“(brief summary of matters of concern) During the course of the inquest, evidence was…”
Dated 11 Mar 2026, from the coroner for North Yorkshire and York. 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 6 May 2026.
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 dated11 Mar 2026
- Deadline6 May 2026
- Published on judiciary.uk12 Mar 2026
- 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 |
|---|---|
| York and Scarborough Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation TrustNamed in the report as “York & Scarborough Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust” | Response publishedPublished on judiciary.uk in March 2026. |
The coroner’s concerns
(brief summary of matters of concern) During the course of the inquest, evidence was heard from Ward Manager the Ward Manager from Ward 35. She confirmed that it was unlikely that the deceased had been provided with his allocated walking frame on admission to Ward 35; the clinical notes did not refer to him having been provided with that mobility aid. The evidence of was that even if a walking frame had been allocated to a patient at an earlier stage in the hospital admission process, that walking frame would not automatically follow the patient on their onward journey onto other wards or other areas of the hospital. The evidence was that a reassessment would be undertaken on admission to a new ward and a decision would then be taken in relation to the provision of such mobility aids. In this case, it is likely that the deceased had been on Ward 35 for around 2 hours and 40 minutes and he still had not been provided with an allocated walking frame for his own use. Whilst it cannot be said that this lack of a walking frame contributed to the deceased’s fall, given that he likely used a frame belonging to someone else, it is a matter of concern that a patient could be admitted onto a ward without being provided with the mobility aids that they had been previously assessed by the hospital as requiring and which had already been allocated to that patient at an earlier stage in the hospital admission process. I am therefore concerned about the consistency of the provision of such mobility aids during the course of a patient’s admission. I am concerned that this creates a risk of future deaths to other patients in circumstances where they are transferred onto wards without them having the mobility aids which they have been assessed as requiring, and with which they have already been provided at an earlier stage whilst in hospital.
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, 2026-0144
- 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