“During the course of the evidence | was told by a Consultant Urologist that :- 1”
Dated 28 Jan 2016, from the coroner for Manchester South. 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 24 Mar 2016. 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 dated28 Jan 2016
- Deadline24 Mar 2016
- Published on judiciary.uk28 Jan 2016
- 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 |
|---|---|
| Stockport NHS Foundation Trust | Response published, not yet matchedA response is published with this report. We haven’t yet matched it to the organisation it’s from, so it may be this one’s. |
Some responses were published as scans, so their text was read automatically. Check the wording against the original before you quote it.
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.
— During the course of the evidence | was told by a Consultant Urologist that :- 1. The “system” which operates at Buxton is different from that at Stepping Hill Hospital, and therefore he cannot look at the test results on his screen at Stepping Hill. 2. The urologists see patients at Stockport, Tameside, Macclesfield and Buxton. At all of these locations, the data can be input so as to be viewable at Stepping Hill, save and except for Buxton. 3. When the Urologist’s view is not available on screen at Stepping Hill, it should, apparently, fall to the Local GP’s in Buxton to act on the information, but they either cannot or do not, thus the patient falls into a lacuna and no action is pursued. This is always of importance, but especially so with a very aggressive malignancy. 4. This man had an infiltrating adeno-carcinoma which is very rare. This fact was not picked up as soon as it could have been and was not therefore 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, 2016-0028
- 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