Prevention of Future Deaths reports · 2026

Muluembet Yohanes

Regulation 28 report to prevent future deaths, reference 2026-0316, written 17 Jun 2026. A coroner writes one of these when an inquest reveals a risk that could cause further deaths unless something changes.

Date of report17 Jun 2026
Reference2026-0316
DeceasedMuluembet Yohanes
CoronerMelanie Lee
Coroner areaInner North London
Sourcejudiciary.uk record
Responses published1

The report

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

REPORT TO PREVENT FUTURE DEATHS 
REGULATION 28 OF THE CORONERS (INVESTIGATIONS) REGULATIONS 2013 

1.  CORONER 

I am Melanie Sarah Lee, Assistant Coroner, for the coroner area of Inner North 
London. 

2.   DATE OF REPORT 
17 June 2026 

3.  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. 

THIS REPORT IS BEING SENT TO 
1. NHS England  

You are under a duty to respond to this report within 56 days of the date of this 
report, namely by 12 August 2026. I, the coroner, may extend the period if an 
appropriate application is made. 

4.   YOUR RESPONSE 

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. 

I have a duty to send a copy of your response to the Chief Coroner. 

In accordance with the Chief Coroner’s Publication Policy, you should send me 
any representations regarding publication of your response. These 
representations should be made at the same time as the response is provided. I 
will pass any representations received to the Chief Coroner for a decision. 

Please note any links to webpages included in the response will not be checked 
for sensitive information prior to publication, as the information is already online. 

The names of those who do not respond to PFD reports are regularly published on 
the Chief Coroner’s webpages Non-responses to Prevention of Future Death 
(PFD) reports - Courts and Tribunals Judiciary. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 5. 

SUMMARY OF CORONER’S CONCERN 

There is no suitable 111 Pathways disposition for pituitary surgery and no prompt 
for call handlers to ask about hospital discharge advice. See section 9.  

6. 

7. 

ACTION SHOULD BE TAKEN 
In my opinion unless action is taken to address the above concerns then there is 
a significant risk of future deaths and I believe each of you have the power to take 
such action. 

INVESTIGATION AND INQUEST 
On 6 March 2025, an investigation was commenced into the death of Muluembet 
(“Mulu”) Yohanes, aged 53 years. 

The medical cause of death was  
1a. aspiration pneumonitis  
1b. ischaemic brain infarction  
1c. seizure 
1d. hyponatraemia  
2. Transsphenoidal surgery for removal of a giant pituitary adenoma on 
24/01/2025  

How, when and where 
Muluembet Yohanes died on 25 February 2025 in ITU at North Middlesex 
University Hospital from hypoxic brain injury following a likely seizure and cardiac 
arrest as a result of hyponatraemia, that in turn being a complication 
transsphenoidal surgery. 

Conclusion 
Recognised complication of necessary surgery on a background of a naturally 
occurring disease process. 

8.  CIRCUMSTANCES OF DEATH 

On 24 January 2025 Muluembet Yohanes underwent surgery at the National 
Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery to remove a giant tumour in her 
pituitary gland. She was discharged on 27 January and she was given red flag 
advice that concerning symptoms, including vomiting, required immediate 
medical attention. On 30 January she began suffering with intermittent vomiting. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 When this did not resolve the following day, her son called 111. The outcome of 
the call was for Mulu to speak to a clinician at a Clinical Assessment Service 
within 2 hours. A pharmacist called Mulu back and advised home management. 
During a second call to 111 on 1 February, advice was given that Mulu could 
attend A&E. Later that morning Mulu suffered a seizure as a result of 
hyponatraemia, a known complication following transsphenoidal pituitary 
surgery. On arrival of paramedics she was in cardiac arrest. ROSC was achieved 
and Mulu was taken to North Middlesex University Hospital where she was found 
to have a critically low sodium level and an irreversible hypoxic brain injury. She 
was palliatively extubated and died in ITU on 25 February 2025. Post-operative 
hyponatraemia after transsphenoidal surgery is a well recognised, potentially life 
threatening, complication, and severe hyponatraemia carries a high mortality, 
even with treatment. It is not possible to say whether, had it been identified 
earlier, Mulu’s death would have been avoidable. 

9.  CORONER’S CONCERNS 

During the course of the inquest I heard evidence 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: 

Mulu underwent surgery to remove a giant pituitary tumour on 24 January 2025. 
She was discharged home on 27 January with hydrocortisone for low cortisol 
levels. She was given discharge / safety netting / red flag advice, both orally and in 
writing, which advised her to seek medical help immediately if she vomited more 
than once. 

Following discharge, Mulu suffered intermittent vomiting. Her son called the NHS 
111 service on 31 January at 16:00 hours. He reported that Mulu had undergone 
brain surgery and had been vomiting for 48 hours. The outcome of the call was for 
Mulu to speak to a clinician in a local service within 2 hours. I heard evidence that 
neurosurgery is not a specified Pathways category, nor is it part of the “vomiting” 
algorithm. The Call Handler on 31 January 2025 erroneously recorded Mulu’s 
surgery as a “head injury” which resulted in it receiving a higher priority outcome 
than it otherwise would have done.  

An ANP called Mulu back at 16:57. They took an account that Mulu had 
undergone surgery to remove a pituitary tumour a week previously and that she 
had been vomiting since the previous day, that she vomited when she ate food 
but that she was drinking well. The disposition reached was “home 
management”, this being that she was to ensure that she remained well hydrated 

 
 
 
 
 
 and to eat in small amounts. They advised that if she was unable to keep fluids 
down and had symptoms of dehydration, she would need to be seen in A&E. 
Again, there was no prompt in relation to brain surgery or for questions about any 
discharge advice.  

At 09:37 on 1 February, Mulu’s son again called 111 reporting that she had 
deteriorated. As he was not with Mulu, no assessment was conducted but advice 
was given repeatedly that Mulu could attend hospital or contact 111 directly if 
she remained unwell.  

At 11:21 on 1 February 2025 Mulu was found unresponsive and an ambulance 
was called. Paramedics arrived at 11:40 and found Mulu in cardiac arrest. It is 
likely that Mulu suffered a seizure, followed by cardiac arrest, due to 
hyponatraemia.  

Neither the 111 nor Clinical Assessment Service asked Mulu whether the hospital 
had given her any post-surgical discharge, worsening or red flag worsening 
advice. Had they done so, this may have prompted Mulu to review the written 
discharge advice she had been given. That advice was that vomiting was a safety 
alert; that repeated vomiting required immediate medical help; that any 
concerning symptoms required medical attention from a GP, A&E or UCLH 
directly and that for persistent vomiting, advice on hydrocortisone should be 
sought from 111, 999 or A&E. 

1.  LAS informed me that they have advised Pathways of Mulu’s case and 

recommended that Neurosurgery be added to the supporting information 
for “head injury” and “vomiting” algorithms. I do not know if Pathways 
have, or have agreed to, action this or what the timescales are.  

2.  I am concerned that without a dedicated pathway for “neurosurgery”, it is 

left to call handlers to choose the most appropriate pathway. To me, “head 
injury” is not reflective of elective, non-trauma surgery.  

3.  Pathways does not include a question for post-discharge surgery patients 
about whether they have been given discharge, worsening or red flag 
advice by their surgical team.  

10.  COPIES AND PUBLICATION OF THIS REPORT 

I have a duty to send a copy of my report to every Interested Person who in my 
opinion should receive it. 

I also may send a copy of the report to any other person who I believe may find it 
useful or of interest. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 I can confirm I have sent the report to: 

1. Mulu’s family 
2. University College London Hospitals NHS FT 
3. Royal Free London NHS FT 
4. London Ambulance Service NHS FT 
5. London Central & West Unscheduled Care Collaborative  

I also have a duty to send a copy of the report to the Chief Coroner. 

You may make representations to me, the coroner, about the publication of the 
contents of this report in line with Chief Coroner’s PFD Publication Policy (2026). 
Any representations will be sent to the Chief Coroner alongside the report. Please 
refer to box 4 above for additional information relating to the publication of 
reports and responses. 

SIGNATURE

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 NHS England
Ms Melanie Sarah Lee 
HM Assistant Coroner  
Inner North London 
St Pancras Coroner’s Court  
Camley Street 
London  
N1C 4PP 

National Medical Director  
NHS England  
Wellington House 
133-155 Waterloo Road  
London 
SE1 8UG 

17th August 2026  

Dear Ms Lee,  

Re: Regulation 28 Report to Prevent Future Deaths – Muluembet Yohanes who 
died on 25 February 2025.  

Thank  you  for  your  Report  to  Prevent  Future  Deaths  (hereafter  “Report”)  dated  17 
June 2026 concerning the death of Muluembet ‘Mulu’ Yohanes on 25 February 2025. 
In advance of responding to the specific concerns raised in your Report, I would like 
to express my deep condolences to  Mulu’s family and loved ones. NHS England  is 
keen to assure the family and yourself that the concerns raised about Mulu’s care have 
been listened to and reflected upon.   

Your Report raised the following concerns:  

1.  London Ambulance Service (LAS) informed you that they have advised NHS 
Pathways of Mulu’s case and recommended that neurosurgery be added to the 
supporting  information  for  ‘head  injury’  and  ‘vomiting’  algorithms.  You  were 
unclear if this action had been agreed upon and what the timescales for are. 

2.  Without  a  dedicated  pathway  for  ‘neurosurgery’,  it  is  left  to  call  handlers  to 
choose the most appropriate pathway. ‘Head injury’ is not reflective of elective, 
non-trauma surgery.  

3.  Pathways does not include a question for post-discharge surgery patients about 
whether they have been given discharge, worsening or red flag advice by their 
surgical team.  

Background on NHS Pathways 

NHS  Pathways  is  overseen  by  the  National  Clinical  Assurance  Group  (NCAG),  an 
independent intercollegiate body hosted by the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges. 
It  underpins all  NHS  111  services  and  more  than  half  of  England’s  999  telephony 
services.  The  tool  also  supports  online  triage  and  in-person  and  enhanced  clinical 
assessments via modules such as the NHS Pathways Clinical Consultation Support 

                                                                                                                       
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 (PaCCS)  system.  The  safety  of  NHS  Pathways  triage  outcomes  (known  as 
dispositions)  is  overseen  by  the  NCAG.  Alongside  this  external  scrutiny,  NHS 
Pathways  aligns  its  content  with  up-to-date  national  clinical  guidance,  including 
guidance  from  the  National  Institute  for  Health  and  Care  Excellence  (NICE), 
Resuscitation Council UK and UK Sepsis Trust.  

NHS  Pathways  follows  a  structured  clinical  hierarchy.  Serious  and  potentially  life-
threatening  symptoms  are  assessed  first  to  ensure  rapid  escalation,  such  as 
dispatching an ambulance or involving a clinician. The assessment then progresses 
to less urgent symptoms to identify the most appropriate level of care. The tool is not 
diagnostic.  Instead,  it  works  by  systematically  ruling  out  more  serious  causes  of 
symptoms to ensure safe, efficient triage. Relevant history is gathered where clinically 
necessary to minimise triage time while maintaining safety.  

The NHS Pathways system supports over 2.5 million triage assessments each month 
across telephone, digital, and face-to-face settings. 

Principles of Health Advisor Training 

In telephone settings (calls made to NHS 111 or 999), assessments are conducted by 
specially trained non-clinical health advisors and in some cases by a clinician. These 
advisors  complete  a  comprehensive,  structured  training  programme  to  ensure  they 
can use the NHS Pathways algorithms safely and effectively. If a case is complex or 
unclear,  health  advisors  are  required  to  escalate  to  clinical  colleagues.  The  NHS 
Pathways licence (which NHS 111 and 999 providers must enter into in order to use 
the system) states that clinical supervision and escalation support must be available 
24/7,  and  immediately  accessible  to  health  advisors  during  live  calls.  This  clinical 
availability is a core system control.  

Following initial core role training, both health advisors and clinicians are required to 
undertake  mandatory  training  aligned  to  each  new  release  of  the  NHS  Pathways 
system, which typically occurs every 12 weeks. This ensures that staff remain up to 
date  with  any  changes  to  clinical  content,  pathways,  and  system  functionality.  In 
addition, they have access to a comprehensive suite of ongoing learning resources, 
including  ‘Hot  Topics’,  case  studies  and  e-learning  packages,  which  support 
continuous professional development and dissemination of learning. 

Alongside  this,  providers  are  required  to  undertake  regular  quality  assurance 
processes,  including  monthly  audit  of  calls.  These  audits  assess  a  range  of  core 
competencies, including the effective use of probing, and provide structured feedback 
to support ongoing development and safe practice. 

Within NHS Pathways, health advisors are trained and expected to actively probe to 
clarify  and  refine  the  information  provided  by  the  caller.  This  is  a  fundamental 
component  of  the  NHS  Pathways  model  and  forms  an  important  part  of  its  safety 
design. 

A fundamental component of training is learning how to manage complex calls. The 
"complex call process" provides a clear protocol for health advisors to seek assistance 
or transfer a complex call to a clinician. This process should be followed in situations 

 
 
 
 involving declared medications, medical procedures, or terminology that complicates 
triage. A complex call is one which isn’t straightforward, or where the Health Advisor 
is working at or beyond the limits of their knowledge or experience.  This approach is 
reinforced by the training motto:  

“If in doubt, shout.” 

1.  Adding Neurosurgery to NHS Pathways algorithms at the recommendation 

of LAS 

The NHS England NHS Pathways Team formally received the case on 30th July 2026. 
This was reviewed by the team on 31st July 2026.   

In  respect  of  the  request,  the  algorithms  do  have  ‘key  points’  which  help  a  health 
advisor know which pathway to use, and which are supported by an extensive training 
and mentoring package all health advisors must undergo before they are able to use 
the  live  system.  This  includes  multiple  scenarios  to  familiarise  themselves  with  the 
range of different options. 

However, a specific situation such as previous neurosurgery would not  generally be 
added as a key point, and so the NHS Pathways team do not consider that this specific 
change should be made. The triage system uses a symptom-based approach rather 
than having separate specific routes for every possible medical procedure or medical 
condition, as it would not be practical or possible to add a question on every single 
possible scenario. This means that within the triage assessment different questions 
will be presented to establish symptoms of concern, and as noted above, serious and 
potentially  life-threatening  symptoms  are  assessed  first  to  ensure  rapid  escalation, 
such as reaching an ambulance outcome or involving a clinician. The assessment then 
progresses to less urgent symptoms to identify the most appropriate level of care. The 
tool  is  not  diagnostic.  Instead,  it  works  by  systematically  ruling  out  more  serious 
causes of symptoms to ensure safe, efficient triage. Therefore, specific situations or 
conditions are not referenced, as instead there are questions to identify symptoms that 
indicate onward need for care such as signs of confusion, drowsiness, not responding 
normally, as well as other symptom markers. 

Instead, to address risks that may arise from such situations, and to cover the issue 
as in this case, where a patient has had recent treatment or been given specific advice 
in advance, NHS Pathways also has a clear route for callers who have what is referred 
to as ‘Predetermined management plans.’ All health advisors must complete training 
associated  with  this  within  their  mandatory  core  module  training.  This  includes 
scenarios  of  when  this  route  applies  including:  ‘Recent  hospital  discharge;  Medical 
devices fitted e.g. pacemaker; chronic, terminal, rare or serious illnesses; Patient with 
other special needs’. 

This route allows a caller to identify any symptoms related to any hospital discharge 
information (including recent neurosurgery) or instructions and allows onward referrals 
for an ambulance, Emergency Department attendance or returning to a specific ward 
for example. It also allows for referral for a further assessment by a doctor or health 
care professional. In light of this case, the NHS Pathways team will review this training 

 to  ensure  that  the  intended  route  to  check  whether  patients  may  have  such  a 
predetermined management plan is as clear as possible.  

Additionally, even if the predetermined management plan route was not followed and 
the recent surgery and post operative instructions were not shared, the triage pathway 
for  vomiting  and/or  nausea  with  or  without  abdominal  pain,  also  includes  initial 
questions to ensure there are no ‘red flag’ symptoms such as, unconsciousness, signs 
of  shock,  respiratory  distress/severe  breathlessness  which  would  lead  to  an 
ambulance  outcome.  The  assessment  then  continues  to  establish  any  signs  of 
concern  such  as  confusion,  breathlessness,  vomiting  blood,  repeated  vomiting  and 
continues to ask symptoms markers until a level of care is reached. As above, recent 
neurosurgery itself is not a specific marker as the basis for the assessment relies on 
the symptoms presenting at the time of the call. However the assessment does contain 
a question asking a wider question relating to whether there has been any operation 
or  surgical  procedure  within  the  last  7  days,  which  without  any  other  symptoms  of 
concern such as those mentioned (which may lead to a higher level of care) would 
recommend further clinical assessment. 

2.  ‘Head injury’ is not reflective of elective, non-trauma surgery 

NHS Pathways have advised that ‘head injury’ is not an appropriate pathway to assess 
vomiting unless the vomiting was associated with a head injury. However, as set out 
above  there  are a  range  of  triage  assessments  for vomiting  and/or nausea,  with  or 
without abdominal pain, and the ‘Predetermined management plans’ route is designed 
to  pick up  whether an  individual patient  should  be  assessed  differently  due  to  their 
specific circumstances such as recent surgery, as above. 

Health advisors are also trained to probe to establish what is the main problem for the 
caller to ensure the best triage assessment option is taken. 

3.  Pathways does not include a question for post-discharge surgery patients of 

any discharge advice from their surgical team 

The ‘Predetermined management plans’ route described above does provide a route 
for those who have been given specific post-operative advice or a plan in the event of 
certain criteria. In view of this case, this route and the associated training is also being 
re-examined to ensure that it is considered by call handlers in cases where a caller 
does not specifically mention their recent surgery, or in case the potential relevance 
of this is not obvious, to ensure that the call is identified as complex and passed to a 
clinician for review.  

Additionally,  as  above,  if  this  route  was  not  chosen  and  instead  a  caller  had  a 
symptomatic assessment there is a question within the relevant symptomatic triage 
assessments that asks if there has been any surgical procedure or operation within 
the last 7 days. This question may not be reached in all pathways as the system works 
on the symptom-based approach as described above and so symptoms detailed may 
result in an outcome being reached before this question is asked.  

 
 
 The outcome ‘to speak to a clinician in a local service within 2 hours’, as was reached 
in this case on 31 January at 16:00 hours, is an urgent referral for clinical assessment.   
We  cannot  comment on  the  workings  of  specific Clinical Assessment  Services,  but 
note that medical history should be a key factor in any clinical assessment. 

We would also like to reassure the Coroner that the triage system does provide a route 
for when triage cannot be completed by a health advisor due to the caller being remote 
from  the  patient.  Any  such  call  flags  the  need  for  clinical  review  and  local  clinical 
management  by  the  NHS  111/999  service  receiving  the  call.  This  needs  to  be 
managed on a case-by-case basis as the potential situational factors are infinite and 
beyond the scope of triage.  

I  would  also  like  to  provide  further  assurances  on  the  national  NHS  England  work 
taking  place around  the  Reports  to  Prevent Future  Deaths.  All  reports received  are 
discussed  by  the  Regulation  28  Working  Group,  comprising  Regional  Medical 
Directors,  and  other  clinical  and  quality  colleagues  from  across  the  regions.  This 
ensures that key learnings and insights around events, such as the sad death of Mulu, 
are shared across the NHS at both a national and regional level and helps us to pay 
close attention to any emerging trends that may require further review and action.   

Thank you for bringing these important patient safety issues to my attention and please 
do not hesitate to contact me should you need any further information.  

Yours sincerely,  

National Medical Director   
NHS England

Related reports

Other reports by Melanie Lee

See all →

Track Melanie Lee

See every Prevention of Future Deaths report matching Melanie Lee, 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.