Prevention of Future Deaths reports · 2023
Regulation 28 report to prevent future deaths, reference 2023-0351, written 15 Sep 2023. A coroner writes one of these when an inquest reveals a risk that could cause further deaths unless something changes.
| Date of report | 15 Sep 2023 |
|---|---|
| Reference | 2023-0351 |
| Deceased | Geoffrey Brooks |
| Coroner | Philip Spinney |
| Coroner area | Exeter and Greater Devon |
| Category | Hospital Death (Clinical Procedures and medical management) related deaths |
| Organisation named | Royal Devon University Healthcare 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 DATED 15 SEPTEMBER 2023 IS BEING SENT TO: Interim Chief Executive Royal Devon University Healthcare Foundation Trust. 1 CORONER I am Philip SPINNEY, HM Senior Coroner, for the coroner area of Exeter and Greater Devon. 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 10 November 2020 an investigation was commenced into the death of Geoffrey Robin Brooks. The investigation concluded at the end of the inquest held on 14 September 2023. The conclusion of the inquest was as follows: Geoffrey Robin Brooks died due to complications of nephrogenic diabetes insipidus on a background of poor fluid intake. 4 CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE DEATH Geoffrey Robin Brooks suffered with nephrogenic diabetes insipidus diagnosed in 2013. In 2020 Mr Brooks’s health declined and he had multiple admissions to hospital. In August 2020 he was admitted to the Exmouth Community Hospital. Due to his diabetes insipidus Mr Brooks required monitoring of his blood sodium to ensure that he was maintaining the correct balance of fluid intake to remain stable. On admission his blood sodium was low, and he was on a restricted fluid intake; during his admission his condition improved, and he was moved from a restricted fluid intake to a daily target level of fluid intake of 2.5 to 3L per day. On 25 September 2020 Mr Brooks was discharged to the Barton Place Nursing Home. The discharge summary did not clearly set out Mr Brooks’s fluid requirements and the nursing home staff believed Mr Brooks was to be restricted to no more than 2.5 -3L per day rather than that figure being a target to aim for; the nursing home were advised it was a target on 9 October 2020 after Mr Brooks became unwell; the 1 target level of 2.5 to 3L was not achieved during his stay in the nursing home. On 18 October 2020 Mr Brooks’ health deteriorated and was admitted to hospital where despite treatment he sadly died on 12 November 2020. 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) During his evidence the consultant physician with the responsibility for the care and treatment of Mr Brooks acknowledged that the discharge summary was ambiguous and did not make it clear that the 2.5 – 3L was a target fluid intake; he agreed that it could be interpreted that Mr Brooks should be restricted to no more than 2.5 to 3L of fluid a day. As a consequence, the nursing home staff were unaware of the needs of Mr Brooks. The target fluid intake was not met in the period that Mr Brooks was in the nursing home, which contributed to his death. 6 ACTION SHOULD BE TAKEN (1) Consideration should be given to reviewing the process of discharging patients to ensure that all discharge documentation includes an accurate summary of the ongoing care needs of the patient. In my opinion action should be taken to prevent future deaths and I believe you and your organisation 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 23rd November 2023 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 family of Mr Brooks. The Chief Coroner 2 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 SIGNED: Mr Philip C Spinney HM Senior Coroner Exeter and Greater Devon 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.
Philip Spinney
HM Coroner
County Hall
Topsham Road
Exeter
EX24QD
26 November 2023
Dear Mr Spinney
Regulation 28 response .
f1•1:k1
Royal Devon
University Healthcare
NHS Foundation ll'Ust
Royal Devon and Exeter
Hospital (Wonford)
Barrack Road
Exeter
EX25DW
CHIEF EXECUTIVE'S OFFICE
I am writing as Interim Chief Executive of Royal Devon University Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust
in response to your recently issued Regulation 28 Report following the Inquest.touching the death of
Mr Geoffrey Brooks. You asked me to consider reviewing the process of discharging patients to
ensure that all discharge documentation includes an accurate summary of the ongoing care needs
of the patient.
Please find my response below and I .hope that will satisfy you that we have taken steps to prevent
future deaths of patients. However, if you need any further information then please do· not hesitate
to contact me.
Current situation
The Royal Devon University Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust (RDUH) is an organisation focused
on providing patients with safe, high quality medical care. One of the key aspects of a patient's
hospital journey is their discharge summary and timely transfer of information to primary care and
other healthcare providers.
The case leading to this paper was complex and involved a rare medical condition requiring specific
and closely monitored fluid balance management. Although there are clear areas for improvement
and learning, it is also recognised to be a rare set of circumstances that led to this incident.
The RDUH switched to an electronic patient record (Epic) across its Eastern services in October
2020, which. was after the date of this incidE;mt. This has led to significant improvements in
documentation across inpatient and outpatient encounters. Epic has several features that help
improve documentation specifically around discharge:
1. Hospital course function
Epic has a section in the sidebar referred to as the Hospital Course. Doctors are encouraged
to summarise a patient's admission in "real-time" and add to this. document during their
inpatient stay. This means at the point of discharge there is a summary written by doctors
who have been involved with the patient (rather than the traditional process of reading the
notes and compiling a summary). Historically discharge letters have sometimes been written
by doctors who have not met the patient which carries risk around factual accuracy and
follow-up instructions. The Hospital Course function mitigates this to a degree.
The hospital course is automatically pulled into discharge letters when they are generated on
Epic. There remains a separate section on the discharge letter for ongoing primary care
instructions ("Suggested Primary care Actions~).
· ·
2. Bespoke templated discharge summaries
Some areas (e.g. Stroke, Acute Care of the Elderly) have specific templates fo·r completing
discharge letters which ensures pertinent information and ongoing instructions are as clear
as possible. This is important for more cdmplex patient groups who · need to have· specific
asses.sments and follow-up.
3. After Visit Summary
Epic ha~ introduced the ability to generate a patient focused document for inpatient and
outpatient attendances - the After Visit Summary (AVS} which can be given to, patients at the
point of hospital discharge. To date, the AVS has not been widely·rolled out. particularly after
inpatient stays.
A working group, has been established and will shortly begin meeting to review the use of the
AVS across inpatient and outpatient areas across the Trust. Once completed, the group will
produce new guidance and Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs)forward teams, meaning
the· AVS would be given to the patient and the discharge summary sent electronically to the
GP as a matter of routine. It clearly lays out medication changes, foUowaup arrangements
and can be used to provide patient's with specific instructions. In this case, clear
documentation of fluid intake requirements could have been flagged in this document.
4. Education around discharge
Junior doctors receive induction and complete training in Epic which includes the discharge
process and completion of discharge letters. Departmental induction also e11COmpasses local
information on discharge letter fonnulation.
5
Enhanced ward staffing consistency
Within Medicine, our staffing model was changed recently so that junior doctors in training
have switched to a 4-day working week. Previously. compensatory rest meant that juniors
were ofte_n moved from their base wards to cover rota gaps; this led to a loss of consistency
in medical staffing which is a risk to discharge letter writing as discussed above.. The new
rota pattern means the need for cross cover is greatly reduced.
Other considerations
The Trust has considered whether every discharge letter should be reviewed by a consultant. On
balance, this would not seem feasible due to:
• Volume and time requirement (to go through a long admission takes a significant amount of
time resource)
• Difficult to define who should review (multiple consultants may have looked after a patient
during a long inpatient stay}
• Potential additional time delay in sending out discharge summary information to primary care
(or alternatively sending out addendums which would mean different discharge letters in
circulation for the same admission which carries risk)
• Risk of mistakes due to a false sense of reassurance
Certain areas have bespoke arrangements in place. Fm example, all generated discharge letters
from the stroke unit (Clyst ward) are flagged to a stroke consultant for review to ensure all relevant
follow-up is actioned. This is noted to be a very time-consuming process.
Epic allows a clinician to keep a list of patients for follow-up so offers individuals an option to keep
track of patients which is useful in complicated cases where a consultant may want to ensure a
dis.charge letter contains specific inforrriation or instructions.
Future developments
We are currently reviewing the staffing model of our community hospitals which we hope will lead to
a more robust, consistent medical team with specialty doctor and Advanced Clinical Practitioner
oversight. This win provide an additional safety-net around discharge and again letters will be more
likely to be written and checked by individuals who have reliably been involved in a patient's care.
The Trust wide discharge summary working group will be shortly relaunched with a plan to have
primary care representation to try and further refine discharge processes and communication with
primary care. There is potential to develop more discharge. summary templates for specific
specialties or conditions. We are continually working on improving the completion rates of discharge
summaries and ensuring they are sent in accordance with the NHS Standard Contract agreement of
within 24 hours following inpatient, day case or ED attendance.
The Trust is currently transitioning to the Patient Safety Incident Response Framework which will
guide future investigations into patient safety incidents. This process involved detailed retrospective
analysis of 117,000 events which were thematically reviewed to identify key areas for future
investigations. One of the thr~e main themes was discharge from hospital; this will be a focus for
future investigations due to the significant potential for systemic learning and improvement. Future
learning will help guide further refinement of our discharge processes. Learning will be disseminated
through relevant forums, teaching sessions and training packages.
At a system level, there is a wider piece of work looking at the expected standards of communication
between primary and secondary care (One Devon Primary and Secondary Care Interface document
- in draft currently). When launched, there is a plan for engagement and regular dialogue between
services to ensure adherence and to target areas for improvement.
I hope that the above information is helpful and do let me know if I can assist you with anything
further.
Yours sincerely
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER (Interim)
.
See every Prevention of Future Deaths report matching Royal Devon University Healthcare 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.