“, — (1} The abdominal x-ray report was not seen by any doctor and all subsequent…”
Dated 6 Aug 2014, from the coroner for Shropshire, Telford and Wrekin. 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 1 Oct 2014. 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 dated6 Aug 2014
- Deadline1 Oct 2014
- Published on judiciary.uk6 Aug 2014
- 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 |
|---|---|
| The Shrewsbury and Telford Hospital NHS TrustNamed in the report as “Shrewsbury and Telford Hospital NHS Trust” | Deadline passedNo response published on judiciary.uk so far. The 56-day deadline was 1 Oct 2014. A reply may have been sent and not yet published. |
The coroner’s concerns
This report was published as a scan, so its text was read automatically. Check the wording against the original before you quote it.
, — (1} The abdominal x-ray report was not seen by any doctor and all subsequent diagnoses were made without knowledge of its content. (2) Although the doctor in A&E did not have had access to it at that time he stated that had he known of its content he would have referred the patient for surgical review and he would not have been discharged when he was. (3) The 2 GPs who saw the deceased on the 22° and 24% respectively stated that on the information they had Mr Hill had been discharged with a diagnosis of constipation. Had they been aware of the content of the X-ray report it would have raised the concerns which they had to the level where they would have then arranged for Mr Hill’s readmission to hospital. (4) On the 20" April there was radiological evidence of small bowel obstruction, according to the independent pathologist, most likely episodic. Over the next 4 days it became progressively worse, described by the pathologist at PM as hugely distended. The prospects of successful intervention declined over the subsequent 4/5 days. The report, when available, was not acted upon. (5) An additional concern arose separate to this. Mr Hill, when he was discharged on the 20" April, had been prescribed medication. Mr Hill should have left the hospital with that medication but none was provided to him. It is unlikely that its absence had any material effect in this case but it could in others. (6) For completeness, and it is an issue which arose in an earlier Inquest, no discharge summary was sent to the patient’s GP. This a ppears to have been an exception to normal practice and an indication was given at the Inquest that this issue has already been addressed. Confirmation of this is sought.
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, 2014-0362
- 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