“In accordance with the PSII report (#SE-48448 ), a specific recommendation was made that…”
Dated 20 Oct 2025, from the coroner for Birmingham and Solihull. 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.
The 56-day response deadline
All responses publishedReplies were due by 15 Dec 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.
- Report dated20 Oct 2025
- Deadline15 Dec 2025
- Published on judiciary.uk23 Oct 2025
- Today21 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 |
|---|---|
| University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust | Response publishedPublished on judiciary.uk in October 2025. |
Some responses were published as scans, so their text was read automatically. Check the wording against the original before you quote it.
The coroner’s concerns
– 1. In accordance with the PSII report (#SE-48448 ), a specific recommendation was made that "All clinical staff (medical and nursing) using automated CSF drainage systems such as Liquoguard must have completed adequate training to ensure that they are familiar with the functionality of the device prior to use..." 2. The evidence at inquest was that this training was not mandatory at present, and that at the time of the inquest, approximately 55% of the relevant staff have received the training. This has been slowed down somewhat due to a representative of the company being off sick, but further training sessions have been planned. 3. However, the evidence of (author of the PSII report and consultant neurosurgeon) indicated that it was his view that the training should be mandatory, and that consideration must be given to ensuring this is rolled out in a "sustainable" way to staff both current and future - as opposed to a "knee-jerk reaction" where training is only given to a limited number of staff following an incident. 4. There was no evidence before the court that there was any plan to embed this training and ensure that it is carried out in a "sustainable" way, with a particular focus on ensuring that future staff are adequately and properly trained. This was particularly concerning given the apparent high rotation and through-put of staff in the ITU department. It became apparent to me that the training being offered was the type of "knee-jerk reaction" that was fearful of. 5. There is a risk of future deaths occurring where clinical staff (medical and nursing) do not receive adequate training on equipment. 6. As Coroner, it is not my role to advise what action needs to be taken - that is a matter for your organisation.
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, 2025-0524
- 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