Minute Book, home
Coroner’s reportPrevention of future deaths · 2025-0480

“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 of 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. I heard that the decision of the Consultant Cardiologist at Royal Preston was to re-position, rather that extract the pacemaker. I heard evidence that on the 15th August 2024, a swab from the pacemaker wound tested positive for the Morganella Morganii bacteria, which was also found post-mortem. It is not clear from the evidence who on the surgical team was made aware of this result, and whether it was properly taken into consideration as part of the pre-operative risk assessment. Mrs. Culshaw had her pacemaker re-sited on the 20th August 2024. I found that Mrs. Culshaw’s experience 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 of test results, which in this case may have resulted in an extraction process not taking place at the earliest opportunity.

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, 2025-0480
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