“In the light of the gravity of Ms Muldowney’s situation, with the only definitive…”
Dated 8 Dec 2016, from the coroner for Inner North London. Sent to 4 organisations or people.
A coroner wrote this report after an inquest, to warn the organisations below about a risk of further deaths.
The 56-day response deadline
Report put online after its 56 daysOrganisations 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; a reply may have been sent and not yet published.
judiciary.uk put this report online on 12 Feb 2017, after the 56 days for replies had ended (2 Feb 2017). These dates can’t tell us whether a reply was due before it went online. A reply may have been sent and not yet published.
- Report dated8 Dec 2016
- Deadline2 Feb 2017
- Published on judiciary.uk12 Feb 2017
- 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 |
|---|---|
| St George's University Hospitals NHS Foundation TrustNamed in the report as “St George’s University Hospital” | Report put online after its 56 daysNo response published on judiciary.uk. judiciary.uk put this report online on 12 Feb 2017, after the 56 days for replies had ended (2 Feb 2017). These dates can’t tell us whether a reply was due before it went online. |
| Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals NHS Trust | Report put online after its 56 daysNo response published on judiciary.uk. judiciary.uk put this report online on 12 Feb 2017, after the 56 days for replies had ended (2 Feb 2017). These dates can’t tell us whether a reply was due before it went online. |
| King's College Hospital NHS Foundation TrustNamed in the report as “Kings College Hospital” | Report put online after its 56 daysNo response published on judiciary.uk. judiciary.uk put this report online on 12 Feb 2017, after the 56 days for replies had ended (2 Feb 2017). These dates can’t tell us whether a reply was due before it went online. |
| NHS England | Report put online after its 56 daysNo response published on judiciary.uk. judiciary.uk put this report online on 12 Feb 2017, after the 56 days for replies had ended (2 Feb 2017). These dates can’t tell us whether a reply was due before it went online. |
The coroner’s concerns
In the light of the gravity of Ms Muldowney’s situation, with the only definitive treatment being surgery, she required immediate transfer to a specialist neurosurgical unit, yet she was refused transfer by at least three hospitals who said they had no intensive care beds. She could have been transferred, undergone surgery, spent time in recovery, and then an intensive care bed procured, perhaps even by transferring out a non neurosurgical patient. If such a bed was still unavailable, she could then have been transferred to a different hospital, at least having undergone the time critical clot evacuation and aneurysm clipping. With prompt transfer and surgery, Ms Muldowney would probably have survived.
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, 2016-0440
- 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