Prevention of Future Deaths reports · 2025

William Roath

Regulation 28 report to prevent future deaths, reference 2025-0518, written 14 Oct 2025. A coroner writes one of these when an inquest reveals a risk that could cause further deaths unless something changes.

Date of report14 Oct 2025
Reference2025-0518
DeceasedWilliam Roath
CoronerDavid Reid
Coroner areaWorcestershire
CategoryHospital Death (Clinical Procedures and medical management) related deaths
Organisation namedUniversity Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust
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 REPORT TO PREVENT FUTURE DEATHS 

THIS REPORT IS BEING SENT TO: 

Chief Executive, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust 
Trust Headquarters 
Level 1 
Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham 
Mindelsohn Way 
Edgbaston 
Birmingham B15 2GW. 

1  CORONER 

I am David Donald William REID, HM Senior Coroner for Worcestershire. 

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. 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2009/25/schedule/5/paragraph/7 
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/1629/part/7/made 

3 

INVESTIGATION and INQUEST 

On 18.12.24 I commenced an investigation and opened an inquest into the death of 
William Henry ROATH. The investigation concluded at the end of the inquest on 
13.10.25. 

The conclusion of the inquest was that Mr. Roath “died as the result of an accident”. 

4  CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE DEATH 

In answer to the questions “when, where and how did Mr. Roath come by his death?”, 
I recorded as follows: 

“On 29.10.24 William Roath, who lived with a number of significant background 
medical conditions, was admitted to the Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Birmingham after 
falling down concrete steps outside New Road Surgery, Bromsgrove. He was found to 
have suffered skull fractures and a traumatic brain injury which were treated 
conservatively, but went on to suffer a number of episodes of aspiration pneumonia. 
He was transferred for further rehabilitative treatment to Worcestershire Royal 
Hospital on 28.11.24, but while there developed another chest infection, likely the 
result of aspiration. He was kept comfortable, and declined and died there on 
12.12.24.” 

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 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 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 While Mr. Roath was being treated for a traumatic brain injury at the Queen Elizabeth 
Hospital, Birmingham, a nurse documented on 20.11.24 that he was coughing and 
spluttering when receiving food and documented that staff were “not to continue to 
feed patient”. Mr. Roath was then reviewed by a doctor that same day, who 
documented that there should be a SALT ( Speech & Language Therapy Team ) 
assessment, but did not record any advice about whether Mr. Roath should remain Nil 
by Mouth in the meantime. A referral was not made to the SALT team for another 5 
days, during which time nursing staff continued to feed Mr. Roath orally. The 
consultant who gave evidence about the University Hospitals Birmingham NHS 
Foundation Trust’s ( the Trust’s ) own investigation into this issue told the inquest: 

(a)  Any member of staff can make a referral to the SALT team, and in this case it 

should have been clearly agreed and set out who would be making the 
referral recommended on 20.11.24; 

(b)  The reviewing doctor should also have documented that Mr. Roath was to be 
made Nil by Mouth until a further SALT assessment had been carried out; 

(c)  Continued oral feeding between 20-25.11.24 contributed to the 

development/worsening of Mr. Roath’s aspiration pneumonia which was 
diagnosed on 21.11.24; 

(d)  The failure promptly to assess and treat the worsening in Mr. Roath’s 

swallowing ability which was identified on 20.11.24 amounted to a failure to 
provide a basic level of care. 

Having heard evidence from a Senior Sister on Ward 409, where Mr. Roath was 
treated throughout his admission, I was satisfied that sufficient measures had been 
taken to try to ensure that nursing and healthcare staff did not repeat the omissions 
which had been identified at the inquest. 

When the same question was asked of the consultant in respect of doctors at the 
Trust, the inquest was told: 
“a Trust-wide communication will go out to all members of staff that SALT referrals in 
cases of aspiration can be made by any healthcare professional, and should be made 
by the professional who recognizes a risk of aspiration.” 

I am therefore concerned that, so far as doctors at the Trust are concerned, nearly 12 
months after the relevant events, no action has yet been taken to try to ensure that 
the errors made by the doctor who reviewed Mr. Roath on 20.11.24 are not repeated. 

6  ACTION SHOULD BE TAKEN 

In my opinion action should be taken to prevent future deaths and I believe you, as 
the Chief Executive of the Trust, 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 9 December 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. 

8  COPIES and PUBLICATION 

I have sent a copy of my report to the Chief Coroner and to the following: 

(a) 

, Mr. Roath’s daughter and next of kin. 

2 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 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 

14 October 2025 

David REID 
HM Senior Coroner for Worcestershire 

3

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 University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust 1 (PDF)
9th December 2025 

For the attention of Mr David Reid 
HM Senior Coroner for Worcestershire 

Dear Mr Reid 

Inquest touching the death of William Roath  
Response to Regulation 28 Report to prevent future deaths 

I am writing in response to the Regulation 28 notice issued following the conclusion of 
the  Inquest  on  13  October  2025  touching  the  death  of  Mr  Roath  who  died  at  the 
Worcestershire Royal Hospital on the 12/12/24.  

We have carefully considered the concerns raised within your report to prevent future 
deaths and would respond as follows. 

University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust was deeply sorry to learn of 
the  death  of  Mr  Roath  following  his  discharge  from  Queen  Elizabeth  Hospital 
Birmingham and transfer to Worcester Royal Infirmary on 28th November 2024.  

The inquest into his death, held 13th October 2025, concluded that Mr Roath died by 
accidental  death  following  a  fall  down  steps….  He  suffered  skull  fractures  and  a 
traumatic  brain  injury  and  went  on  to  suffer  a  number  of  episodes  of  aspiration 
pneumonia. He was transferred to Worcester …. but deteriorated further, most likely 
as a consequence of further aspiration pneumonia. 

The  inquest  heard  that  Mr  Roath  had  initially  been  nil  by  mouth  but  after  an 
assessment  by  the  Speech  and  Language  Team  (SALT)  on  19th  October  2024,  he 
was  cleared  to  receive  a  textured  diet  in  bite  sized  pieces.  Further  concerns  were 
raised  about  Mr  Roath’s  swallow  on  20th October  and,  regrettably,  5  days  elapsed 
before another SALT referral was made. When Mr Roath was reviewed by SALT on 
25th October, his swallow was deemed unsafe. In the intervening 5 days, Mr Roath 
had continued to receive an oral diet intermittently and he had developed and been 
treated  for  a  presumed  aspiration  pneumonia.  He  initially  improved  and  was 
transferred  to  Worcester  for  ongoing  care  but  sadly  succumbed  to  his  illness.  The 
Trust’s  witnesses  highlighted  that  aside  from  his  risk  of  aspiration,  Mr  Roath  had 
remained at significant risk of death as a direct result of his traumatic brain injury and 
its sequelae. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 The inquest heard that UHB had put in place measures to ensure that nursing staff 
and healthcare assistants would not repeat the identified omissions relating to the safe 
management  of  swallowing  problems  and  risk  of  aspiration.  In  the  case  of  medical 
staff,  however,  based  on  the  evidence  presented  at  inquest,  insufficient  action 
appeared to have been taken to prevent a recurrence of this incident. 

University Hospitals Birmingham wishes to assure the court that its policies explicitly 
identify the role of all patient facing staff, including doctors, in managing patients with 
swallowing problems and who are at risk of aspiration. The Trust also has monitoring 
processes  in  place  to  ensure  that  swallowing-related  patient  safety  incidents  are 
identified. 

Responsibilities and monitoring processes are outlined in the Trust Policies: 

Controlled  Document  1201  "Dysphagia  Management  Standard  Operating 
Procedure” (SOP) (Current: April 2023- April 2026) 

6.2.2  Consultant  and  Medical  Team.  All  clinical  decisions  regarding  dysphagia 
management must be agreed by the clinical team, the consultant has overall 
responsibility for the patient’s care. 

Controlled  Document  1209  “Nil  by  Mouth  Standard  Operating  Procedure”  V2 
(Current: April 2023- April 2026) 

Section 4: Implementation and monitoring 

It is the clinical responsibility of the whole team looking after the patient who is 
NBM  (Nil  By  Mouth)  to  ensure  appropriate  and  adequate  nutrition,  hydration 
and  medicine  administration  is  actioned  in  a  timely  way  from  the  point  the 
patient is advised to be nil by mouth. 

Section 11: 

The controlled document lead (Consultant SALT) will lead the audit of the SOP. 
The audit will be undertaken in accordance with the review date and will include: 
• Adherence to the SOP  
• Any untoward incidents or complaints  
• Anything else as appropriate  
•  Patient  Experience  Feedback  (for  example  compliments,  complaints  and 
PALS - where applicable) 

, Consultant Speech and Language Therapist (Dysphagia 
and Altered Airways), leads the audit as a part of the ‘Trust Safer Swallow QIP’ and 
confirms  the  audit  has  been  improved  in  2025  to  provide  more  robust  quality 
assurance.  This  has  included  development  of  a  quality  dashboard,  quarterly  ‘safer 
swallow’ meetings and local audit on local usage of bed signs. The most recent audit 
cycle reviewed the period Jan to Aug 2025. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 Safe  swallowing  falls  within  the  remit  of  the  Trust’s  Nutrition  and  Hydration 
Improvement and Governance Group. Following a review of all Trust Patient Safety 
Priorities (PSP) in November 2025, the Chief Medical Officer & Chief Nursing Officer 
have agreed that Nutrition & Hydration will remain as a Trust PSP in 2026. Leadership, 
membership and Terms of Reference for the Nutrition and Hydration Improvement and 
Governance  Group  have  been  refreshed,  and 
  now  leads  the 
Group. The Nutrition and Hydration Group reports to the Chief Medical Officer & Chief 
Nursing Officer at the Group Clinical Quality Meeting.  

Training of medical staff  

Further, we wish to assure the court that  in the intervening period since Mr Roath’s 
admission, both senior and resident doctors have in fact received training on roles and 
responsibilities  in  relation  to  patients  with  swallowing  problems  including  the 
mechanism by which to refer patients to SALT. 

Specifically: 

1.  Between October 2024 - October 2025, 1141 doctors underwent PICS 

training which specifically details how to request SALT to review a patient 
(data provided a Digital Nurse Specialist in the UHB IT team) 

2.  All consultants joining UHB have undergone training on referral to SALT and 
Dietetics with detailed information on swallow assessment and referral. In the 
last 12 months, at least 83 new consultants have received this training with 
registers kept. 

3.  SALT provide annual training to the “Hospital Preparation Course IPE 
Lecture” (University of Birmingham (UoB)) for final year UoB medical 
students, last provided on June 13th 2025, which includes information on 
referral to SALT. 

Production and distribution of a Patient Safety Notice 

The inquest heard that further Trust-wide communications on SALT referrals were due 
to be delivered to all patient-facing staff. This communication in the form of a Patient 
Safety Notice entitled “Inpatient referrals to the Speech and Language Therapy 
(SLT)  team  across  UHB”  was  distributed  on  7th  November  2025  via  the  following 
,  Deputy  Head  of  Clinical  Governance  and 
means,  as  confirmed  by 
Patient Safety:  

The safety notice has been disseminated via the following methods: 

• 

Intranet: 

•  Uploaded to the patient safety notice page 
•  Front page of ‘The Hub’ (‘latest news’) – UHB’s internal 

Communications platform 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
 
 
 •  Radar notice distributed to all ward managers and sisters, Clinical Service 
Leads, governance leads, Clinical Delivery Groups, and all (178) LLS 
Learning Ambassadors (LA’s): 

•  Note: Clinical Service Leads and ward managers are expected to print 

and post on safety boards and share with staff in handovers and 
huddles for a period of two week. 

•  Direct email to: Site Directors of Nursing and Clinical Governance teams 

•  Onward dissemination by others as follows: 

•  Chief registrars – who send via WhatsApp groups 
•  Medical and nursing education teams for inclusion in Resident Doctor 

• 

newsletter 
Inclusion in the ‘Risky Practice’ governance newsletter for UHB 
Emergency Departments 

•  Library team for posting in the Libraries across site 

A Trust-wide staff notice was also sent to all Medical, Allied Health Professionals 
and Nursing teams.  

In summary, we would like to assure you that we consider the omissions in Mr Roath’s 
care at UHB which contributed to his death, as matters of the upmost priority. In the 
intervening year, we have taken steps not only to improve the comprehensive training 
of doctors in relation to recognising and acting upon swallowing problems, but also to 
strengthen the wider clinical governance framework around safe swallowing.  

With best wishes 

Chief Executive  

 
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Enclosure:

Related reports

Other reports by David Reid

See all →

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

See all →

Track University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust

See every Prevention of Future Deaths report matching University Hospitals Birmingham 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.