Minute Book, home
Coroner’s reportPrevention of future deaths · 2025-0479

“Mrs”

Dated 24 Sep 2025, from the coroner for Manchester South. Sent to 1 organisation or person.

A coroner wrote this report after an inquest, to warn the organisations below about a risk of further deaths.

Read the full report on judiciary.uk

How this works

The 56-day response deadline

All responses published

Replies were due by 19 Nov 2025.

Organisations that receive a report must reply to the coroner within 56 days, saying what they will do or why they will do nothing. We show whether a response is published on judiciary.uk; a reply may have been sent and not yet published.

  1. Report dated24 Sep 2025
  2. Deadline19 Nov 2025
  3. Published on judiciary.uk29 Sep 2025
  4. Today23 Oct 2026

Watch this report

We’ll email you when a response is published on judiciary.uk, or when the 56 days to reply end with none published there yet. Free, and you can stop with one click.

Next we ask your name, then send a link to confirm and create your free account. Already have an account? Sign in

Responses from each recipient

The coroner’s concerns

– Mrs. Culshaw attended Wythenshaw Hospital on the 10th July 2024 an presented with an opening of her pacemaker scar. I heard evidence at the inquest from a Consultant Cardiologist at Wythenshawe that International clinical guidance indicates that any opening of an implantation scar should be interpreted as a sign of systemic infection of the wound and that extraction and replacement of the pacemaker should follow in order to remove the infection. This was the advice of the on-call Cardiologist at Wythenshawe on the 10th July 2024 to the Emergency Department medical team. I heard evidence that Wythenshawe is one a limited number of specialist surgical centres for the extraction of pacemakers. Mrs. Culshaw was not admitted to Wythenshawe Hospital, but discharged to the care of Royal Preston Hospital, where her pacemaker had been fitted. Royal Preston Hosptial is not a specialist surgical centre for pacemaker extraction. The expectation of Wythenshawe Hosptial at the time of her discharge appears to be that Royal Preston would refer her back to Wythenshawe for extraction. However, the need for extraction and therefore a referral was not communicated by Wythenshawe to either Royal Preston or to Mrs. Culshaw’s GP. It is not clear that it was adequately explained to Mrs. Culshaw’s family. Mrs. Culshaw re-presented at Wythenshawe on the 9th September, again with signs of infection and underwent an extraction procedure as an inpatient on the 16th September 2024. However, I found that her experienced of persistent and prolonged infection depleted her physiological reserve and contributed to her succumbing to a fatal pneumonia on the 25th October 2024. I am concerned that this lack of information sharing along a communication pathway between the Cardiology department and specialist surgical extraction team at Wythenshawe and the Cardiology departments at local treating hospitals risks such referrals being delayed or not being made at all, as happened in the present case.

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, 2025-0479
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

Ask about this report

AI

Summaries and questions, with page references. Pro and above.

Sign in to use