“(brief summary of matters of concern) i) Failure to document consent discussions - The…”
Dated 8 Oct 2025, from the coroner for Milton Keynes. Sent to 4 organisations or people.
A coroner wrote this report after an inquest, to warn the organisations below about a risk of further deaths.
The 56-day response deadline
Deadline passedReplies were due by 3 Dec 2025. A reply may have been sent and not yet published.
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.
- Report dated8 Oct 2025
- Deadline3 Dec 2025
- Published on judiciary.uk10 Oct 2025
- 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.
Responses from each recipient
| Sent to | Response |
|---|---|
| Milton Keynes University Hospital NHS Foundation TrustNamed in the report as “Milton Keynes University Hospital” | Response publishedPublished on judiciary.uk in October 2025. |
| Association of Anaesthetists | Response published, not yet matchedA response is published with this report. We haven’t yet matched it to the organisation it’s from, so it may be this one’s. |
| Royal College of Anaesthetists | Response published, not yet matchedA response is published with this report. We haven’t yet matched it to the organisation it’s from, so it may be this one’s. |
| Royal College of Surgeons | Response publishedPublished on judiciary.uk in October 2025. |
The coroner’s concerns
(brief summary of matters of concern) i) Failure to document consent discussions - The record of discussions with Billy about the NG tube was poor. Despite the Trust having a "Policy & Guidelines for Consent to Examination or Treatment" in place since January 2020 (reviewed February 2024), there was a failure to comply with these guidelines in Billy's case. The policy required clear documentation, but this was not followed in Billy's case. The Trust’s subsequent assertion in submissions that policy and training are sufficient is undermined by the fact that the policy was in place but not followed ii) Inadequate explanation of risks to patients - I found that the necessity and risks of declining the NG tube were probably not sufficiently explained to Billy at any stage. There was certainly no supporting evidence to suggest the contrary. iii) Policy non-compliance - Despite a comprehensive policy being in place, there was a failure to implement it in practice, suggesting a gap between policy and practice that may affect other patients. The existence of a policy is not sufficient if it is not followed in practice. The inquest demonstrated a failure of implementation, not of policy content. iv) Absence of clear responsibility - There appeared to be a disconnect in terms of who was actually responsible for ensuring the need for an NG tube was explained to Billy. The assessing anaesthetists thought he needed an NG tube and the surgeons thought he needed an NG tube, but neither took ultimate responsibility for ensuring that this was adequately and, if needed, strongly explained and implemented. No one professional led on this vital aspect of his care. I conclude that, since the policy was not followed despite being in place, there remains a risk of recurrence unless there is assurance of effective implementation and monitoring. These concerns are likely to manifest and be replicated across England and Wales requiring me to send this report to the Royal Colleges and Association of Anaesthetists.
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, 2025-0496
- 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
AISummaries and questions, with page references. Pro and above.
Sign in to use