Minute Book, home
Coroner’s reportPrevention of future deaths · 2014-0395

“Evidence was given to me that observation of patients are conducted throughout the…”

Dated 5 Sep 2014, from the coroner for Milton Keynes. 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

Deadline passed

Replies were due by 31 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.

  1. Report dated5 Sep 2014
  2. Deadline31 Oct 2014
  3. Published on judiciary.uk5 Sep 2014
  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
Milton Keynes University Hospital NHS Foundation TrustNamed in the report as “Milton Keynes Hospital”Deadline passedNo response published on judiciary.uk so far. The 56-day deadline was 31 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)Evidence was given to me that observation of patients are conducted throughout the Hospital using an Early Warning Observation Chart. The observations are often recorded by unqualified Health Care Assistants but the recordings should be checked and interpreted by a qualified nurse. A trigger score is given for each set of observations; one trigger should result in a review by a senior nurse and an increase in the frequency of observations, two triggers requires a review by a doctor and three triggers a review by a specialist registrar. The chart is a tool to ensure that there is an escalation of care to an appropriate level. (2) In the case of Mr. White the EWS chart was not completed correctly, triggers were ignored and none of the observations were checked by a qualified member of staff. The evidence of Dr. WE an independent expert was “This resulted in lost opportunities to reassess Mr. White and put in place the necessary resuscitative measures. (3) | was also told that there is no regular audit system in place to ensure that the charts are correctly completed, interpreted and acted upon.

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, 2014-0395
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