“are as follows”

The coroner’s concerns

are as follows. – 1. There was no investigation of the cause or potential cause of the fall (whether there were any external factors involved – water on the floor, over-cleaning or any other high risk matter) so as to ensure that further falls could be prevented if necessary. Even if it transpired that the cause could not be determined, the fall should have been treated as a Serious Untoward Incident that warranted some kind of investigation. The North Middlesex University Hospital NHS Trust Serious Incident Policy defines as ‘serious’ an ‘Accident while in hospital’ and I consider that such a fall should be considered to be an accident. The policy then details actions that should be taken by staff dependent on the urgency of the incident and the evidence that I was given confirmed that the appropriate electronic records were not made following the incident. 2. It was not at all clear from the evidence whether the training on falls policy and the protocols related to the recording of witnessed falls extended to the doctors as well as nurses and it is clear that, as a fall may be witnessed by any staff member at a hospital, the proper protocols should at least be known even if access to electronic means of recording an incident is limited for reasons of confidentiality.

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, 2013-0285

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