Prevention of Future Deaths reports · 2026
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 report | 17 Jun 2026 |
|---|---|
| Reference | 2026-0316 |
| Deceased | Muluembet Yohanes |
| Coroner | Melanie Lee |
| Coroner area | Inner North London |
| Source | judiciary.uk record |
| Responses published | 1 |
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
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.
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
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.