Prevention of Future Deaths reports · 2025
Regulation 28 report to prevent future deaths, reference 2025-0226, written 12 May 2025. A coroner writes one of these when an inquest reveals a risk that could cause further deaths unless something changes.
| Date of report | 12 May 2025 |
|---|---|
| Reference | 2025-0226 |
| Deceased | Ian Simpson |
| Coroner | Ian Potter |
| Coroner area | Inner North London |
| Category | Care Home Health 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.
Prevention of Future Deaths Report – Ian George Stanton SIMPSON (date of death: 16 December 2024) Regulation 28 Report to Prevent Future Deaths THIS REPORT IS BEING SENT TO: Chief Executive Barchester Healthcare Ltd 3rd Floor The Aspect 12 Finsbury Square London EC2A 1AS 1 CORONER I am Ian Potter, assistant coroner for Inner North London. 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 24 December 2024, an investigation was commenced into the death of Ian George Stanton SIMPSON, aged 81 years at the time of his death on 16 December 2024. The investigation concluded at the end of an inquest heard by me on 29 and 30 April 2025. The conclusion of the inquest was ‘accident’. The medical cause of death was: 1a urosepsis 1b long-term catheter following traumatic spinal injury (August 2024) 4 CIRCUMSTANCES OF DEATH Mr Ian Simpson fell in August 2024 sustaining a traumatic spinal injury as a result. He required a long-term catheter which increases the risk of urine infections. Due to his complex care needs, Mr Simpson was admitted to Magnolia Court Care Home, Hampstead (Barchester Healthcare). At about 09:30 on 16 December 2024, Mr Simpson was found unresponsive by care staff and there was a delay in calling an ambulance. He was conveyed to the Royal Free Hospital and found to be suffering from sepsis, secondary to urine infection. Despite treatment, Mr Simpson continued to deteriorate, and he died in the hospital that evening. The delay in calling an ambulance did not cause or more than minimally contribute to Mr Simpson’s death. 5 CORONER’S CONCERNS During the course of my investigation and 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: 1. Mr Simpson was found unresponsive by care home staff at about 09:30 on 16 December 2024, and an emergency ambulance was not called until 10:19. On the evidence in this particular case, that delay did not more than minimally contribute to death; however, it would or should have been obvious to staff that the resident was very unwell and required an ambulance as soon as possible. This raises the concern that such a delay, if repeated, places others at serious risk. My concern was compounded by the evidence from the manager (which I did not wholly accept) that it would be reasonable to take this period of time for a nurse to be alerted, assess the resident, and decide whether an ambulance was required. 2. The notes from the care home were considered in great detail during the inquest, particularly the care notes from the morning of 16 December 2024. These raised significant concern about their adequacy and accuracy. While the deficiencies in record-keeping did not cause or contribute to death in the specific circumstances of this case, I am mindful of the importance of clear and accurate record- keeping to the delivery of safe and effective care more widely. The issues included: • an entry that was plainly not correct and therefore gave a misleading impression of interactions that staff had with Mr Simpson at or about the time of his being found unresponsive; • an entry suggesting that Mr Simpson was ‘awake and lying in bed’, when he had already been found unresponsive some time earlier, suggesting that the entry was either retrospective (and not labelled as such) or simply incorrect; • a series of notes, likely to have been retrospective but not labelled as such, giving a misleading impression of the course of events that morning. While I was provided with some evidence that action had been taken in relation to this matter (such as an audit of records), I found that the evidence provided insufficient reassurance that the risk was sufficiently reduced. 6 ACTION SHOULD BE TAKEN In my opinion, action should be taken to prevent future deaths and I believe that 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 7 July 2025. I, the coroner, may extend the period. Your response must contain details of the 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: • The family of Mr Simpson; and • Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust. In addition, I have sent a copy of my report to the following, for information: • The Care Quality Commission. 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. She may send a copy of this report to any person who she 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 Ian Potter HM Assistant Coroner, Inner North London 12 May 2025
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.
2nd floor 2 Redman Place London E20 1JQ United Kingdom 1 September 2025 Mrs Heidi Connor Senior Coroner for Berkshire Berkshire Coroner’s Office Reading Museum and Town Hall Blagrave Street Reading RG1 1QH Dear Mrs Connor, We are writing following further consideration of the issues raised by the very sad death of Ms Ellen Mercer. Our thoughts continue to be with her family. We have reflected on the circumstances surrounding Ellen’s death and the concerns raised in your report, specifically that policies do not require assessment of VTE risk in people presenting at the emergency department. As we noted in our earlier response, we have published a guideline on venous thromboembolism in over 16s: reducing the risk of hospital-acquired deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism [NG89]. The guideline makes recommendations for VTE risk assessment for people admitted to hospital and we recommend assessing all medical patients to identify the risk of VTE and bleeding as soon as possible after admission to hospital or by the time of the first consultant review (recommendation 1.1.2). Since our previous response, NICE’s guideline surveillance team have thoroughly considered the issues raised in your report against our published recommendations and reviewed the issue you raise with topic experts. As a result of this, we will amend our recommendations in the guideline NG89 to say that people should be assessed to identify the risk of VTE and bleeding after a decision to admit to hospital, or after 12 hours in ED, or by the time of the first consultant review, whichever is sooner. Additionally, we will amend our recommendations on pharmacological VTE prophylaxis to state that this should be started as soon as possible and within 14 hours of the decision to admit the person (rather than within 14 hours of admission as at present) where VTE prophylaxis is indicated. We hope that these amendments will address the issue of VTE prophylaxis for people who have a prolonged wait in the emergency department. Thank you for bringing Ellen’s case to our attention and we hope that this further update is helpful. nice.org.uk | nice@nice.org.uk Yours sincerely, Chief Medical Officer, Deputy CEO and Interim Director of the Centre for Guidelines, NICE , CBE MD FRCS FRCEM 2 of 2
FAO: HM Assistant Coroner Mr Potter
HM Coroner’s Court for Inner North London
By Email Only
7th July 2025
Dear Sir,
Inquest touching the death of Mr. Ian George Stanton Simpson
Magnolia Court (the ‘Home’)
I write further to the Inquest of Mr. Simpson and the Prevention of Future Death
Report issued on 12th May 2025 and sent to Barchester Healthcare on 13th May
2025.
Barchester Healthcare has carefully considered the issues identified at the
hearing and as detailed in the Findings and Conclusion ruling received on 30th
April 2025. It was deemed necessary to investigate the circumstances
surrounding Mr Simpson’s deterioration on 16th December 2025 and steps
taken in response by the staff on duty further.
We set out the steps taken following the Inquest and the findings of our
investigation below. We confirm we have updated the Care Quality Commission
(‘CQC’) and will share a copy of this letter with them.
Findings
We have now spoken with all relevant staff working on the shift on 16th
December 2024.
We confirm Barchester has found:
• it is highly likely the deterioration occurred after 09:45am on 16th December
2024.
• the entry made in Mr Simpson’s records at 09:46 in relation to repositioning is
likely to have been made in error and most likely relates to another resident as
this care intervention did not take place with Mr Simpson.
• it is not clear where the time of 09:30am as the time of the incident originates.
Whilst this is recorded in the Accident and Incident Form, no member of staff
suggested that there were any concerns at this time in respect of Mr Simpson’s
health and wellbeing.
• Despite the evidence given, no other member of the Nursing team considered
that 49 minutes is an appropriate length of time to escalate concerns to 999 if a
resident is found unresponsive and staff did not recall there being any significant
delay in doing so in Mr Simpson’s case.
Steps taken after the Inquest
Following the Inquest, we considered it necessary to ensure staff were clear as to
the organisation’s expectations in relation to deteriorating residents. We
acknowledged there was a need to improve staff understanding and use of
EnabLE, the electronic record keeping. It was also apparent greater care was
needed in the completion of Accident and Incident Forms which of course
represent valuable sources of key information, if accurate. We have taken
appropriate action in relation to staff members where departure from the
organisation’s policy was identified on investigation.
New General Manager
We have appointed an experienced General Manager for the Home who has been
leading on supporting the necessary improvements and staff development.
Introduction of EnabLE
EnabLE was introduced in December 2024. Our objectives were to standardise
recording, increase visibility of day-to-day care interactions at management
level, improve our ability to audit and conduct trend analysis of incidents and
staff performance. We are confident the introduction of this digital care support
planning system will allow the organisation to continually improve the standard
of record keeping and delivery of prompt and effective care. Now our care staff,
as distinct from nursing staff, have handheld devices and are expected to record
narratives at the point of care which represents a completely new way of
working for them having previously completed minimal resident records on
paper.
Implementation of EnabLE represented a significant project for the organisation.
Training and coaching were provided by an implementation team to our staff
before, during and after introduction
of the system. We are aware that there was a period in which staff were
familiarising themselves with the use of the handheld devices and completion of
prompts scheduled against resident care plans to ensure care interventions are
in a timely manner, use of free text and drop-down options.
Following the Inquest, we have provided refresher training at the Home in
relation to the functionality of the system, the organisation’s expectations and
policy in relation to record keeping and the importance of accurate and
contemporaneous recording.
We have the ability to review the documentation completed by staff at the Home
remotely; the Regional Director and Regional Clinical Development Nurse
continue to consider the quality of entries as part of the ongoing assurance audit
programme. We are currently working on setting up a trial of an integrated
digital accident and incident recording system, this will be linked to the digital
care planning system to allow for the capture of key information relating to the
incident in real time which will support our investigation of incidents in future.
Barchester Healthcare Policy in relation to Deteriorating Residents
We confirm the following steps have been taken at the Home to ensure that staff
are clear as to our expectations in relation to residents who appear to be unwell:
•I presented learning from this matter to all our home managers during our
‘Leading the way’ internal communication webinar on 19th May 2025. This
session covered responsibility to escalate any concerns in relation to residents’
health and welfare and utilise the guidance provided in our Deteriorating
Resident’s Policy and that 999 must be immediately called for an unresponsive
resident where this represents a new presentation.
•Themed supervisions have been completed with the support of Divisional
Clinical Lead Nurse, the Clinical Development Nurse and both the Regional
Director and General Manager of the Home. These themed supervisions cover
two main areas:
•RESTORE2 – which includes ‘clinical judgement’ (RESTORE2 is a physical
deterioration and escalation tool for care/nursing homes based on nationally
recognized methodologies including early recognition (Soft Signs), the national
early warning score (NEWS2).
•Managing Resident Deterioration.
The themed supervision programme was completed by the end of June and
ongoing learning and development is planned for the Home.
•Staff in the Home have also been provided with Barchester ‘Clinical Shots’
guidance, to inform their assessment of residents and the steps to be taken in
response.
As above, the Regional Director is monitoring the care provided at the Home to
ensure the learning has been embedded. The Regional Director will continue to
review resident incidents during their monthly visits to the Home.
We have taken the opportunity following our investigation to review the
Appropriate Admission Policy to ensure that careful consideration is given to
residents with more complex needs. At the Quality First Conference in
September, which will be attended by all General Managers, I will be delivering a
workshop on appropriate admissions which will encompass learning from a
number of cases including this one.
We take all concerns raised extremely seriously and wish to reiterate that the
health, safety and wellbeing of our residents is of paramount concern. We hope
this explanation offers reassurance that the risks of recurrence of issues
identified on investigation have been mitigated in so far as possible.
We offer our condolences to Mr Simpson’s family and friends for their loss.
Yours faithfully
│ Director of Nursing │ Barchester Healthcare
│
│www.barchester.com
See every Prevention of Future Deaths report matching Care Home Health 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.