Prevention of Future Deaths reports · 2024

Chloe Tapp

Regulation 28 report to prevent future deaths, reference 2024-0111, written 28 Feb 2024. A coroner writes one of these when an inquest reveals a risk that could cause further deaths unless something changes.

Date of report28 Feb 2024
Reference2024-0111
DeceasedChloe Tapp
CoronerRebecca Mundy
Coroner areaEssex
CategoryHospital Death (Clinical Procedures and medical management) related deaths
Organisation namedMid and South Essex NHS Foundation Trust
Sourcejudiciary.uk record · original PDF
Responses published2

The report

Text extracted from the PDF text layer. Reproduced verbatim, including the scan's own layout.

1 

2 

3 

4 

REGULATION 28 REPORT TO PREVENT FUTURE DEATHS 

THIS REPORT IS BEING SENT TO: 

1.  Chief Executive Officer of Mid and South Essex NHS Trust, 

2.  NHS England 

CORONER 
I am Rebecca Mundy, assistant coroner, for the coroner area of Essex. 

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. 

INVESTIGATION and INQUEST 
On 21 October 2021 I commenced an investigation into the death of Chloe Anne Tapp, 
20.  The investigation concluded at the end of the inquest on 9 February 2024. The 
conclusion of the inquest was natural causes. 

CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE DEATH 
Chloe was a 20 year-old girl with a medical history including microcephaly, an 
underdeveloped heart and epilepsy.  She first began experiencing seizures at only a few 
months old.  She was formally diagnosed with epilepsy when she was two years old and 
began taking sodium valproate to treat it, eventually moving to dual treatment with 
lamotrigine. 
She had been under the care of a paediatric consultant neurologist, but on turning 18, 
needed to be transferred to an adult consultant neurologist.  There was a significant 
delay in this transition, and she did not see an adult consultant neurologist until 
September 2021. 
Chloe received an appointment for 3 September 2021, this took place over the phone 
despite Chloe being non-verbal.  The consultation, therefore, was with her mother and 
there was no ability for the consultant to visually assess Chloe or her tremors. 
The consultant felt Chloe’s tremors were likely related to her prolonged use of sodium 
valproate and as a result agreed a plan to taper Chloe’s medication so that she was 
only taking lamotrigine.  The plan needed to be gradual due to the risks associated with 
use of these two drugs at higher doses. 
There is a difference of opinion as to how this change would be affected and who was 
to implement it; the evidence led me to prefer Chloe’s mother’s account of the 
consultation.  On request, a handwritten tapering regime was sent out to Chloe 
following the consultation explaining the changes that her mother was to implement.  
She was advised to call the neurology department if she had any queries or concerns.   
The tapering regime was complicated, and Chloe’s mother wanted to ensure that she 
had understood it correctly.  Several attempts to call the neurology department were 
unsuccessful.   
The regime was also, in fact, incorrect; it had been based upon an assumed dose of the 

1 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 medication that Chloe was taking; Chloe’s medication was in millilitres as she had a 
liquid diet through a feeding tube, however, the consultant was unfamiliar with 
millilitres and usually worked with milligrams.  She looked up the “usual” dose on the 
BNF and based the tapering regime on that. 
The consultant’s account was that she had in fact adjusted the regime later in the 
consultation upon realising that Chloe was on higher doses than assumed, but neither a 
copy of the original nor the amended regime were entered onto Chloe’s records. 
On 22 September 2021 Chloe had an unwitnessed fall and from her body language 
appeared to have hurt her right leg.   
On 6 October 2021 Chloe was still suffering with her leg and had a productive cough.  
Her mother took her to the Emergency Department; her chest x ray was clear but 
infection markers in her blood were slightly elevated.  She was given antibiotics as a 
precautionary measure for her chest, analgesia and paracetamol and discharged.  
On 7 October 2021 around 1am Chloe suffered a tonic clonic seizure, an ambulance 
was called and in the meantime her mother administered emergency medication, 
shortly after Chloe suffered a further seizure and then stopped breathing.  Her father 
followed advice from the emergency services and administered CPR. 
An ambulance arrived at 1.26am. Chloe was unresponsive and in respiratory arrest.  It 
was noted that multiple suctioning was required due to vomit and saliva and she had a 
temperature of 40.  She then suffered a cardiac arrest. 
One of the doctor’s treating Chloe was of the opinion was her high temperature had 
developed as a result of the dramatic seizures she experienced, rather than due to 
separate infection; her chest scan the day before was clear and infection makers only 
slightly raised and in addition, her temperature was 36.5 by the time she was admitted 
to the emergency department. 
Chloe was admitted to hospital in the early hours of 7 October2021; her chest x ray 
showed bilateral pleural effusions.  Ultimately the efforts of all those caring for her 
were unsuccessful and she passed away on 8 October 2021. 
An independent consultant gave evidence that whist Chloe could have had a subtle 
chest infection on 6 October, this would not have been enough to overwhelm her in 
the manner that occurred on 7 October.  However, being unwell may have been a 
trigger for the seizure, particularly as there appeared to have been an extended period 
of her requiring antibiotics for infections.   
They did not consider that the medication change more than minimally contributed to 
her seizure or her death; the seizure could have occurred without any of the changes or 
triggering factors. 
The cause of death was established on the evidence as ‘1a Epilepsy and pneumonia’.  
Chloe’s death was therefore from natural causes. 

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: 

2 

 
 
 
 •  Neurology departments are so overwhelmed and/or understaffed that a 

vulnerable young girl (particularly so during the Covid-19 pandemic), was not 
referred in a timely manner to adult neurology services and in fact, it 
transpired a referral had not been made at all.  This appears to have been done 
for the first time in August 2021. 

•  An initial consultation with a complex non-verbal patient was arranged over 

the telephone, notwithstanding the concerns about a tremor which would have 
required visual assessment. 

•  An overworked consultant under considerable pressure, did not have time 

before or during the consultation to establish the dose that Chloe was taking 
and/or apply the appropriate conversion factor, for medications that can 
interact negatively at higher doses. 

•  No note was made of the tapering regime for the medication change in Chloe’s 

notes. 

•  A handwritten note of a tapering regime based on incorrect doses was sent to 

Chloe. 

•  The same regime was repeated in a letter to the Epilepsy Nurses, but this letter 
was not received until October 2021 (in paper form) as the initial email was 
sent to an address that no longer existed. 

•  Phone calls and messages left with the neurology department went 

unanswered, at a time when clarity over the tapering regime was needed. 
•  The consultant in question gave evidence of a very bleak picture of ongoing 

practice in the neurology department; a letter from all four consultants in that 
department had been sent to the Trust in July 2023, where patient care was 
described as ‘sub-optimal’, and numerous concerns were set out including: 

o  Chronic staff shortages in respect of doctors, nurses and administrative 

staff within the neurology department 

o  Substantial and unsafe backlogs for first and follow up appointments 
o 

Inability  to  answer,  in  a  timely  manner,  the  volume  of  phone  calls, 
phone messages and emails from patients/carers raising queries. 
o  The delays / ways in which investigations are carried out and reported, 

and the way in which clinical staff can access results. 

•  A further letter was sent by Chloe’s consultant in January 2024 in lieu of her 

attending a meeting where progress was to be discussed.  That letter 
highlighted that, not only did the concerns remain live, she believed that the 
department had now reached levels of ‘unsafe practice’.   

•  The state of the department, compared to when Chloe died was described as 

‘worse’. 

•  Notwithstanding Chloe’s death in 2021, the letter in July 2023 and follow-up in 
January 2024, many of the more significant actions identified remained as part 
of an Action Plan.  Business cases were being drawn up for a number of areas 
(but not additional consultants) and these had not yet been approved, nor was 
it guaranteed that they would be. 

•  The independent consultant neurologist in giving evidence expressed that this 

3 

 
 was not an unfamiliar picture across a number of different Trusts and that 
there was a recognised shortage of neurologists and increase in demand for 
that speciality nationally. 

6 

7 

8 

ACTION SHOULD BE TAKEN 
In my opinion action should be taken to prevent future deaths and I believe you and/or 
your organisation have the power to take such action.  

YOUR RESPONSE 
You are under a duty to respond to this report within 56 days of the date of this report, 
namely by 25 April 2024.  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. 

COPIES and PUBLICATION 
I have sent a copy of my report to the Chief Coroner and to the following interested 
persons: 

Chloe’s parents 

; 

i. 
ii. 

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 

28 February 2024                                                      

4

Responses

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.

Response from Mid and South Essex NHS (PDF)
H.M Coroner’s Office 
Ms Rebecca Mundy  
SEAX House 
Victoria Road South 
Chelmsford 
Essex 
CM1 1QH 

Our Ref: 

25 April 2024 

Dear Ms Mundy 

Regulation 28 Report to Prevent Future Deaths- Chloe Anne Tapp 

I write further to your Regulation 28 Report to Prevent Future Deaths (PFDR) dated 28 
February 2024, relating to the Inquest of Ms Chloe Anne Tapp. 

I have carefully reviewed your report and discussed your concerns with my colleagues in 
the related specialties. I have set out below our response to each concern raised. 

Concern One 

Neurology departments are so overwhelmed and/or understaffed that a vulnerable 
young  girl  (particularly  so during the  Covid-19  pandemic), was  not  referred in  a 
timely manner to adult neurology services and in fact, it transpired a referral had 
not been made at all. This appears to have been done for the first time in August 
2021. 

We  acknowledge  your  concern  that  there  was  a  delay  in  Chloe’s  referral  to  adult 
neurology  services,  however  this  delay  was  not  attributable  to  Mid  and  South  Essex 
Hospital NHS Foundation Trust.  
Chloe was known to our paediatric services however, once she reached 16 years of age 
her epilepsy was managed by the Royal London Hospital in conjunction with her GP; we 
did not receive any communication from them relating to her transitional care.  

Concern Two 

An  initial  consultation with a  complex  non-verbal  patient was arranged  over  the 
telephone,  notwithstanding  the  concerns  about  a  tremor  which  would  have 
required visual assessment. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 We  agree  that  a  telephone  appointment  was  not  appropriate  to  fully  assess  Chloe’s 
clinical presentation on this occasion. However, at that time we were operating clinics 
differently to manage the significant risks presented by the COVID-19 pandemic.  

Patients such as Chloe were risk assessed prior to clinic sessions, and it was considered 
safer for Chloe to attend a telephone appointment to avoid the risk of contracting COVID-
19  or  another  infection  by  attending  clinic  in  person.  Chloe  was  considered  clinically 
vulnerable, and we were concerned that if she contracted such an infection, it could be 
life threatening. I can assure you that we do not routinely operate telephone clinics for 
patients such as Chloe now. 

Concern Three 

An overworked consultant under considerable pressure, did not have time before 
or during the consultation to establish the dose that Chloe was taking and/or apply 
the appropriate conversion factor, for medications that can interact negatively at 
higher doses. 

Chloe’s  then  current  dose  was  readily  available  to  the  Consultant  prior  to  her 
appointment, it was listed on the second page of the GP letter 10 August 2021. We have 
reviewed the clinic that took place on 3 September 2021 and can confirm that prior to 
Chloe’s appointment there was one unfilled clinical slot. This is a slot we plan to keep 
free for urgent/ unexpected cases; and there was one further patient who did not attend. 
We therefore consider the consultant had time to establish Chloe’s current dose prior to 
the consultation. 

Our  consultants  are  also  supported  by  the  pharmacy  team  who  are  available  24/7  to 
assist  with  dosage  conversion  queries  and ad  hoc  queries.  They also  have  access  to 
online support and resources. Unfortunately, the consultant did not access this support. 

Concern Four 

No  note  was  made  of  the  tapering  regime  for  the  medication  change  in  Chloe’s 
notes. 

It is our usual practice to record tapering regimes in patient notes, and this is the expected 
standard  as  set  out  in  our  clinical  record  keeping  standards  policy.  The  regime  was 
recorded in the letter to Chloe’s GP dated 8 September 2021, however the related table 
drawn up by the Consultant should have been included in Chloe’s notes. 

Following the medication incident, an urgent communication was sent to all staff in the 
specialist medicine division setting out the expectation for all regimes to be written in the 
notes and scanned on to the electronic patient record.  

A corporate neurology action plan is in place to make service improvements and increase 
compliance with record keeping standards. 

 
 To  ensure  adherence  to  the  expected  standards  we  have  completed  an  audit  of 
neurology  clinic  records  during  February  and  March  2024.The  results  of  this  audit 
showed overall good compliance with dictation, headers, footers, and onward referrals. 
Small  deviations  that  were  picked  up  were  fed  back  to  the  team  and  actioned.  Audit 
reviews  will  continue  quarterly  to  provide  assurance  to  the  divisional  governance 
meeting. These are in addition to the Trust wide record keeping audits. 

Concerns Five and six 

A  handwritten  note  of  a  tapering  regime  based  on  incorrect  doses  was  sent  to 
Chloe. The same regime was repeated in a letter to the Epilepsy Nurses, but this 
letter was not received until October 2021 (in paper form) as the initial email was 
sent to an address that no longer existed. 

The  tapering  regime  should  have  been  typed,  and  this  is  our  expected  practice.  Our 
action plan (attached) sets out the steps we have taken to make sure staff are aware of 
this and we are monitoring compliance with this standard via regular audits. 

Regrettably when we wrote to the Epilepsy Nurses on 8 September 2021, we were not 
aware that their office had relocated and therefore the address we wrote to was incorrect. 
Our letter was subsequently forwarded on in NELFT itself and uploaded onto system 1 
on 1 October 2021.  The email addresses used were also recorded incorrectly which led 
to the error and reliance on the postal version for the sharing of information.  

We recognise we must do better, and Chloe’s case brought about immediate changes to 
how we communicate with the Epilepsy nurses. The Epilepsy Nurses now have a shared 
email  account  that  we  write  to,  and  we  are  now  communicating  with  each  other 
effectively.  There  have  been  no  reported  incidents  of  delayed  correspondence  since 
Chloe’s case. 

Concerns eight, nine and ten 

The  consultant  in  question  gave  evidence  of  a  very  bleak  picture  of  ongoing 
practice  in  the  neurology  department;  a  letter  from  all  four  consultants  in  that 
department  had  been  sent  to  the  Trust  in  July  2023,  where  patient  care  was 
described as ‘sub-optimal’, and numerous concerns were set out including: 

•  Chronic staff shortages in respect of doctors, nurses and administrative staff 

within the neurology department 

•  Substantial and unsafe backlogs for first and follow up appointments 
• 

Inability  to  answer,  in  a  timely  manner,  the  volume  of  phone  calls,  phone 
messages and emails from patients/carers raising queries. 

•  The delays / ways in which investigations are carried out and reported, and the 

way in which clinical staff can access results. 

 
 
 
 A  further  letter  was  sent  by  Chloe’s  consultant  in  January  2024  in  lieu  of  her 

attending a meeting where progress was to be discussed.  That letter highlighted 
that, not only did the concerns remain live, she believed that the department had 
now reached levels of ‘unsafe practice’.  The state of the department, compared to 
when Chloe died was described as ‘worse’. 

The matters raised in the Consultant’s letter in July 2023  were of great concern. I am 
aware my colleague Dr David Walker, Chief Medical Officer, wrote to you at the time to 
confirm the action we were taking to ensure the service was safe, a copy of his letter is 
attached. Our Serious Incident investigation went on to investigate these concerns, and 
those findings have informed the detailed action plan attached.  

In addition to this, we have invested in staffing within the neurology service. Our medical 
staffing  is  now  fully  established  which  includes  four  consultants  and  three  specialty 
doctors. Our medical staffing is reviewed annually to check the needs of the service are 
properly met.  

We now have two nursing posts within the team, both roles have recently been appointed 
to.  Our  overall  administrative  support  has  also  increased  and  additional  funding  for 
administrative staff has been obtained for our Multiple Sclerosis service that sits under 
the Neurology umbrella. 

I  am  assured  that  the  concerns  raised  have  been  fully  addressed  and  the  neurology 
staffing establishment is appropriate to meet the service need. 

Concern eleven 

Notwithstanding  Chloe’s  death  in  2021,  the  letter  in  July  2023  and  follow-up  in 
January 2024, many of the more significant actions identified remained as part of 
an Action Plan.  Business cases were being drawn up for a number of areas (but 
not  additional  consultants)  and  these  had  not  yet  been  approved,  nor  was  it 
guaranteed that they would be. 

Prior to the Inquest investigation we had not identified a medication error in Chloe’s care. 
As  soon  as  this  was  discovered  we  raised  an  incident  on  21  February  2023  and 
commenced an internal investigation. 

The letter of concern from Chloe’s consultant was shared with the Trust in July 2023. The 
formal  Serious  Incident  process  began  on  1  March  2023  date  and  the  actions  arising 
from the Incident remain in progress.  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Once the issues were identified we took immediate action to ensure the neurology service 
was  safe,  and  through  our  Serious  Incident  investigation  we  have  made  significant 
improvements to the service overall.  

An update on our action plan is attached for assurance. Our action plan is extensive, and 
in places it is a health and care system-wide approach for improvement which regrettably 
adds a complexity to its completion as multiple partners are involved. I understand the 
concern that business cases were uncertain at the time of the Inquest hearing, however 
we have made significant progress with these, and I can assure you that the progress is 
regularly monitored at a senior level. Before closing any actions, we want to be absolutely 
assured of their completion and certain that the improvements have been sustained. We 
would be happy to provide a further update to you once all actions are closed. 

Concern Twelve  

The  independent  consultant  neurologist  in  giving  evidence  expressed  that  this 
was not an unfamiliar picture across a number of different Trusts and that there 
was  a  recognised  shortage  of  neurologists  and  increase  in  demand  for  that 
specialty nationally. 

On receipt of your PFDR report we reached out NHS England to enquire if this concern 
had been identified at a national level. We are sighted to the letter addressed to you from 
Professor Sir Stephen Powis, National Medical Director, of 11 April 2024.  

We are also pleased to hear that NHS England are in the process of developing national 
guidance to support us in our delivery of integrated care services, including neurology. 
This coupled with our investment in the service should deliver immense improvements 
across the service, including transition. 

We welcome the opportunity to share the improvements we have made with the ‘Getting 
It Right First Time’ team and of course, if there are any concerns raised following their 
visit, we will engage with them and take the required action.  

We  appreciate  the  opportunity  to  learn  from  these  events  and  we  are  committed  to 
improve the experience of our patients. We hope that the action we have taken, and will 
continue to take, has provided assurance that your concerns are being addressed. 

If you have any further concerns or you would like to discuss this case further, please do 
not hesitate to contact me. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Yours sincerely 

Chief Executive 
Mid and South Essex NHS Foundation Trust  

Enc. 
Action Plan 10.04.2024 v.3.4 
Letter from 

02.03.2023
Response from NHS England (PDF)
Rebecca Mundy 
Essex and Thurrock Coroner’s Service 
Essex County Council 
County Hall 
Chelmsford 
CM1 1QH  

National Medical Director  
NHS England  
Wellington House 
133-155 Waterloo Road  
London 
SE1 8UG 

11 April 2024 

Dear Coroner, 

Re: Regulation 28 Report to Prevent Future Deaths – Chloe Ann Tapp who died 
on 8 October 2021.   

Thank  you  for  your  Report  to  Prevent  Future  Deaths  (hereafter  “Report”)  dated  28 
February  2024  concerning  the  death  of  Chloe  Ann  Tapp  on  8  October  2021.  In 
advance of responding to the specific concerns raised in your Report, I would like to 
express my deep condolences to  Chloe’s family and loved ones. NHS England are 
keen to assure the family and the coroner that the concerns raised about Chloe’s care 
have been listened to and reflected upon.   

In  your  Report  you  raise  concerns  over  pressures  being  placed  on  neurology 
departments  and  that  there  was  a  recognised  shortage  of  neurologists  amid  an 
increase in demand. This response focuses on the concerns raised relevant to NHS 
England national programme or policy. Many of your concerns around the quality of 
care delivered to Chloe sit within the remit of Mid and South Essex NHS Foundation 
Trust, and I note that you have also addressed your Report to them.  

In  preparing  my  response  I  have  consulted  with  the  National  Clinical  Director  for 
Neurology and the Getting It Right First Time (GIRFT) Neurology Clinical Lead. GIRFT 
is  a  national  programme  designed  to  improve  the  treatment  and  care  of  patients 
through  in-depth  review  of  services,  benchmarking  and  presenting  a  data-driven 
evidence base to support change. It is part of an aligned set of programmes within 
NHS  England  and  has  the  backing  of  the  Royal  Colleges  and  professional 
associations.  

The  GIRFT  Programme  National  Specialty  Report  for  Neurology,  published  in 
September 2021, provides an in-depth analysis of the current neurology service within 
England.  The  GIRFT  methodology  is  to  identify  unwarranted  variations  between 
services,  to  highlight  those  that  are  beneficial  and  are  working  well  and  to  identify 
those  with  suboptimal  performance  and  those  where  resources  are  lacking  to 
understand their situation so they can address them. The key findings relevant to the 
observations made in your Report are summarised below:  

Outpatient services 

                                                                                                                       
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
  
 •  There is marked variation in access to neurology outpatients across different 
Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs), ranging from 400 to 1,600 per 100,000 
population for new patients and from 600 to over 3,000 for follow-ups.  

•  Neurology outpatient departments have limited capacity and demand outstrips 

supply. 

Specialist nursing  

•  Specialist nurses play an important role in the management of many chronic 

neurological disorders. 

•  There is marked variation in access to neurology nurses between neuroscience 
regions  as  reported  in  the  Getting  it  Right  First  Time  (GIRFT)/Association  of 
British Neurologists (ABN) questionnaire, ranging from 5 to 26 per million. 

Distribution of consultant posts  

•  There is marked variation in the number of consultants by neuroscience region, 
ranging  from  one  consultant  per  52,000  non-elective  population  to  one 
consultant  per  200,000  (excluding  the  National  Hospital  for  Neurology  and 
Neurosurgery). The average is one consultant per 79,000 across England. 
•  There  is  also  very  marked  variation  between  sites.  For  example,  one  Trust 
covering a population of 360,000 had one consultant, while another covering 
250,000 had five (three whole-time equivalents); at another site, 37 consultants 
were covering a population of 3.4 million. 

Having  considered  your  Report  and  the  concerns  raised,  a  GIRFT  visit  to  Mid  and 
South Essex NHS Foundation Trust has been arranged to review the specific situation 
within their Neurology department.  

Transition pathways from paediatric to adult services are a particular point of risk with 
variable  processes  across  the  country,  with  both  paediatric  and  adult  neurology 
services stretched. This is particularly a recognised issue for epilepsy. NHS England’s 
Paediatrics Programme recently published the national bundle of care for children and 
young  people  with  epilepsy.  Published  in  October  2023,  and  builds  on  existing 
guidance from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), it is aimed 
at clinicians by outlining specific recommendations for integrated care systems on the 
provision  of  care  for  children  and  young  people  with  epilepsy  particularly  around 
transition.  

NHS England’s Neurology Programme is in the process of developing guidance and 
specifications  to  support  Systems  and  NHS  Trusts  to  develop  integrated  care  for 
neurology  services,  including  epilepsy.  However,  this  cannot  directly  impact  issues 
arising from funding shortfalls in individual services or challenges with recruitment and 
retention  of  appropriately  qualified  medical  and  nursing  staff  in  some  parts  of  the 
country, as raised in your Report.  

 
 
 
 
 
 NHS England is also working at a national level to deliver the Long Term Workforce 
Plan  which  was  published  in  June  2023.  This  is  a  robust  and  effective  strategy  to 
ensure we have the right number of people, with the right skills and support in place 
to be able to deliver the kind of care people need. It heralds the start of the biggest 
recruitment  drive  in  health  service  history,  but  also  of  an  ongoing  programme  of 
strategic workforce planning. It includes ambitious commitments to grow the workforce 
by  significantly  expanding  domestic  education,  training  and  recruitment,  as  well  as 
actions aimed at improving culture, leadership and wellbeing so that more staff are 
retained in NHS employment over the next 15 years. These actions will aim to close 
anticipated  staffing  shortfalls  in  the  NHS  in  the  long  term,  however  Trusts  have  a 
responsibility to ensure safe staffing levels in the current day to day operation of their 
hospitals.  This  is in  line with  Care  Quality  Commission (CQC)  Regulation 18  which 
states  that  providers  must  deploy  enough  suitably  qualified,  competent,  and 
experienced staff to enable them to meet all other regulatory requirements. 

NHS England has also engaged with Mid and South Essex NHS Foundation Trust on 
the concerns raised in your Report. We note that Chloe’s initial telephone consultation 
took  place  during  the  COVID-19  pandemic,  and  that  she  was  considered  clinically 
vulnerable and at risk if exposed to infection. We have also been sighted on the Trust’s 
Serious Incident Review into Chloe’s care and subsequent action plan and note that 
this includes a review of neurology department clinical and administration services and 
safety netting information for patient with dose change regimes. I refer you to the Trust 
for their formal response to your Report, which we have also asked to be sighted on. 

I would also like to provide further assurances on national NHS England 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 preventable deaths are shared across the NHS at both 
a national and regional level and helps us 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

Related reports

Other reports by Rebecca Mundy

See all →

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

See all →

Track Mid and South Essex NHS Foundation Trust

See every Prevention of Future Deaths report matching Mid and South Essex 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.