Prevention of Future Deaths reports · 2025
Regulation 28 report to prevent future deaths, reference 2025-0632, written 17 Dec 2025. A coroner writes one of these when an inquest reveals a risk that could cause further deaths unless something changes.
| Date of report | 17 Dec 2025 |
|---|---|
| Reference | 2025-0632 |
| Deceased | Dorothy Macdonald |
| Coroner | David Lewis |
| Coroner area | Liverpool and Wirral |
| 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 Westwood Hall Nursing Home 1 CORONER I am David LEWIS, Assistant Coroner for the coroner area of Liverpool and Wirral 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 28 August 2025 I commenced an investigation into the death of Dorothy Ann MACDONALD aged 86. The investigation concluded at the end of the inquest on 10 December 2025. The conclusion of the inquest was that: During the night of 11 August 2025 the Deceased sustained a fractured neck of femur as a result of an unwitnessed fall in her bedroom at the nursing home where she had lived since being discharged from hospital in June 2025. She was taken to Arrowe Park Hospital, Arrowe Park Road, Wirral, where it was determined by clinicians that, owing to her poor underlying health and co-morbidities, she was not fit enough to undergo surgical repair of the fracture. She was placed on palliative end of life care and passed away peacefully at the hospital on 22 August 2025. Her death was due to multi organ failure brought about by the fracture. Official 4 CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE DEATH During the night of 11 August 2025 the Deceased sustained a fractured neck of femur as a result of an unwitnessed fall in her bedroom at the nursing home where she had lived since being discharged from hospital in June 2025. She was taken to Arrowe Park Hospital, Arrowe Park Road, Wirral, where it was determined by clinicians that, owing to her poor underlying health and co-morbidities, she was not fit enough to undergo surgical repair of the fracture. She was placed on palliative end of life care and passed away peacefully at the hospital on 22 August 2025. Her death was due to multi organ failure brought about by the fracture. 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) The court heard that the Deceased, aged 86, was ‘tiny and very frail’ on arrival at the nursing home, after being discharged from hospital following an admission lasting around 3 months. The Home Manager reported that the Deceased did not really know why she had come to the home and had a very poor short-term memory. Her previous medical history Regulation 28 – After Inquest Document Template Updated 30/07/2021 included Dementia and Frailty (at level 7 on the Rockwood scale), as well as Atrial Fibrillation and Chronic Kidney Disease. She was plainly rather vulnerable. The Home Manager said that her impression was that the Deceased was at a high risk of falls. The Deceased was assessed as needing to use a trolley or to have the support of staff to mobilise safely. Despite this, on multiple occasions (and even after the Deceased had fallen at the home, and had aroused concern by attempting to mobilise alone and without a trolley), staff assessed and documented her risk of falling as being at ‘low’ likelihood – a score of 2/5 on the likelihood scale. The Home Manager accepted that this repeated assessment was ‘always wrong’. It was later increased to 3/5, classed as a medium risk. In the court's opinion this was also wrong. The likely impact of harm was assessed as 3/5 and described as ‘undesirable’. This under- estimated the potential impact, as subsequent events proved. The Home Manager was unable to tell the court what rankings of 4 or 5 would represent. The Deceased died as a result of the fractured neck of femur she sustained in a fall at the Care Home. It ought to have been understood by nursing or other senior staff in a nursing home setting that such an injury would be of great seriousness in somebody presenting as the Deceased did, with a fatal outcome following hospital admission after such an injury not being uncommon. The court was told that such risk assessments might be made by any nurse, the Deputy Manager or the Home Manager, and that all had received relevant training. The court is not satisfied that the training was effective and/or was being adopted properly. In this case the assessment of the likelihood of risk was plainly wrong; and the court considers that the assessment of impact was also incorrect. As a result, the overall risk score (likelihood x impact) was understated. In this instance it probably did not make a difference to the control/mitigation measures put in place, but the court is concerned that under-estimation of an individual’s falls risk could place other (current/future) residents at risk of falls which might threaten their lives. Official The court would like to know what steps are being taken to ensure that all relevant staff have received, understood and consistently act upon suitable and sufficient training in the assessment of falls risk. In addition, the court was shown that the nursing home’s fall policy indicated that it is good practice to refer cases of falls to the ‘falls team’, but that in practice this was done rarely, partly because the Home Manager lacked confidence in the responsiveness or value of the service. She said that the policy did not specify how many falls should take place prior to a referral. The court would like to know how the nursing home will satisfy itself: (a) that all relevant staff have received, understood and consistently act upon suitable and sufficient education about the circumstances in which, and how, a referral to the falls team should be made; (b) that the service is sufficiently responsive and effective in responding to requests for its specialist input. 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 February 11, 2026. 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. Regulation 28 – After Inquest Document Template Updated 30/07/2021 8 COPIES and PUBLICATION I have sent a copy of my report to the Chief Coroner and to the following Interested Persons 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. They may send a copy of this report to any person who they believe 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: 17/12/2025 Official David LEWIS Assistant Coroner for Liverpool and Wirral 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.
Activecare Ltd T/A Westwood Hall Nursing Home, Brimstage Road, Brimstage, Wirral CH63 6HFT 0151 342 2150 springcare.org.uk David Lewis Assistant Coroner for Liverpool and The Wirral By e-mail only Dear Mr Lewis, 30 January 2026 Inquest Touching the Death of Dorothy Ann Macdonald Thank you for your Regulation 28 report of 17 December 2025 following the Inquest into the death of Dorothy Ann Macdonald (hereinafter “Mrs Macdonald”). I am responding on behalf of both Activecare Ltd t/a Westwood Hall Nursing Home (hereinafter “the Home”) and the overall care provider, Springcare Limited. I know that you will share a copy of this response with Mrs Macdonald’s family, and I would like to take this opportunity to express my condolences for their loss. Concerns Raised In your Regulation 28 report you raised the following concerns with regards to the Home: That staff had incorrectly assessed and documented Mrs Macdonald’s risk of falling as being at ‘low’ and later ‘medium’ likelihood, and that they had also underestimated the likely impact of the harm resulting in an understated overall risk score; That falls risk training was not effective and/or being adopted properly by those staff members responsible for undertaking falls risk assessments; and That there had been a failure to refer to the Falls Team in accordance with the Falls Policy In light of the above concerns you have sought clarification as to the steps which are being taken to ensure that all relevant staff have received, understood and consistently act upon suitable and sufficient training in the assessment of falls risk. You have further asked for clarification as to how the Home will satisfy itself: Registered Office Address Nicholson House, Shakespeare way, England, SY13 1LJ Company No. 03043187 a) that all relevant staff have received, understood and consistently act upon suitable and sufficient education about the circumstances in which, and how, a referral to the falls team should be made; and b) that the service is sufficiently responsive and effective in responding to requests for its specialist input. Response At the outset I would like to reassure you that we have reflected seriously upon the contents of your Report, both within the Home and across the broader service, and that we welcome the opportunity to identify learnings, as well the opportunity to both improve the quality of our care provision and strengthen the existing policies and procedures where appropriate. Assessment and Documentation of Falls Risk I acknowledge that Mrs Macdonald was initially assessed by the deputy manager at the Home as being at low risk of falls. This assessment was made on the basis she did not have a falls history, and it was understood and anticipated that she would not be very independently mobile. Whilst we do not consider that it was unreasonable for the deputy manager to initially assess the risk as low on the limited information available at that time, I accept that there may be a limited range of opinion in this regard which could include Mrs Macdonald being deemed at a higher level of risk in view of her frailty, dementia and potential for a serious adverse outcome in the event of a fall. Despite the initial assessment of the falls risk as low, Mrs Macdonald was placed on a system of hourly checks from the outset in order to monitor her. Within days of her arrival at Westwood Hall and prior to any falls occurring, it was quickly ascertained that Mrs Macdonald was in fact capable of mobilising independently and was doing so. Staff accordingly identified that her overall falls risk was correspondingly significantly higher than first thought. Consequently, the frequency of the safety checks was immediately increased to every 30 minutes, and the use of a bed/chair sensor pad was implemented. These risk prevention measures, which were appropriate for someone with a high to very high risk of falls, were clearly documented in the care notes ensuring that all staff caring for Mrs Macdonald were fully aware of the increased and significant risk and the mitigation measures in place. The relevant risk assessments and care plans for Mrs Macdonald were reviewed and updated to reflect these additional enhanced measures. However, it is acknowledged and accepted that, due to an administrative oversight, staff omitted to also amend the numerical risk rating on the electronic record system. After each of Mrs Macdonald’s subsequent falls staff reviewed the measures already in place to determine whether any additional steps could be taken. Mrs Macdonald was Registered Office Address Nicholson House, Shakespeare Way, England, SY13 1LJ Company No. 03043187 respectively: i) moved to a room affording increased visibility to staff, ii) provided with a raised toilet seat to assist her in getting on and off the toilet, and iii) had her recliner chair swapped for an ordinary armchair at the family’s request. These measures were also documented and recorded in the care plans and notes. I would therefore respectfully contend that Mrs Macdonald’s risk of falls was appropriately assessed, monitored, reviewed and identified as high prior to any falls occurring. I do accept that the numerical overall risk rating was not correctly updated on the electronic record system to reflect the identified increased risk, however, this omission had no practical impact on the care which was actually provided to Mrs Macdonald or the risk reduction measures which were put in place. These were comprehensive and entirely appropriate in all the circumstances and I note your findings in that regard. I would respectfully submit that this was a discreet error of documentation, not one of risk assessment or care provision, and is not reflective of general failings or inadequacies in falls risk assessment at Westwood Hall. I am furthermore confident that all of the residents at Westwood Hall have had their falls risks assessed and correctly identified, that they all have appropriate falls prevention measures in place, and that these are clearly documented in the care records. To ensure this is the case we have undertaken a review of all residents’ care plans and documented risk scores to ensure that these numbers correctly reflect the identified falls risks. We have also provided refresher training to the relevant staff to ensure that these risk scores are appropriately adjusted on the system when risk assessments and care plans are reviewed and updated. This has been documented as a supervision. Training I can confirm that the staff who are responsible for assessing and reviewing residents’ falls risk at Westwood Hall have been sufficiently and suitably trained. They understand and consistently act on this training, in conjunction with their clinical judgement and experience, so that a resident’s risk of falls is assessed, monitored and reviewed with increased risks promptly identified and responded to. I enclose key training documents for your reference. I would furthermore like to reassure you that Springcare undertake monthly reviews and audits of residents’ care across its whole provision in order to identify any relevant trends, patterns or areas where the provision can be bolstered and enhanced. Referrals to the Falls Team Springcare are currently reviewing their Falls Policy to determine whether further, more specific guidance can be included regarding when and in what circumstances a referral to the Falls Team should be made. Registered Office Address Nicholson House, Shakespeare Way, England, SY13 1LJ Company No. 03043187 It is necessary to consider that residents’ frequency of and propensity for falls can vary extensively based on their individual situations and capabilities, and that a single set of guidelines or prescribed course of action may therefore not be appropriate in every circumstance. It is also necessary to take into account the fact that not all areas offer a Falls Service to which referrals can be made. Efforts are, however, being made to identify a broad-brush approach which managers can adopt, in conjunction with their own clinical judgement and/or advice from GPs or other external medical professionals. In the interim and in response to the concerns raised, Westwood Hall has adopted the approach of referring any resident who has fallen, regardless of the circumstances, to the Falls Team. Staff have been made aware of this new approach. Neither Westwood Hall nor Springcare is in a position to ensure that a Falls Service, a third-party service, is sufficiently and effectively responding to requests for its specialist input. Westwood Hall are, however, implementing a system whereby any referrals made to the Falls Team are chased up after 2 and 4 weeks respectively where no response has been received, and that these chasers are documented in the resident’s care records. Thank you again for bringing your concerns to my attention. I trust that this response provides assurance that appropriate action is being taken to address those concerns. Yours sincerely, Operations Manager Springcare Limited Registered Office Address Nicholson House, Shakespeare Way, England, SY13 1LJ Company No. 03043187
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.