Prevention of Future Deaths reports · 2025

Alan Mitchell

Regulation 28 report to prevent future deaths, reference 2025-0577, written 10 Nov 2025. A coroner writes one of these when an inquest reveals a risk that could cause further deaths unless something changes.

Date of report10 Nov 2025
Reference2025-0577
DeceasedAlan Mitchell
CoronerAlexander Frodsham
Coroner areaCheshire
CategoryAlcohol, drug and medication related deaths
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

NOTE: This form is to be used after an inquest.

REGULATION 28 REPORT TO PREVENT DEATHS

THIS REPORT IS BEING SENT TO:

1 Optum (EMIS)

1

CORONER

I am Alexander FRODSHAM, Assistant Coroner for the coroner area of Cheshire

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 18 March 2025 I commenced an investigation into the death of Alan MITCHELL aged 88.
The investigation concluded at the end of the inquest on 03 November 2025. The
conclusion of the inquest was that:

Natural causes

4

CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE DEATH

Alan Mitchell had a medical history which included Barrett’s Oesophagus. The condition had
been diagnosed in 2011 with a recommendation for lifelong management with PPI
medication and continued surveillance by way of periodic gastroscopies. In 2020 Mr.
Mitchell stopped ordering the PPI medication on repeat prescription from his General
Practitioner. At inquest, evidence was heard that, if a prescription is not re-ordered for a
period of 12 months, that medication is removed by the EMIS software and no longer
appears on the list of repeat prescriptions; further, that the General Practitioner is not
notified of this fact and is not prompted to authorise the change. Therefore the GP is
required to re-prescribe the medication which the system has removed, and this was done
twice in Mr. Mitchell’s case. At a routine medication review in 2021, Mr. Mitchell told his GP
that he was not experiencing symptoms which required him to take more than one tablet
per month.

On 8th March 2025, Mr. Mitchell was admitted to Macclesfield District General Hospital, with
evidence of an upper gastro-intestinal bleed. Although a gastroscopy was planned, this was
not performed as there was no evidence of active bleeding and Mr. Mitchell’s underlying
cardiac condition placed him at risk of a cardiac event during the procedure. On 12th March
2025, Mr. Mitchell complained of chest pain and was short of breath; an ECG revealed that
he had suffered a heart attack. Mr. Mitchell became unresponsive and he died at the
hospital a short time later.

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)

Regulation 28 – After Inquest
Document Template Updated 30/07/2021

 Although the removal by the software of Mr. Mitchell’s repeat prescription played no
causative part in his sad death, the alteration to a lifelong prescription without notification
(nor any choice being given to) the GP gives rise to the risk that a patient will not be
provided with the medication they need. That risk is heightened when patients are elderly
and/or prescribed multiple medications and/or when, as here, they do not re-order as they
possess medication in reserve.

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 December 30, 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

East Cheshire
Bollington Medical Centre (Macclesfield)

I have also sent it to

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.

9

Dated: 10/11/2025

Alexander FRODSHAM
Assistant Coroner for
Cheshire

Regulation 28 – After Inquest
Document Template Updated 30/07/2021

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 Optum (PDF)
Fulford Grange 
Micklefield Lane 
Leeds, LS19 6BA 

optum.com 

18th December 2025 

FAO Alexander Frodsham  
HM Assistant Coroner for Cheshire 

Dear Mr Frodsham, 

We write in response to the Regulation 28 Report dated 10th November 2025 (the “Report”). 

We were sorry to read about the passing of Mr Mitchell, and we would like to take this opportunity to offer our 
condolences to his family following their loss.  

We have undertaken an internal review of EMIS Web (the “System”), focusing on the issue raised as a concern in the 
Report. We understand you were informed, during the inquest, that the System automatically removes medication 
from the list of repeat prescriptions if it is not re-ordered for a period of 12 months. Further, the GP is not notified of 
this fact and is not prompted to authorise the change. Unfortunately, this information is not quite correct, as detailed 
below.  

This review was undertaken by our internal team, including a Clinical Director, a Clinical Safety Officer and a Product 
Manager. 

Investigation Findings 
The System has functionality that addresses repeat medications that have not been issued for a period of time, in 
order to prevent outdated or inappropriate medication from remaining active indefinitely. This helps mitigate the risk of 
inappropriate medication usage and/or medication wastage arising from patients ordering repeat medications that 
they no longer require.  This is in line with guidance from within the Royal College of General Practitioners and Royal 
Pharmaceutical Society Repeat Prescribing Toolkit (2024). 

How the functionality works 
Within the System platform, there is a “Medication” tab, under which all medication for a patient is managed by the 
relevant GP within that patient’s care record. A GP can add a drug, end a course, reauthorise, issue (amongst other 
functions) medication, as well as manage acute and repeat prescriptions.  

Repeat medication does not automatically expire unless a System user (who has the appropriate Role-Based Access 
Control authority) configures the setting in EMIS Web for such expiry date (please see the Knowledge Based Article 
(KB0063211)). Without this configuration, the functionality has a default setting so that the repeat prescription remains 
active and the System will not automatically cancel repeat medication. 

When the relevant System user activates this functionality (as per the screenshot below) they can also configure the 
time period that the System will use, with the minimum time period being 1 year. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 To illustrate, where a System user activates the functionality and configures it to 1 year, the System calculates this 
time using the following logic:   

•  Last issue date + the course duration + the value entered in 'Automatically cancel repeats not issued for' in 

the Organisation’s medication configuration settings.   

Therefore, for a repeat medication with a last issue date of 01/01/25 and a course duration of 28 days; the course 
duration is added to the last issue date, making 29/01/25 and then the value entered in the 'Automatically cancel 
repeats not issued for' field is added meaning the repeat medication will expire on 29/01/26 (if no further issues are 
made during that period).  Once this time period has passed, the System will ‘end’ the medication course and move it 
from ‘Current’ medication to ‘Past’ medications as that is how a System user has configured the functionality. 

The minimum time period for the expiration of repeat medications is set as 1 year from the end of a medication course 
duration, to enable GP Practices to identify patients that are not requesting repeat medications within this period (i.e. 
through a patient’s regular / annual medication reviews with their GP), and act accordingly prior to the System 
cancelling the repeat medication. It should be noted that a GP has access within the “Medication” tab to view 
“Current” and “Past” medication for any patient at any time. 

Conclusion 
Optum always looks for opportunity to enhance its products to enable clinicians to be best supported when taking 
ultimate responsibility for any clinical decisions and / or care that is provided.  

In this instance, based on the information provided in the Report and our subsequent review, we do not believe there 
are any software developments beyond the existing functionality in the System that are required to mitigate the 
specific risk raised in the Report. 

We trust that the details outlined above assist. If you have any further queries then please contact me 

 in the first instance. 

Kind regards, 

Chief Clinical Information Officer

Related reports

Other reports by Alexander Frodsham

See all →

More reports categorised “Alcohol, drug and medication related deaths”

See all →

Track Alcohol, drug and medication related deaths

See every Prevention of Future Deaths report matching Alcohol, drug and medication 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.