Prevention of Future Deaths reports · 2024
Regulation 28 report to prevent future deaths, reference 2024-0236, written 1 May 2024. A coroner writes one of these when an inquest reveals a risk that could cause further deaths unless something changes.
| Date of report | 1 May 2024 |
|---|---|
| Reference | 2024-0236 |
| Deceased | Jordan Howarth |
| Coroner | Alison Mutch |
| Coroner area | Manchester South |
| Category | Hospital Death (Clinical Procedures and medical management) 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) Tameside General Hospital 2) Secretary of State for Health and Social Care CORONER 1 I am Alison Mutch, Senior Coroner for the coroner area of South Manchester 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 17th April 2023, I commenced an investigation into the death of Jordan George James Fogg HOWARTH. The investigation concluded on the 20th March 2024 and the conclusion was one of Narrative: Died from the complications of a severe inflammatory response contributed to by neglect. The medical cause of death was 1a) Multi-Organ Failure on the background of a severe inflammatory response of unknown aetiology. 4 CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE DEATH Jordan George James Fogg Howarth was a fit, healthy 25-year-old. He was admitted to Tameside General Hospital on 3rd April 2023 when he was unwell and deteriorating. The cause of his deteriorating condition was unclear. Tests found no surgical cause and no evidence of infection. It was suspected that there may be an auto immune reaction. There was no co-ordinated approach between specialists to identify the cause of his deterioration. There was no continuity of his care. On the evening of the 4th April he should have been escalated for a further critical care review under the Trust policy. It did not happen. He was moved to another ward. It was not recognised that he had triggered for a critical care review and that one had not been requested. On the morning of 5th April 2023, his condition was clearly deteriorating. A critical care outreach review at about 12:35 identified he needed to be admitted to ICU and a review be undertaken by an ICU consultant because all of his observations 1 were consistent with his body shutting down and going into shock. His condition was escalated to the ICU consultant who decided not to review him and not to admit him to ICU despite his declining clinical picture. He should have been reviewed and admitted to ICU at that point. He was not admitted until five hours later when his condition had deteriorated even further. Earlier admission to ICU would have prevented such a rapid deterioration and allowed for earlier support to have been provided to his organs. Following admission to ICU his symptoms were consistent with his organs failing and requiring full support. He had a cardiac arrest at about 3:30am on 6th April 2023 and could not be resuscitated. On the balance of probabilities had he been reviewed and admitted to ICU following the first review by the critical care outreach team on 5th April he would not have died when he did. 5 CORONER’S CONCERNS During 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. The inquest heard evidence that whilst there was input into Jordan’s care from both the microbiologist and the consultant physician there was not a joint approach to his care and no detailed discussions regarding the decision to withhold antibiotics. The inquest was told that this decision was reached by the microbiology team and as a consequence, antibiotics were withheld without further alternative treatments being put in place despite how unwell he was and despite the fact that the treating clinicians were unclear about the cause of his deterioration. 2. In relation to ICU the evidence before the inquest was that the Critical Care Outreach Practitioner had identified that Jordan needed to be moved to ICU urgently. This view had then to be ratified by the ICU Consultant if he was to be accepted into ICU. There was no documentation from the ICU consultant setting out their rationale for not examining Jordan at that point and for declining to admit him at that point. All the documentation was in the Critical Care Practitioner’s notes. There was no evidence of any discussions between the medical consultant and the ICU consultant about the decision in the clinical notes. 3. The trust policy was that anyone who had a NEWS2 score of 5 and no ceiling of care should be referred to the CC Outreach team. The inquest 2 heard evidence that this was not followed on a number of occasions and the fact it had been missed was not identified by more senior members of the nursing team. 4. The inquest heard oral evidence of conversations that it was told had taken place between consultants in a number of specialisms about Jordan. These were not documented in his notes. 5. The inquest heard that despite the complexity of his case there was no evidence of a multi-disciplinary discussion/approach to assess his position fully and that it was unclear who was responsible for the continuity of his care. 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, namely by 26th June 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. 8 COPIES and PUBLICATION I have sent a copy of my report to the Chief Coroner and to the following Interested Persons namely may find it useful or of interest. on behalf of the family, who 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 Alison Mutch HM Senior Coroner 01/05/2024 4
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.
From Maria Caulfield MP
Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for
Mental Health and Women's Health Strategy
Department of Health & Social Care
39 Victoria Street
London
SW1H 0EU
13 May 2024
Alison Mutch
HM Coroner
Coroner’s Court
1 Mount Tabor Street
Stockport
SK1 3AG
Dear Ms Mutch,
Thank you for the Regulation 28 report to prevent future deaths of 1 May 2024 about the death
of Mr Jordan Howarth. I am replying as Minister with responsibility for patient safety.
Firstly, I would like to say how saddened I was to read of the circumstances of Mr Howarth’s
death and I offer my sincere condolences to their family and loved ones. The circumstances
your report describes are concerning and I am grateful to you for bringing these matters to my
attention.
The report raises the following concerns:
1. Whilst there was input into Mr Howarth’s care from both the microbiologist and the
consultant physician there was not a joint approach to his care and no detailed discussions
regarding the decision to withhold antibiotics.
2. The Critical Care Outreach Practitioner had identified that Mr Howarth needed to be moved
to ICU urgently, which had to be ratified by the ICU Consultant if he was to be accepted
into ICU. There was no documentation from the ICU consultant setting out their rationale
for not examining Mr Howarth at that point and for declining to admit him at that point.
3. The Trust’s policy was that anyone who had a NEWS2 score of 5 and no ceiling of care
should be referred to the Critical Care Outreach team. The inquest heard evidence that
this was not followed on a number of occasions and the fact it had been missed was not
identified by more senior members of the nursing team.
4. The inquest heard oral evidence of conversations that it was told had taken place between
consultants in a number of specialisms about Mr Howarth that were not documented in his
notes.
5. The inquest heard that despite the complexity of his case there was no evidence of a
multidisciplinary discussion/approach to assess his position fully and that it was unclear
who was responsible for the continuity of his care.
A1
Most of these issues are operational in nature and I note that you have rightly sent your report
to the hospital in question (Tameside General Hospital). It will be important that they consider
these issues and findings fully and write to you with the actions and improvements they will be
taking to address your findings and prevent a reoccurrence of what happened to Mr Howarth.
In the meantime, it may be helpful if I outline the work we are doing at a national level to
improve how the NHS detects and acts upon signs of deterioration.
In February the Government and NHS England announced plans to implement Martha’s Rule
in at least 100 acute or specialist NHS sites in England by March 2025. Martha’s Rule is an
initiative that gives patients and their families who are concerned about deterioration in their
physiological condition the right to initiate a rapid review of their case 24 hours a day from
someone outside of their immediate care team. When requested, this rapid review will inform
whether any new or additional action needs to be taken to help ensure patients receive the
most appropriate care and treatment – which may include escalation.
While some NHS Trusts already offer rapid review processes similar to Martha’s Rule called
Call 4 Concern, others do not have an equivalent mechanism in place. In recognition of these
variations in readiness, we are initiating a phased approach to implementing Martha’s Rule.
NHS England are leading the process of identifying the 100+ sites that will participate in this
first phase and supporting the development of their local processes. Alongside this, NHS
England will develop proposals for national rollout in the next Spending Review period.
Implementation of Martha’s Rule forms part of NHS England’s Managing Deterioration Safety
Improvement Programme. This programme aims to reduce deterioration-associated harm by
improving the prevention, identification, escalation and response to physical deterioration,
through better system co-ordination and as part of safe and reliable pathways of care. In
addition to phase one of Martha’s Rule implementation, the programme consists of the
following workstreams:
• Continued testing and implementation of the standardised national deterioration tools
addressing adults, children and young people, maternity and newborns across settings,
incorporating patient, carer and family concerns; and
• Publication, implementation and spread of the PIER Framework
(Prevent, Identify, Escalate and Respond to physical deterioration), to improve how the
NHS supports staff across systems to manage deterioration and encourage greater
involvement from patients, families, and carers.
I hope this response is helpful. Thank you for bringing these concerns to my attention.
Best Wishes,
MARIA CAULFIELD
A2
Tameside and Glossop Integrated Care NHS Foundation Trust Karen James Chief Executive Officer Tameside and Glossop Integrated Care NHS Foundation Trust Silver Springs Fountain Street Ashton under Lyne Lancashire OL6 9RW 26 June 2024 Strictly Private and Confidential FAO Ms Mutch HM Coroner Coroner's Court 4 Mount Tabor Street Stockport Cheshire SK1 3AG Dear Ms Mutch | am writing further to the inquest regarding the death of Mr Jordan Howarth (who died on 6" April 2024) which concluded on 20" March 2024 and the subsequent Regulation 28 Notice issued to the Trust. | hope to set out below my response in terms of what we are already doing and what we plan to do in relation to your concerns. You expressed concerns around the joint approach to Mr Howarth’s care from both the microbiologist and the consultant physician, specifically around the decision to withhold antibiotics. There were concerns around the documentation from the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) Consultant, setting out/not setting out their rationale, specifically no discussions between the medical consultant and the ICU consultant within the medical notes. You were also concerned that the Trusts’ policy around NEWS2 escalation had not been followed and that despite complexities with Mr Howarth’s treatment, there was no. evidence of a _ multi-disciplinary discussion/approach and it was unclear who was responsible for his continuity of care. | aim to take these concerns in turn to provide you with a detailed update on the Trusts’ progress. e The joint approach to Mr Howarth’s care from both the microbiologist and the consultant physician, specifically around the decision to withhold antibiotics. In response to this particular point the ICU team have updated and amended the daily review chart to include a specific section for microbiology input. All patients on ITU are 1 Tameside and Glossop Integrated Care NHS Foundation Trust reviewed daily by the Microbiology Team, with a middle grade doctor in attendance to document and update the daily review chart. The attendance of the microbiologist on the ICU enables real time multidisciplinary discussions to take place and for any decisions to be recorded. The completion of the updated documentation will be audited to ensure that this is being completed. The audit has been planned with the Trust’s audit team and will form part of the local audit program for the ITU team. In addition to the actions taken by the ITU the Microbiology Team have also reviewed their processes. The Microbiology Team currently complete daily ward rounds across the organisations, Monday to Friday. This clinical activity is already part of the Microbiology Team’s job plan for each week. In the event that a clinician is not present to discuss a patient at the time of review from Microbiology, Microbiology have introduced a sticker that is placed in a patients notes to alert medical staff to the management plan. Microbiology have given assurance that anti-biotics will not be stopped until the blood culture results are available, management advice for bacterium identified from blood cultures is left in the patient notes alongside the anti-biotic plan. To further support clinical teams in accessing Microbiology advice the team are also available to provide support and guidance to clinical colleagues over the phone. e The documentation from the ICU consultant setting out/not setting out their rationale, specifically no discussions’ between the medical consultant and the ICU consultant within the medical notes As you will know, the first phase of Martha’s Rule has been implemented across 100 NHS sites from April 2024. The purpose of this is so that patients, families, carers and staff will have round the clock access to a rapid review from a separate care team if they are worried about a persons’ condition/deterioration. Martha’s Rule will build on the evaluation of NHS England’s Worry and Concern Improvement Collaborative and involves encouraging staff, patients’, families and carers to escalate their concerns around patient deterioration. Martha’s Rule is one of a series of measures implemented to improve the way Trusts’ identify and document a decline in a persons’ condition. Martha’s rule has 3 components: 1. All staff in NHS Trusts must have 24/7 access to a rapid review from a critical care outreach team, who they can contact should they have concerns about a patient. 2. All patients, their families, carers, and advocates must also have access to the same 24/7 rapid review from a critical care outreach team, which they can contact via mechanisms advertised around the Hospital, and more widely if they are worried about the patient's condition. - 3. The NHS must implement a structured approach to obtain information relating to a patient’s condition directly from patients and their families at least daily. In the first instance, this will cover all inpatients in acute and specialist Trusts. Tameside and Glossop Integrated Care NHS Foundation Trust NHS England has asked Trusts nationally to submit expressions of interest for the first phase of the implementation plan. As such Tameside & Glossop Integrated Care NHS Foundation Trust (TGICFT) submitted their expression of interest which has been successful. As one of the selected pilot sites for the first phase of the implementation, the Trust is developing a suite of information leaflets and posters to publicise to patients, staff, carers and families the mobile number that will sit with the Critical Care Outreach Team to respond to. The Trust is working under the direction of NHS England and the anticipated launch date is September 2024. In addition to the Matha’s rule implementation plan, TGICFT have introduced a new process. The process supports members of the Critical Care Outreach Team, including the Outreach Specialty Doctor to access an alternative opinion from an Intensive Care Doctor should they have an unresolved concern or worry about a patient. Please see attached a copy of the standard operating procedure (SOP) for your consideration. As a direct result of this case the Trust implemented an immediate response as part of the Trust’s sepsis quality improvement project. The response was that a training and poster campaign describing “Think Sepsis / Think Outreach” as well as running a number of sepsis training. Sepsis is also now incorporated into the Outreach education day and this is available to all Trust staff. Please see attached a copy of that poster. The Trust has an established Critical Care Outreach Team which is comprised of a number of highly skilled and experiences critical care nursing colleagues. The service is available on 24 hours, seven days a week basis. In addition to this, the Trust implement MERIT (Medical Emergency and Rapid Intubation Team) as part of its response to the Covid-19 pandemic. Although the Trust, like others nationally have stood down many of the supportive measures implemented in response to the pandemic, the organisation has continued with the MERIT Team. The MERIT Team is staffed by senior anaesthetic colleagues including consultant level from 08:30 to 18:00, and from 18:00 to 08:30 this is staffed by a middle grade anaesthetist. MERIT is also available 24 hour, seven days a week basis. This is in addition to the medical staff who support/advise and give guidance. e The Trusts’ policy around NEWS2 escalation had not been followed The NEWS2 is the latest version of the National Early Warning Score (NEWS), first produced in 2012 by NHSE and updated in December 2017. It advocates a system to standardise the assessment and response to acute illness. In December 2018, the Trust implemented the NEWS2 chart and an associated escalation document. There are ongoing Trust wide audits which measure compliance with the guidance. These are undertaken on a weekly basis with action being taken to address areas of concern. The aim of the audits are to ensure that observations are undertaken as per NEWS2 guidelines, to identify areas of practice that can be improved in relation to identifying and managing the deteriorating patient, to reinforce 3 Tameside and Glossop Integrated Care NHS Foundation Trust the importance of an accurate track and trigger score and to highlight the need of timely escalation of the deteriorating patient. The Trust also completes bi-annual NEWS2 audits every April and October. During April 2024, the NEWS2 Observation Charts of a random sample of ten patients (or less) per ward were reviewed by the Critical Care Outreach Practitioners. Patients from 14 wards were included in the sample and all patients had been on the ward for a minimum of 48 hours (24 hours for the Acute Medical Unit (AMU). As a result of the annual audit in April 2024, several recommendations were made: « Ward Managers/matrons to take urgent action where compliance is below 90% this is monitored via exception reports within each clinical division. * Ward Managers to continue weekly NEWS2 compliance spot checks and provide feedback to staff, as appropriate. * Ward Managers to monitor NEWS2 e-learning training compliance. *« NEWS2 training to remain essential e-learning for all clinical staff Band 3 and above. ¢ Continue to include NEWS2 in the Acute Illness Management Programme (AIM) and Outreach refresher training. * Outreach deliver a deteriorating patient study day, which now incorporates sepsis, this was implemented in 2023 following the learning from this case. « Implementation of an Electronic NEWS2 recording and scoring system to be progressed * Audit results and action to be monitored by the Managing Deteriorating Patient Group The Trust also reviews NEWS2 as part of the ward accreditation program and the monthly ward audits, which include escalation of NEWS2 and if NEWS2 has been scored correctly. The results of these audits are monitored and discussed at the Sepsis Improvement Board which is chaired by the Associate Medical Director and this is held monthly. The Trust has agreed a business case to purchase an electronic NEWS monitoring system, this is anticipated to be implemented in 2025. The Trust have also added sepsis electronic icons on each ward whiteboard to easily identify those patients who have sepsis. To further support training in relation to sepsis, the Trust introduced sepsis simulation training in July 2023, since then there have been 8 sessions held with further dates booked. To date 107 multidisciplinary candidates have attended from across all divisions. The Education and Training Team are currently in discussions to make the sepsis simulation mandatory for all staff to attend yearly. Further to this the Acute Tameside and Glossop Integrated Care NHS Foundation Trust Illness Management (AIM) course includes a workshop specifically focused on sepsis. AIM is a blend of lectures, workshops and simulated learning that embed the ABCDE approach to assessment and management of the patient with deteriorating illness. In the last 6 months 104 members of staff have attended the AIM course. e Despite complexities with Mr Howarth’s treatment, there was no evidence of a multi-disciplinary discussion/approach and it was unclear who was responsible for his continuity of care The Trust follow the General Medical Council (GMC) guidance that supports the recommendation, that every patient admitted to hospital will have a named, identifiable clinician assigned to them. This will help to make sure care is properly coordinated. Mr Howarth’s care was reviewed by several consultants during his admission: ISGU each discussed and referred this gentleman’s care to other specialisms as required. The Trust adhere to the GMC guidance and all patients are appointed a consultant on admission. The consultant’s name is inputted onto the electronic patient record system (Lorenzo), this triangulates with the ward patient safety board that identifies the consultant appointed for the patients care. The medical ward that Mr Howarth was admitted to, have described their process in that all patients are appointed a consultant on admission. Should this not happen it would be identified at the daily ward board round as the electronic board identifies the patient with corresponding consultant. If the electronic board does not identify a consultant to a patient is it rectified immediately. It is the responsibility of the consultant appointed on admission to coordinate all MDT discussions and document any discussions and decisions made. e Documentation Documentation is revisited at the Trust on a regular basis at the bi-monthly Medicine and Urgent Care Divisional Meeting as well as the Surgery, Women’s and Children’s Divisional Meeting. Legal Services also contribute to these meetings in relation to the learning from inquests and it is an area the Trust are continuing to monitor and develop. The importance of documentation has been reiterated at the Medicine and Urgent Care, Patient and Staff, Quality and Safety Forum (PASQASF) and the Surgery, Women and Children’s Patient and Staff, Quality & Safety Forum (PASQASF) the on 16" May 2024. To strengthen the documentation from ITU and Critical Care Outreach, the team have developed a stamp to evidence NEWS2 escalation and these stamps are also used by AMU nursing staff. The Trust is reviewing the need for issuing of these stamps across all staff members. The stamp is used in conjunction with the completion of the NEWS2 charts. NEWS2 training forms part of the Trust’s induction process and the 5 Tameside and Glossop integrated Care: NHS Foundation Trust Critical Care Outreach Team conduct case studies as part of that induction/training. In addition to the stamp, all nursing staff have been reminded that a deteriorating patient does not need to be scoring a NEWS2 of 5 and that any deteriorating .patient, regardless of NEWS2 score, should be escalated to the Nurse in charge (NIC). As mentioned above, the Trust also reviews NEWS2 as part of the ward accreditation program and the monthly ward audits and the results of these audits are monitored and discussed at the Sepsis Improvement.Board. Furthermore, the Critical Care Outreach team now document within the patients’ medical records rather than the nursing documentation. This ensures that all members of the multidisciplinary team can access all information at any time rather than looking through different documents. I hope this response has provided assurance that the Trust has taken your comments and concerns seriously and action taken to minimise the risk of such an event occurring again. Should you require any further information, please to not hesitate to contact me through the Legal Services Team on Yours sincerely, Medical Director On behalf of Karen James (Chief Executive Officer) Tameside and Glossop Integrated Care NHS Foundation Trust
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.