Prevention of Future Deaths reports · 2023

Peter Carr

Regulation 28 report to prevent future deaths, reference 2023-0403, written 13 Oct 2023. A coroner writes one of these when an inquest reveals a risk that could cause further deaths unless something changes.

Date of report13 Oct 2023
Reference2023-0403
DeceasedPeter Carr
CoronerPeter Straker
Coroner areaLondon (North)
CategoryHospital Death (Clinical Procedures and medical management) related deaths
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: Prevention of Future Deaths report        

Peter Carr (died 21/09/21) 

THIS REPORT IS BEING SENT TO: 

Department of Health and Social Care 
39 Victoria Street 
London, SW1H 0EU

1

CORONER 

I am:   Dr. P. H. Straker, Assistant Coroner for North London 

Barnet Coroner’s Court 
29 Wood Street, 
London EN5 4BE 

2

CORONER’S LEGAL POWERS 

I make this report under the Coroners and Justice Act 
2009, paragraph 7, Schedule 5, and 
The Coroners (Investigations) Regulations 
2013, regulations 28 and 29.

3

INVESTIGATION and INQUEST 

On  5th  October  2021  I  commenced  an  investigation  into  the  death  of 
Peter  Carr.  The  investigation  concluded  at  the  end  of  the  inquest 
held on the 9th,10th  and 11th  of October 2023. 

The conclusion of the inquest was a short narrative conclusion; 

Peter Carr died from a recognised complication of necessarily prescribed 
medication.

 4

CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE DEATH 

On the 25th of August Mr. Carr developed a rash. By the 31st most of 
his skin was red so he presented to the North Middlesex Hospital A&E  
where he was admitted by the medical team. He also had neutropenia 
and lymphadenopathy.The admitting doctor prescribed tazocin, a rare 
side effect of which is Stephens-Johnson Syndrome (SJS) / Toxic 
Epidermal Necrolysis (TEN.) The North Middlesex outsources 
dermatology. Mr. Carr first saw a dermatologist 3 days after  admission 
at which point there was no sign of SJS / TEN. Nevertheless skin 
biopsy - something every consultant dermatologist can do - was 
deemed necessary but the attendant dermatologist, who could have 
done this, did not becaue the company's process is to ask a plastic 
surgeon to biopsy. It took until the 8th for the biopsy to be taken. There 
was no dermatological oversight of Mr Carr's skin in the intervening 
time. The biopsy found evidence of  drug reaction consistent with SJS.  
An optimum dermatology service was described by our expert as 
patients being seen by a consultant dermatologist and biopsied if 
required within 24 hours of presentation, and then watched like a hawk 
on a daily basis. Had this happened the emergence of SJS may have 
been recognised and prompted  withdrawal of the culprit medication. 
That this level of dermatological support was not available denied Mr. 
Carr 'a role of the dice' - a chance of survival. 
CORONER’S CONCERNS 

5

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. 
That patients who contact medical services with acute, severe, skin 
conditions as primary presentations, or as a component of a complex 
presentation, may not have consultant dermatology input and biopsy 
within 24 hours and ongoing consultant dermatology oversight for the 
duration of an inpatient stay. 

 6

ACTION SHOULD BE TAKEN 

In my opinion, action should be taken to prevent future deaths and I 
believe that your organisation has 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  29 th  December  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 following. 

● The Family.
● Omnes Healthcare.
● The North Middlesex University Hospital.
● University College London Hospital.
●

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

13th October 2023. 

Assistant Coroner. Dr. Peter Straker

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 Department of Health and Social Care (PDF)
From The Rt Hon. Andrew Stephenson CBE MP 
Minister of State for Health 

39 Victoria Street 
London 
SW1H 0EU 

Dr. P. H. Straker 
Assistant Coroner for North London  
Barnet Coroner’s Court  
29 Wood Street 
London  
EN5 4BE 

8 May 2024 

Dear Mr Straker, 

Thank you for your Regulation 28 report to prevent future deaths dated  13 October 
2023 about the death of Peter Carr.  I am replying as Minister with responsibility for 
medicines.      

Firstly,  I  would  like  to  say  how  saddened  I  was  to  read  of  the  circumstances  of  Mr 
Carr’s  death  and  I  offer  my  sincere  condolences  to  his  family  and  loved  ones.  The 
circumstances  your  report  describes  are  concerning  and  I  am  grateful  to  you  for 
bringing  these matters  to  my  attention.  Please  accept my  sincere apologies  for the 
delay in responding to this matter. I would like to assure you that the department is 
mindful of the statutory responsibilities in relation to prevention of future deaths reports 
and we are prioritising responses as a matter of urgency. 

The report raises concerns, “that patients who contact medical services with acute, 
severe,  skin  conditions  as  primary  presentations,  or  as  a  component  of  a  complex 
presentation may not have consultant dermatology input and biopsy within 24 hours 
and ongoing consultant dermatology oversight for the duration of an inpatient stay”. 

In  preparing  this  response,  Departmental  officials  have  made  enquiries  with  NHS 
England, the Care Quality Commission (CQC), Medicines & Healthcare products 
Regulatory Agency (MHRA) and I share their findings and actions taken to address 
your concerns.  

It is understood that Stevens-Johnson (SJS) syndrome is a recognised but rare 
complication following the administration of some medications, and patients often 
present in the emergency department and are cared for by admitting physicians. It 
requires rapid diagnosis and specialist referral for onward management of the 
condition. We enquired about the information provided with the medication from 
MHRA. They advise that the product information for Tazocin highlights the risk of 
severe cutaneous adverse reactions, including SJS and that patients developing skin 

1 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 reactions should be closely monitored. There are warnings in the prescribing 
information and the patient leaflet which advises that patients should see a doctor 
immediately if they experience any of the listed potentially serious side effects of 
Tazocin. 

I understand that there can be difficulties in the diagnosis and management of the 
patient pathway which is complex as it covers both a general and specialised 
pathway. The NHS England service specification for specialised dermatology 
highlights the importance of early referral to treat SJS and we recognise that a 
specialist service is required for this group of patients. NHS England are undertaking 
work to develop a pathway, and intends to undertake a provider selection exercise  
in due course. 

More locally, I understand that the Trust has improved the accessibility of 
Dermatology Services and introduced a new inpatient protocol agreed with the 
provider, Omnes, which ensures that inpatients requiring Dermatology review are 
seen within 1 working day. There is an escalation plan in place if reviews do not 
occur in line with agreed timescales. The Trust continues to monitor the provider for 
quality and performance against the protocol. They are also identifying opportunities 
to bring the outpatient service back onto the Trust site, which in turn will assist timely 
inpatient reviews. To ensure that key messages permeate down to staff at the 
workplace, the Trust is cascading the inpatient protocol via their Medical Director’s 
bulletin, the induction pack for all medical staff and their internal intranet page. They 
have also updated the information on accessing Dermatology services both in and 
out of hours. Alongside this, sessions have also been set up to educate the staff on 
recognising early signs of emergency dermatological conditions, including SJS and 
Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis (TEN). Further, the Trust is exploring with Omnes, 
provision of a biopsy pack for dermatologists to undertake skin biopsies when 
required for inpatients. 

It is equally important to apply learning and improvements to the wider system and I 
note  that  the  Trust  is  conducting  a  review  of  all  other  services  outsourced  to  third 
parties. Their aim is to ensure that the inpatient review process and accessing the out 
of hours service is clear. This information will be communicated to all staff who require 
it and be made available on the Trust intranet.  

I realise that responses can form an important part of the process of family and friends 
coming to terms with what happened to their loved one and the recognition that steps 
have been taken to prevent it happening in the future. I have been informed that the 
Trust  has  also  corresponded  with  the  family  around  the  steps  taken  to  improve 
procesess and embed the learning throughout their system. 

I believe it is vital that we continue to improve patient outcomes and implement 
learning in the NHS which contributes to saving more lives. I have been assured that 
CQC contacted the Trust following this report and will continue to monitor the Trust 
to ensure safe standards of care are maintained through ongoing surveillance and 
engagement meetings.  

I thank you once again for bringing these concerns to my attention.  

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 THE RT HON ANDREW STEPHENSON CBE MP 
MINISTER OF STATE

Related reports

Other reports by Peter Straker

See all →

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

See all →

Track Hospital Death (Clinical Procedures and medical management) related deaths

See every Prevention of Future Deaths report matching Hospital Death (Clinical Procedures and medical management) 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.