Prevention of Future Deaths reports · 2025
Regulation 28 report to prevent future deaths, reference 2025-0293, written 11 Jun 2025. A coroner writes one of these when an inquest reveals a risk that could cause further deaths unless something changes.
| Date of report | 11 Jun 2025 |
|---|---|
| Reference | 2025-0293 |
| Deceased | Maureen Powell |
| Coroner | Gordon Clow |
| Coroner area | Nottingham City and Nottinghamshire |
| Category | Care Home Health related deaths |
| 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 NOTE: This form is to be used after an inquest. REGULATION 28 REPORT TO PREVENT DEATHS THIS REPORT IS BEING SENT TO: 1 Red Oaks Care Community 1 CORONER I am Gordon CLOW, Assistant Coroner for the coroner area of Nottingham City and Nottinghamshire 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 17 October 2024 I commenced an investigation into the death of Maureen POWELL aged 95. The investigation concluded at the end of the inquest on 10 June 2025. The conclusion of the inquest was that: Maureen Powell died from severe frailty, a natural disease. The pressure ulcer she experienced contributed to the medical cause of death. 4 CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE DEATH After a long and active life, Maureen Powell suffered a series of health problems in the months leading up to her death, resulting in a very long stay in hospital. She had suffered a stroke and a fractured neck of femur, as well as other medical problems, and was unable to fully recover. She moved from hospital into a nursing home. Maureen Powell’s death was from severe frailty but this was contributed to by a large and serious pressure ulcer. That ulcer developed and worsened whilst Maureen Powell was in a nursing home during the period following her discharge from hospital. It was the policy of that nursing home to provide a high standard of care for residents at risk of pressure damage as well as those who had suffered pressure damage. Suitable equipment and caring regimes were available to provide this support to reduce the risks of the damage worsening or to heal damage which had occurred. Many aspects of the care which was indicated for the pressure damage were not implemented. This more than minimally contributed to the development of the sacral pressure ulcer which, in turn, contributed to the death. 5 CORONER’S CONCERNS During the course of the investigation my inquiries 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: (brief summary of matters of concern) 1. Repositioning was undertaken, but recording and implementation was, at times, patchy; Regulation 28 – After Inquest Document Template Updated 30/07/2021 Care plans were not updated regularly in line with good practice and were not There was a delay in putting an appropriate bed surface in place; On at least one occasion the airflow mattress was incorrectly adjusted, reducing its 2. There was widespread non-compliance with the regime of daily skin inspections in the period of time that Maureen was a resident at the Nursing Home. Not one skin inspection was recorded during Maureen’s stay; 3. always updated when the circumstances required; 4. 5. efficacy; 6. 7. got beyond the ability of the in-house nursing staff to manage and treat the wound; 8. 9. 10. 11. pressure damage was identified. The family were not kept up to date about deterioration in the wound; The referral to tissue viability was made too late as it occurred after the wound had No internal investigation was undertaken; Key records were not kept or were lost or destroyed; Inaccurate reports were made to the CQC and social care about the incidents; and There was an apparent lack of clear guidance to staff as to what to do if or when 6 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. 7 YOUR RESPONSE You are under a duty to respond to this report within 56 days of the date of this report, namely by August 06, 2025. 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 8 I have sent a copy of my report to the Chief Coroner and to the following Interested Persons Red Oaks Care Community I have also sent it to CQC - Care Quality Commission Sherwood Medical Partnership - Forest Town Nottinghamshire County Council Nottinghamshire Healthcare Trust - NHCT who may find it useful or of interest. I am also under a duty to send a copy of your response to the Chief Coroner and all interested persons who in my opinion should receive it. I may also send a copy of your response to any person who I believe may find it useful or of interest. 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. Regulation 28 – After Inquest Document Template Updated 30/07/2021 9 Dated: 11/06/2025 Gordon CLOW Assistant Coroner for Nottingham City and Nottinghamshire Regulation 28 – After Inquest Document Template Updated 30/07/2021
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.
Red Oaks Care Home
Dear Coroner,
We write in connection with the Regulation 28 report which was issued in connection with the
Inquest into the death of Maureen Powell, who was a resident of Red Oaks Care Community
(“the Home”).
The Inquest into the death of Maureen Powell was held at Nottingham Coroner’s Court on 12
May and 10 June 2025. Prior to and during the course of the Inquest the Home provided
evidence to assist your inquiry into the care arrangements in place for Maureen Powell whilst a
resident at the Home, and the reflection which has taken place following Maureen’s death to
further strengthen the Home’s existing procedures moving forward.
A Regulation 28 Report was however issued on 11 June 2025 which raised concerns with
regard the implementation of the Home’s systems and procedures for the delivery of pressure
management care to residents, communications made to Maureen’s family and the CQC, and
the investigation processes followed.
It is relevant to explain at the outset that we have reflected seriously on the contents of your
Report, and remain saddened that you considered this a necessary step despite the evidence
given.
Pressure Management
The Report acknowledges that it was the Home’s policy to provide a high standard of care for
residents at risk of pressure damage as well as those who had suffered pressure damage. It is
also acknowledged that the Home had in place suitable equipment and caring regimes to
reduce the risks of pressure damage worsening to heal damage which had occurred. It is
however noted, and accepted, that these systems and procedure were not sufficiently
implemented in practice on this occasion.
The Home reflected significantly prior to the Inquest and had taken steps to strengthen the
processes in place to ensure compliance against the systems and procedures in place. We do
not seek to repeat the entirety of the evidence given below, but would draw attention to the
following specific factors in respect of the measures in place for oversight of pressure
management care:
Care staff are required to complete SSKIN Inspections Records every 24 hours, with any
concerns reported to the Registered Nurse on duty. The SSKIN Inspection Records are
now in turn audited by management upon the generation of daily reports.
Weekly and monthly audits are conducted by management in relation to care records
relating to residents’ pressure care and skin integrity, for the purpose of ensuring that all
actions have been completed in a timely manner, any external professional input required
has been sought accordingly, and that care plans and risk assessments have been
reviewed and updated as appropriate.
An audit schedule is in place which captures all audits on a daily, weekly and monthly
basis. Audits are completed across the different areas of the Home, to ensure that a
‘fresh eyes’ review of care delivery is completed. The Home Manager then completes a
check of the audits which have taken place from a compliance perspective, before
signing off against these.
All records, including for wound management, are now held electronically on the care
system enabling increased oversight by the management team.
The mattress type to be supplied to a resident is determined following the consideration
of a number of factors including an assessment of the resident’s weight, diet and fluid
intake, mobility, skin integrity and capacity. Airflow mattresses are checked on a daily
basis by the housekeeper to monitor that the correct mattress is in place, that it is
functional and that it is set to the correct resident weight. These checks are again
recorded on the care system to enable oversight of compliance against the procedure.
Following further reflection at the Inquest, a documented Skin Integrity Protocol has now
been introduced, formalising the instructions which the nursing team and carers have
received through their respective training and providing a single point of reference for
them when escalating pressure concerns. The Protocol encompasses guidance on the
importance of ensuring that next of kin are kept informed of developments, the
requirements of the duty of candour and guidance on the delivery of this, amongst other
relevant matters.
More broadly, it was explained that a new Registered Manager was appointed to the home on 7
October 2024, with a new Deputy Manager having since also been introduced. The Registered
Manager now conducts daily walk arounds of the Home for the purpose of reviewing resident
care and ensuring that the correct measures are in place.
A Clinical Lead role has also separately been introduced to provide additional support with care
planning, evaluations, audits and the provision of care to residents, amongst other matters.
In addition, the Operations Manager conducts weekly unannounced visits to the Home to
provide an additional level of oversight of compliance against the procedures in place. These
are supplemented by additional focused visits for the purpose of assessing any areas of lessons
learned across other services, with any learnings and remedial actions identified reported to the
Registered Managers for dissemination to the staff employed at each home. Full compliance
visits are separately undertaken on a quarterly basis, capturing all areas of the service. A
Regional Manager has also now been employed to provide additional compliance support and
oversight.
Senior Management meetings are now held on a quarterly basis, and manager supervisions
completed on a bi-monthly basis again providing an additional layer of oversight and
management to the service and its management team.
Additional Observations
With regard the additional observations made at points 8 to 10 of the Report, we can advised as
follows:
Point 8 – The Home has in place a documented policy concerning the requirement to
undertake an internal investigation in relevant circumstances. All staff have received a
copy of the policy and are familiar with the requirements of this to ensure that an
investigation is undertaken in all circumstances that trigger this.
Point 9 - The Home utilises an electronic care record system where resident records are
held. Electronic care records are now checked by the Registered Manager, Deputy
Manager and Clinical Lead during each shift, for the purposes of ensuring that all
relevant documentation and entries are in place for each resident. This is in addition to
the daily walk around checks referred to above.
Separately, such matters will be considered during the checks and audits undertaken by
the Operations Manager, providing a secondary layer of oversight to monitor that the
processes are being followed correctly.
Point 10 – Previously it was the responsibility of the Home Manager, as the responsible
person, to complete any necessary safeguarding or CQC notifications. Following the
Inquest, this process has been amended to require that all serious injury notification
reports must be sent to the Operations Manager for review prior to submission.
Accordingly, significant steps have been taken by the Home to strengthen the systems and
procedures in place to monitor the correct implementation of care arrangements for
residents, which are considered to be appropriate in all the circumstances.
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.