Prevention of Future Deaths reports · 2025

Dorothy Macdonald

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 report17 Dec 2025
Reference2025-0632
DeceasedDorothy Macdonald
CoronerDavid Lewis
Coroner areaLiverpool and Wirral
CategoryCare Home Health 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 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

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 Springcare West Wood Hall (PDF)
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

Related reports

Other reports by David Lewis

See all →

More reports categorised “Care Home Health related deaths”

See all →

Track Care Home Health related deaths

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.