“SWAST NHS 1) It is unfortunately clear, when comparing the evidence heard at the inquest…”

The coroner’s concerns

SWAST NHS 1) It is unfortunately clear, when comparing the evidence heard at the inquest with the findings of SWAST NHS’s clinical review, that there was inadequate analysis of this incident by SWAST NHS, with concerning circumstances surrounding the care provided by attending paramedics not being identified and analysed properly – therefore whether there were any appropriate recommendations to inform future care provision were not considered by SWAST NHS. All clinical witnesses who gave evidence at the inquest (with the exception of the author of SWAST NHS’s clinical review) stated that the combination of knowing that Mr Keen had an ascending aortic aneurysm with him presenting with sudden onset chest pain radiating to his back, should have alerted attending paramedics to the real possibility of an aortic dissection. Given this and the gravity of this potential situation, it is clear that Mr Keen should have been taken directly from his home to the tertiary arterial centre by emergency ambulance transfer. If this had happened, Mr Keen would have undergone life-saving cardiothoracic surgery a number of hours earlier than he did. SWAST NHS’s clinical review did not identify (until the error was pointed out to them during the coronial investigation) that attending paramedics incorrectly recorded that Mr Keen had an abdominal aortic aneurysm, as opposed to an ascending aortic aneurysm. Accordingly, the clinical review did not consider how this error may have occurred. The clinical review went on to conclude that Mr Keen was not demonstrating symptoms to attending paramedics which would indicate a possible aortic dissection – at the inquest, the author of SWAST NHS’s clinical review maintained that this was SWAST NHS’s view and, even when taking into consideration Mr Keen’s correct medical history (having an ascending aortic aneurysm) together with his presenting symptoms of sudden onset radiating chest pain, SWAST NHS did not consider that an aortic dissection was a potential differential diagnosis that needed urgent investigation. The inquest heard from an associate specialist in emergency medicine and consultant cardiologist, both of whom considered that Mr Keen’s presentation and known medical history should have resulted in there being a high degree of suspicion that he was suffering with an aortic dissection on 19 August 2023. It is also clear that the consultant in emergency medicine who assessed Mr Keen when he arrived at hospital, and who considered his known history and his presenting symptoms on that day, held such suspicion and immediately ordered imaging to confirm whether there was an aortic dissection. Therefore, a clear finding of fact was made at the inquest that SWAST NHS’s clinical review fell into error when it concluded, firstly, that it was reasonable for attending paramedics to consider it unlikely that Mr Keen was suffering an aortic dissection and, secondly, that Mr Keen was correctly taken for assessment to the local acute hospital. If SWAST, during their internal review and investigation, do not identify an accurate factual background together with any concerns in relation to clinical care provided by their clinicians, and do not take steps to try and learn from these incidents when they occur, then there is an obvious, significant and continuing risk of future deaths occurring arising out of healthcare provision provided by SWAST NHS. 2) Although responsibility for the content of the Joint Royal Colleges Ambulatory Liaison Committee (JRCALC) clinical guidelines does not lie with SWAST NHS (it lies with this named committee, which is part of the AACE, and therefore they have been asked to respond to the concerns raised here about a guideline – see below) it is important that ambulance trusts consider issues relating to paramedic guidance and that their views feed in to the work of JRCALC. Therefore, the same concern that is set out below for the attention of JRCALC is raised with SWAST NHS here, for them to consider the issues raised and to formally respond with their views. At the inquest, the content of SWAST NHS’s vascular emergencies guideline was considered. SWAST NHS confirmed that this local guideline was based on the JRCALC national vascular emergencies guideline (which had last been updated in July 2025) and that the substantive provisions in respect of clinicians considering a potential aortic dissection were set out in accordance with the national guideline. All those involved at the inquest who both asked and answered questions about this guideline (including myself, counsel for Mr Keen’s family and the author of SWAST NHS’s clinical review) considered that it was confusing, potentially contradictory and not at all user-friendly for paramedics. In particular, concerns were raised that: - there is a section entitled ‘aortic aneurysms’, but when the detail of this section is considered it becomes apparent that this only relates to potential rupture of an abdominal aortic aneurysm. There is then a separate section entitled ‘aortic dissection’ and it is clear that this relates primarily to ascending and descending aortic aneurysms, but also in some respects to abdominal aneurysms. The headings of these sections are confusing and it is not easily apparent which one should be considered in respect of each different type of aneurysm, which is of course particularly relevant to presenting symptoms, particularly location of pain. - in the ‘aortic dissection detection risk score’ table of the guideline, there are a number of predisposing conditions, pain features and examination findings listed as relevant to a calculation of risk. There is then a total possible score of 0 – 3, presumably depending on whether a risk factor is present in each of the three columns – however, there is then no information about what should happen given any particular score or how the total score should affect a clinician’s impression of clinical risk. This appear

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, 2026-0291

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