“(brief summary of matters of concern) 1”
Dated 30 Mar 2026, from the coroner for Berkshire. 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
Deadline passedReplies were due by 25 May 2026. 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 dated30 Mar 2026
- Deadline25 May 2026
- Published on judiciary.uk13 Apr 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 |
|---|---|
| Frimley Health NHS Foundation Trust | Deadline passedNo response published on judiciary.uk so far. The 56-day deadline was 25 May 2026. A reply may have been sent and not yet published. |
The coroner’s concerns
(brief summary of matters of concern) 1. Falls risk assessments. Only 2 falls risk assessments were carried out after Mr Tarrant arrived at the hospital. Both falls risk assessments used the Hester Davis scoring system but both had carried out based on incorrect data. The falls risk assessments both resulted in a low-risk outcome which was not correct. Mr Tarrant should have been graded as a moderate risk even prior to his fall. Some of the data entered into the risk assessment tool was objectively wrong. For example in the risk assessment carried out hours after his fall it stated that he had not fallen before. I heard that the Trust did not have a way of assessing and auditing the accuracy of these risk assessments. Whilst I found that the errors in this inquest did not contribute to Mr Tarrant’s death incorrect risk assessments can lead to inadequate falls mitigation measures being put in place and incorrect information being provided to staff. 2. Anti coagulation risk awareness The doctor who reviewed the CT results and neurosurgery advice after Mr Tarrant fell did not appreciate the urgency of the situation. I found in this inquest that due to timing issues this was not likely to have affected the outcome for Mr Tarrant. I heard from the consultant witness that the risks of anticoagulation are poorly understood. The post falls proforma was reviewed in court and, whilst it asked whether the patient was on anticoagulation medication, it did not provide a prompt about this during the post fall medical planning section. This led to a concern that the importance of considering administering an anticoagulation reversal medication and the urgency of such a need may be underappreciated.
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, 2026-0199
- 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