“Concerns directed to Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust CONCERNS Absence of…”

The coroner’s concerns

– Concerns directed to Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust CONCERNS Absence of a Ryles tube policy: 1. At the time of David’s death there was no separate policy for Ryles tubes, and clinicians were required to apply the modest Royal Marsden Manual guidance, and/or note that the practice consideration and care requirements for Ryles tubes were not dissimilar to that for nasogastric tubes used for enteral administration, as per the Trust’s “Insertion, Use and Care of Nasogastric Feeding Tubes in Adults: Policy and Procedure”, October 2018 (‘NG feeding tube policy’), which provided limited advice. Evidence was given that a Ryles tube policy was required and that there was motivation at the Trust to provide one, albeit none has been forthcoming in the 20 months since David’s death. Evidence was also given that an NG tube “Position Record” for recording “Repeat Position Checks” was in use for Ryles tubes (similar to the “Nasogastric Feeding Tubes Position Record - Repeat Position Checks” document at Appendix 11 / page 53 of 55 of the Trust’s NG feeding tube policy), but several staff were unaware of such a document existing for Ryles tubes, and no such Ryles Tubes records were ever disclosed. Expert evidence was given that it was suboptimal care not to have a specific policy for the management of Ryles tubes given the risks associated with such an invasive procedure that required ongoing monitoring. At the time of the inquest, the Trust’s expressed intention was to provide a Ryles tube policy, and assistance was said to have been requested from the Shelford Group (an external body), although conversations about such a policy were said to have started within the Trust itself, as early as April or May of 2023. It is therefore unclear whether a Ryles tube policy would ever be produced notwithstanding one appears to be accepted as being required. The absence of policy where a need has been identified creates an obvious risk of death to future patients, due to the absence of guidance and procedure to assist clinicians undertaking such an invasive procedure. Use of a narrowly focussed structured review by a treating clinician: 2. On 18.03.2023 the Trust undertook a Structured Review to consider learning from David’s death. Evidence was given that the Structured Review was intended to be narrow in focus, as opposed to a more comprehensive serious incident report. As a result, it did not involve taking information from staff, but was a 2-hour review of the 2 medical records across five different areas, undertaken in a highly pressured environment. The Structured Review consequently overlooked considering several issues including: (i) missing bile drainage entries. (ii) missing clinical observations contrary to Trust policy (“Recognising the Acutely Ill and Deteriorating Adult Patient (RAID) Policy, April 2021). (iii) the absence of Repeat Position Checks for the Ryles tube. (iv) the absence of any written record of family concerns that were raised with a ward sister. Evidence was given by an author of the Structured Review that he considered its scope was in fact too limited, and in future, he would advise suspending such a narrow review. That author was also a clinician involved with David’s care in spite of the potential for conflict being correctly raised with the Trust in advance. Any inability to adequately investigate such incidents, without undue restriction in scope, without time pressure, and without any appearance of conflict or bias, creates a risk of death to future patients, as oversights or omissions in care, policy or procedure that may be missed by a narrow review, may remain unidentified and unremedied.

An extract. Read the full report, including the circumstances of the death, on the Courts and Tribunals Judiciary website.

Source

judiciary.uk, Prevention of Future Deaths reports, 2025-0158

Added to Minute Book

8 Oct 2026

Reuse

We show short extracts and link to the original. We don’t host the full report.

Something wrong, such as a date or who it was sent to? Report a mistake

Is this report about someone close to you? You can ask us to remove names from our pages.

Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. Source: Courts and Tribunals Judiciary, judiciary.uk. Open Government Licence v3.0