Minute Book, home
Coroner’s reportPrevention of future deaths · 2026-0275

“Lack of knowledge, or recognition of the same, in relation to the risk of a clot when a…”

Dated 20 May 2026, from the coroner for Cheshire. 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

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 dated20 May 2026
  2. Deadline15 Jul 2026
  3. Published on judiciary.uk28 Jul 2026
  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

Responses from each recipient
Sent toResponse
East Cheshire NHS TrustResponse publishedPublished on judiciary.uk in July 2026.

The coroner’s concerns

1. Lack of knowledge, or recognition of the same, in relation to the risk of a clot when a patient has haemoglobin Rainier disease. I heard evidence that there was a base level of understanding amongst the emergency department team at the hospital, whereby they knew it was high red blood cells and this increased the risk of clots, but all were falsely reassured by Isaac's almost normal haemoglobin and haematocrit, the recent venesection and that Isaac was on aspirin. I heard evidence that these are false reassurance and I have not heard any evidence from the trust as to how they are going to share this learning. Clearly, all clinicians cannot know the ins and outs of all rare conditions, but I was not assured or any process whereby they are aware that they need to seek further advice. I heard evidence from the Christie Hospital that they are producing an alert card for their patients to give to clinicians in emergency department settings which will assist, but not all patients will be under the Christie or have the alert card in all circumstances. 2. Failure to identify the key causative issue in the Trust's internal investigation or internal processes The court, and most importantly Isaac's parents, became aware for the first time during the course of the evidence that the referral to the virtual ward had not been made on 31 December, and that had it been, Isaac would not have been accepted and he would have therefore remained in hospital. He would have been in hospital when he deteriorated on 2 January and would therefore have been given full, successful, resuscitation at the time, such that he would not have died when he did. There had been an internal multi disciplinary review tool undertaken which had not identified this issue. This was not a complex issue to identify, and was identified very quickly by the trust's legal team when asked during the course of the evidence. I have received a statement which suggests this was a genuine mistake, made on the back of an assumption. As well as showing lack of critical analysis, it shows a lack of understanding of the virtual ward service. The latter I understand is being addressed by the trust in light of the evidence heard at the inquest but I heard no evidence to suggest that the quality of investigation or analysis is being improved. Whilst the inquest investigation is distinct to the trust investigation, the court is reliant to a large extent on the findings and disclosures made by the trust, taking into account they have a duty of candour and a duty to the court. I am concerned that the investigation process has failed to highlight a very important issue in care, and, if this is the case for other investigations, the opportunity to learn from issues and put in place action to prevent future deaths is lost. My concern has been compounded by details of an inquest I heard on 18 May, the day before Isaac's inquest, in which questions arose about the trust's internal processes, transparency and learning and the trust legal team is aware of those details. That inquest is not the subject of this report but is additional context to the concern raised. 11. COPIES AND PUBLICATION OF THIS REPORT I have a duty to send a copy of my report to every Interested Person who in my opinion should receive it. I also may send a copy of the report to any other person who I believe may find it useful or of interest. I can confirm I have sent the report to Isaac’s parents, and the Care Quality Commission. I also have a duty to send a copy of the report to the Chief Coroner. You may make representations to me, the coroner, about the publication of the contents of this report in line with Chief Coroner’s PFD Publication Policy (2026). Any representations will be sent to the Chief Coroner alongside the report. Please refer to box 4 above for additional information relating to the publication of reports and responses. 12. SIGNATURE Victoria DAVIES Area Coroner for Cheshire

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, 2026-0275
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