identifies
people with dual diagnosis as key users of secondary mental health services. The
policy highlights the need for a whole systems approach to their care, involving a
range of services and organisations working together.
Pennine Care Foundation Trust Drug and Alcohol service is supporting their
Intervention and Development worker to commence providing General Drug
Awareness and alcohol brief intervention training for inpatient ward staff.
Point 4
The Trust’s own review concluded that the clinical team could have sought to
understand these risk factors through direct contact with Carl.
The Serious Incident Investigation commissioned by Pennine Care Foundation Trust
recognised that the inpatient staff could have sought to contact Carl directly following
discussion with the family.
This was identified as an action within the Investigation detailed ‘Where there are
concerns expressed whilst a patient is on leave – consider making attempts to
contact the patient to assess the situation.
The action identified included:
- Share learning around this case including raising awareness of making
attempts to contact patients on leave where concerns are raised.
Update:
- This has been discussed within individual supervision sessions.
- Group reflective discussion in relation this point to be facilitated in Inpatient
Learning Forum on 30/06/23.
Point 5
The Trusts own review concluded that following such direct contact, consultation
could have been sought with others within a legal framework to ask Carl to return to
the ward with support from services or family. The review concluded that the nursing
team could have escalated this information via the on-call system for further medical
support.
This point was identified as a recommendation for learning within the Serious
Incident Investigation commissioned by Pennine Care Foundation Trust.
The recommendation detailed: Inpatient services to escalate concerns out of hours
through appropriate out of hours support – e.g., night manager, consultant on call.
Action:
- Raise awareness with inpatient staff regarding escalation processes out of
hours for support. Appendix 1.
Update:
- This has been completed, this point has been raised in individual supervision
with inpatient staff.
- This issue has been shared as a trust wide piece of learning and the trust
Head of Patient Safety and Clinical Effectiveness has developed a ‘When
should I escalate concerns’ poster, this has been shared across all inpatient
units, discussed with the team involved and is displayed in clinical offices to
support decision making.
Point 6
The review concluded that a risk to Carl’s physical health was present especially in
view of research and evidence for substance misusers starting to use again after
periods of abstaining.
Linked with point 1 (risk assessment) and point 3 – raising awareness around
substance use – General Drug Awareness session.
- Shared learning with professionals involved.
- Shared learning with wider teams
- Raising awareness in supervision with ward staff
Inpatient Learning Forum for reflective discussion in relation to this point.
-
- Drug and Alcohol team to provide some awareness sessions for inpatient staff
Point 7
I am concerned that on the 9th March, Carl should have been seen face to face by
the CMHT, in line with Trust Policy. Instead, he only received a telephone call from a
duty worker who had never met him.
For a patient on Section 17 leave for whom a referral has been made to the CMHT,
and for whom an allocated worker has been identified it would be good practice for
that allocated worker to support a person on leave through home visits and to
complete an up-to-date risk assessment. In Carl’s case he had been referred to
CMHT but not yet allocated a care coordinator. A phone call from the duty officer
was part of their practice for unallocated CMHT patients.
It is recognised that it may not always possible for a patient to be seen by a care
coordinator that they are known to. They may be new to the service, there may have
been staff changes since they were last care coordinated. However, where this is felt
to be essential to a person’s care, there is now a regular process in place to ensure
weekly communication between the inpatient wards and CMHT where this can be
raised and reviewed.
Point 8
I am concerned that prior to his commencing leave on the 7th March, Carl had not
been allocated a CMHT Care Coordinator, despite being an inpatient for over 3
months, since 31st December 2021.
The investigation recognised that during the time period of CT’s death, CMHT was
on the Trust Risk Register in relation to staffing vacancies and patients awaiting
allocation. The current position is more positive with an improved staffing
establishment, a reduced waiting list and CMHT is no longer on risk register.
Both CMHT Team managers are now attending ward meetings on both acute
psychiatric inpatient wards in Stockport at least weekly to promote discussion and
review of patients who are on the discharge pathway. This allows clinical decision
making to support prioritisation of patients who may benefit from allocation of a care
coordinator before the point of discharge, for example to allow the therapeutic
relationship to commence prior to discharge.
Even if a patient is not allocated before discharge, the CMHT duty worker will attend
the ward rounds if the person is approaching discharge, to support from a community
perspective, this need is also able to be identified through the ward meetings.
Point 9
gave evidence that although the Trust Review had identified a
number of missed opportunities, the Trust Action plan, which contained 6 Action
points was still “In progress”.
had been completed to date.
was not able to identify a single action point that
IR authors required to give evidence will be supported and be prepared to give
evidence against the action plan demonstrating improvements in service. To this
end, local support has been revisited for Investigation authors, to support active
review of action plans with the Investigation author and the services involved.
Support for Investigation authors has been raised as an area for further development
within the Trust.
- The Trust has re-established the Just Culture trust wide meeting in June
2023, this is chaired by the Executive Director of Nursing, Professional
Leadership and & Quality Governance.
- The trust is considering an updated training offer for authors of investigations
with a compassionate, just culture approach.
- The Trust has a new PSIRF (Patient Safety Incident Response Framework)
implementation group, this was established in February 2023 following a
PSIRF trust wide Implementation planning away day. This is looking at the
new framework, planning for implementation including updated Investigation
templates and support for staff completing these.
- Patients Safety training is now available online for all staff to complete. As
part of the new PSIRF framework additional training on supporting authors
approaching investigations has been offered to staff virtually through 2023.
- The Quality team have also planned to share learning slides around
preparation for Coroner’s Inquests with staff identified as Investigation
authors.
I trust this response assures you that the Trust has taken your concerns seriously
and has thoroughly reviewed the issues raised.
Yours sincerely
Acting Executive Director of Quality, Nursing & Allied Healthcare
Professionals
Director of Infection Prevention and Control
Enc. Appendix 1 (When should I escalate concerns)
See every Prevention of Future Deaths report matching Alcohol, drug and medication related deaths, 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.