Prevention of Future Deaths reports · 2026

Jennine Romeo

Regulation 28 report to prevent future deaths, reference 2026-0142, written 10 Mar 2026. A coroner writes one of these when an inquest reveals a risk that could cause further deaths unless something changes.

Date of report10 Mar 2026
Reference2026-0142
DeceasedJennine Romeo
CoronerAlison Hewitt
Coroner areaCity of London
CategoryHospital Death (Clinical Procedures and medical management) related deaths
Sourcejudiciary.uk record · original PDF
Responses published2

The report

Text extracted from the PDF text layer. Reproduced verbatim, including the scan's own layout.

Re : JENNINE SASHA ROMEO DECEASED

REGULATION 28 REPORT TO PREVENT FUTURE DEATHS

REGULATION 28 REPORT TO PREVENT FUTURE DEATHS

THIS REPORT IS BEING SENT TO:

1.

2.

University Hospital

Medical Director of the North Middlesex

, Chief Medical Director of the Royal Free London

NHS Foundation Trust

1

CORONER

I am Alison Hewitt, HM Senior Coroner for the City of London.

2

CORONER’S LEGAL POWERS

I make this report under paragraph 7 of Schedule 5 to the Coroners and Justice
Act 2009 and regulations 28 and 29 of the Coroners (Investigations) Regulations
2013.

3

INVESTIGATION and INQUEST

I commenced an investigation into the death of Jennine Sasha Romeo on the 4th
June 2025.  The investigation concluded at the end of the inquest on the 10th
March 2026.

The conclusion of the inquest was that the medical cause of death was –

Ia Multi Organ Failure

Ib Dehiscence of prosthetic mitral valve (Operated on 23.5.25 with re-do
sternotomy

and mitral valve replacement)

Ic Mitral valve regurgitation (Operated on 27.3.24 with mechanical mitral valve
replacement)

and my conclusion as to the death was that the Deceased,

  “Died as a result of post-operative complications of surgery performed to treat
naturally occurring disease and post-operative complications of subsequent re-do
surgery”.

4

CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE DEATH

Jennine Romeo suffered mitral valve prolapse and severe mitral regurgitation and,
on the 27th March 2024 at St. Bartholomew's Hospital, London, she underwent
mechanical mitral valve replacement surgery which was completed without
complication. Post-operatively, she was reviewed by the cardiac rehabilitation and
valve clinics at the North Middlesex University Hospital. A transthoracic
echocardiogram performed in August 2024 showed a well seated prosthetic valve
with a trivial leak, and a transthoracic echocardiogram performed in January 2025
showed a well seated prosthetic valve with a mild leak, as well as a newly dilated
and impaired right ventricle with severe tricuspid regurgitation and pulmonary
hypertension. The January 2025 result was due to be reviewed by the valve clinic,
but the Deceased's out patient appointments for February and for March 2025
were cancelled by the hospital, and there is no evidence of any clinical review of
the result until May 2025.

On the 7th April 2025, the Deceased was reviewed in the cardiac rehabilitation
clinic and was found to be breathless on exertion and she was referred to the heart
failure team for treatment; on further review on the 30th April 2025, tests revealed
acute kidney and liver injuries and she was admitted urgently. A transthoracic
echocardiogram performed on the 1st May 2025 showed a dehisced mitral valve
and severe paravalvular leak with acute cardiac decompensation. She was
transferred to St. Bartholomew's Hospital's intensive treatment unit in a critical
condition. Following some improvement, the Deceased underwent challenging
and high-risk re-do sternotomy and further mitral valve replacement surgery on
the 23rd May 2025. Post-operatively, she was stable, and appeared to be
improving, until the 27th May 2025 when there was rising lactate and decreasing
urine output. On the 28th May 2025, the Deceased was taken to theatre to drain
pericardial effusion but she suffered a cardiac arrest during induction of
anaesthesia, necessitating cardiopulmonary bypass and re-sternotomy. The
Deceased was resuscitated from this and a subsequent arrest but, despite full
support in the intensive treatment unit, she subsequently developed multiorgan
failure from which she died on the 29th May 2025.

The delay in clinical review of the January 2025 transthoracic echocardiogram
result led to a delay in the discovery of the valve dehiscence. Timely review
would probably have resulted in further investigations and earlier diagnosis of the
dehiscence progression, earlier escalation to the surgical team at St.

 Bartholomew's Hospital, and earlier surgery. If surgery had been performed prior
to the Deceased's significant deterioration in April 2025, there may have been a
different outcome.

5

CORONER’S CONCERNS

In the course of the inquest the evidence 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:

As stated above, the evidence suggested that the outcome of a transthoracic
echocardiogram performed in January 2025 at the North Middlesex University
Hospital was not reviewed by any clinician until May 2025. It seems that the
intention was for it to be reviewed at a valve clinic out-patient appointment, but
appointments in February and March 2025 were cancelled by the hospital, and
there is no evidence to suggest that the result was considered at a paper review by
the Consultant on the 4th April 2025, not by any other clinical team at the hospital.

There appears to be no system in place to ensure that a result such as this is
viewed and considered by a member of a relevant clinical team in a timely
manner, whether or not the planned out-patient appointment takes place as
planned.

Additionally, it seems that there is no relevant pathway for the echocardiography
team to flag a result such as this to the clinical team.

Although the Hospital’s own Mortality Review highlighted a number of learning
points, I was not told of any action which has been taken in response to those
matters as yet.

  6 ACTION SHOULD BE TAKEN

In my opinion action should be taken to prevent future deaths by addressing the
concerns set out above and I believe your organisations 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 the 6th May 2026.  I, as 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 should explain why no action is
proposed.

8

COPIES and PUBLICATION

I have sent a copy of my report to the Chief Coroner, to the following Interested
Persons and to the other organisations listed below which may find it useful or of
interest:

a. The parents of Jennine Romeo
b. Barts Health NHS Trust

I am also under a duty to send the Chief Coroner a copy of your response.
I may also send a copy of your response to any other 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.

10th March 2026                                                                               Alison Hewitt

Responses

2 responses 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 North Middlesex University Hospital and the Royal Free Hospital 1
North Middlesex  
University Hospital 

Alison Hewitt 
HM Senior Coroner for City of London 
City of London Coroner’s Court 
4th Floor 
Central Criminal Court 
Old Bailey 
London 

Dear Coroner, 

North Middlesex  
University Hospital 
Sterling Way 
London 
N18 1QX 

28th April 2026  
(typo amended 14th May 2026) 

Re: Prevention of Future Deaths Report – Ms Jennine Romeo who died on 29th May 2025. 

Thank you for your Report to Prevent Future Deaths (hereafter “Report”) dated 10th March 2026 concerning 
the death of Ms Jennine Romeo on 29th May 2025. 

In advance of responding to the specific matters of concerns raised in your Report, I would like to express my 
deep condolences to Ms Romeo’s family and loved ones. North Middlesex University Hospital is keen to assure 
the family and yourself that the areas raised as part of the evidence at the Inquest have been listened to and 
reflected upon. 

Your Report raised a concern regarding the lack of system in place to escalate and review abnormal findings on 
transthoracic echocardiogram. We can assure you that the echocardiography department has an established 
escalation pathway and protocol on how to action significant abnormal results. The escalation protocol 
(attached as Appendix 1) has been operational since 2019 with criteria based on best practice and guidelines 
from the British Society for Echocardiography and includes significant valvular abnormalities, ventricular 
abnormalities, large pericardial collections, markedly enlarged vessels, abnormal masses and other 
miscellaneous findings. The pathway clearly outlines the action of escalation which, depending on the findings, 
will include either on-call Cardiologist review on the day of the scan or a Cardiology Consultant review of 
results within 2 weeks. The pathway outlines how to escalate, including appropriate email contacts for 
administrative purposes. The escalation pathway is shared with the cardiac physiologist team and discussed in 
team meetings to ensure the team are up to date with current pathway. The escalation pathway is reviewed on 
an annual basis by the departments lead clinicians/physiologist or earlier if the need arises from specific cases.  

Your Report raised a concern regarding learning points and action taken following the Hospital’s own Mortality 
Review which took place as part of the Cardiology department’s monthly governance meeting on 10th 
September 2025. The learning points from that meeting were as follows: 

www.royalfree.nhs.uk 

Peter Landstrom, Group Chief Executive 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 North Middlesex  
University Hospital 

North Middlesex  
University Hospital 
Sterling Way 
London 
N18 1QX 

  Paravalvular leaks may present subtly and evolve gradually; TOE should be considered early if there is 

any uncertainty.  

  Right ventricular dilatation and dysfunction are important prognostic and surgical risk markers and 

should always be factored into decision-making.  

  Surgical operative notes should be accessible to imaging and heart failure teams to improve 

interpretation and continuity of care.   

  Cases with uncertainty or diagnostic challenge should be escalated for senior review, with a low 

threshold for MDT discussion.  

  Regular reinforcement, reminders, and refreshers on the recognition of paravalvular leaks should form 

part of ongoing departmental education. 

Learning points from individual cases are discussed in the departmental weekly MDT echo meeting, and in the 
case of Ms. Romeo the challenges of assessing mechanical valves as well as abnormal change to parameters 
that one should be aware and need to escalate have been discussed and shared with the wider cardiac 
physiology team. There are also departmental educational sessions that specifically focus on assessment of 
valve disease. With regards to specific changes to the escalation pathway following Ms. Romeo’s case, the 
escalation criteria have been reviewed and an additional criterion, detailing the findings of new pulmonary 
hypertension have been included in the pathway.  

Your report raised a concern regarding review of clinical results in a timely manner, whether or not the planned 
outpatient appointment takes place. Following this a revised process has been introduced to strengthen 
oversight of appointment cancellations. This has been operational since April 2026.  If a patient has their 
appointment cancelled (by either the service, or patient) they are automatically booked into the next available 
follow-up appointment slot by the bookings team.  If a patient has had their appointment previously cancelled 
by the service, where it is identified that their next appointment would also be cancelled, the case is escalated 
to the Cardiology service manager for senior review. The case is then discussed with the relevant clinicians to 
determine the most appropriate course of action and minimise delay in clinical review where necessary. This 
aims to ensure consistent decision-making, reduce the risk of repeated cancellations, and improve patient 
pathway management. 

Yours sincerely,  

Medical Director  

www.royalfree.nhs.uk 

Peter Landstrom, Group Chief Executive
Response from North Middlesex University Hospital and the Royal Free Hospital (PDF)
North Middlesex  
University Hospital 

Alison Hewitt 
HM Senior Coroner for City of London 
City of London Coroner’s Court 
4th Floor 
Central Criminal Court 
Old Bailey 
London 

Dear Coroner, 

North Middlesex  
University Hospital 
Sterling Way 
London 
N18 1QX 

28th April 2026 

Re: Prevention of Future Deaths Report – Ms Jennine Romeo who died on 4th June 2025 

Thank you for your Report to Prevent Future Deaths (hereafter “Report”) dated 10th March 2026 concerning 
the death of Ms Jennine Romeo on 4th June 2025. 

In advance of responding to the specific matters of concerns raised in your Report, I would like to express my 
deep condolences to Ms Romeo’s family and loved ones. North Middlesex University Hospital is keen to assure 
the family and yourself that the areas raised as part of the evidence at the Inquest have been listened to and 
reflected upon. 

Your Report raised a concern regarding the lack of system in place to escalate and review abnormal findings on 
transthoracic echocardiogram. We can assure you that the echocardiography department has an established 
escalation pathway and protocol on how to action significant abnormal results. The escalation protocol 
(attached as Appendix 1) has been operational since 2019 with criteria based on best practice and guidelines 
from the British Society for Echocardiography and includes significant valvular abnormalities, ventricular 
abnormalities, large pericardial collections, markedly enlarged vessels, abnormal masses and other 
miscellaneous findings. The pathway clearly outlines the action of escalation which, depending on the findings, 
will include either on-call Cardiologist review on the day of the scan or a Cardiology Consultant review of 
results within 2 weeks. The pathway outlines how to escalate, including appropriate email contacts for 
administrative purposes. The escalation pathway is shared with the cardiac physiologist team and discussed in 
team meetings to ensure the team are up to date with current pathway. The escalation pathway is reviewed on 
an annual basis by the departments lead clinicians/physiologist or earlier if the need arises from specific cases.  

Your Report raised a concern regarding learning points and action taken following the Hospital’s own Mortality 
Review which took place as part of the Cardiology department’s monthly governance meeting on 10th 
September 2025. The learning points from that meeting were as follows: 

www.royalfree.nhs.uk 

Peter Landstrom, Group Chief Executive 

 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 North Middlesex  
University Hospital 

North Middlesex  
University Hospital 
Sterling Way 
London 
N18 1QX 

  Paravalvular leaks may present subtly and evolve gradually; TOE should be considered early if there is 

any uncertainty.  

  Right ventricular dilatation and dysfunction are important prognostic and surgical risk markers and 

should always be factored into decision-making.  

  Surgical operative notes should be accessible to imaging and heart failure teams to improve 

interpretation and continuity of care.   

  Cases with uncertainty or diagnostic challenge should be escalated for senior review, with a low 

threshold for MDT discussion.  

  Regular reinforcement, reminders, and refreshers on the recognition of paravalvular leaks should form 

part of ongoing departmental education. 

Learning points from individual cases are discussed in the departmental weekly MDT echo meeting, and in the 
case of Ms. Romeo the challenges of assessing mechanical valves as well as abnormal change to parameters 
that one should be aware and need to escalate have been discussed and shared with the wider cardiac 
physiology team. There are also departmental educational sessions that specifically focus on assessment of 
valve disease. With regards to specific changes to the escalation pathway following Ms. Romeo’s case, the 
escalation criteria have been reviewed and an additional criterion, detailing the findings of new pulmonary 
hypertension have been included in the pathway.  

Your report raised a concern regarding review of clinical results in a timely manner, whether or not the planned 
outpatient appointment takes place. Following this a revised process has been introduced to strengthen 
oversight of appointment cancellations. This has been operational since April 2026.  If a patient has their 
appointment cancelled (by either the service, or patient) they are automatically booked into the next available 
follow-up appointment slot by the bookings team.  If a patient has had their appointment previously cancelled 
by the service, where it is identified that their next appointment would also be cancelled, the case is escalated 
to the Cardiology service manager for senior review. The case is then discussed with the relevant clinicians to 
determine the most appropriate course of action and minimise delay in clinical review where necessary. This 
aims to ensure consistent decision-making, reduce the risk of repeated cancellations, and improve patient 
pathway management. 

Yours sincerely,  

Medical Director  

www.royalfree.nhs.uk 

Peter Landstrom, Group Chief Executive

Related reports

Other reports by Alison Hewitt

See all →

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

See all →

Track Hospital Death (Clinical Procedures and medical management) related deaths

See every Prevention of Future Deaths report matching Hospital Death (Clinical Procedures and medical management) 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.