Minute Book, home
Coroner’s reportPrevention of future deaths · 2018-0244

“The Inquest heard evidence that the pathology department at the Trust had no system for…”

Dated 25 Jul 2018, from the coroner for Manchester South. Sent to 3 organisations or people.

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

Report put online after its 56 days

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; a reply may have been sent and not yet published.

judiciary.uk put this report online on 23 Sep 2018, after the 56 days for replies had ended (19 Sep 2018). 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.

  1. Report dated25 Jul 2018
  2. Deadline19 Sep 2018
  3. Published on judiciary.uk23 Sep 2018
  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
Stockport NHS Foundation TrustNamed in the report as “Stockport NHS Trust”Report put online after its 56 daysNo response published on judiciary.uk. judiciary.uk put this report online on 23 Sep 2018, after the 56 days for replies had ended (19 Sep 2018). These dates can’t tell us whether a reply was due before it went online.
Royal College of PathologistsReport put online after its 56 daysNo response published on judiciary.uk. judiciary.uk put this report online on 23 Sep 2018, after the 56 days for replies had ended (19 Sep 2018). These dates can’t tell us whether a reply was due before it went online.
Department of Health and Social CareNamed in the report as “Department for Health”Report put online after its 56 daysNo response published on judiciary.uk. judiciary.uk put this report online on 23 Sep 2018, after the 56 days for replies had ended (19 Sep 2018). These dates can’t tell us whether a reply was due before it went online.

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 Inquest heard evidence that the pathology department at the Trust had no system for tracking samples. As a result, it was unclear when samples had been received and analysis had taken place. There was no documentation of conversations with other clinicians and so, it was difficult to be clear about the chronology of events. Transmission dates of the sample to another Trust were unclear. It was also difficult to know on what date the report of the pathologists findings had been issued to the treating clinician. It was unclear if these issues are specific to the pathology department of the Trust or more widespread. .. The Trust had a system of issuing reports digitally to clinicians to speed up receipt. In addition the Inquest were told that due to preferences of clinicians paper copies were also produced and sent via internal mail to the treating clinicians. The Inquest heard that the responsible orthopaedic consultant relied on wholly on the paper system although this built in delay. At the Trust, some departments such as the respiratory department had clear tracking systems to identify outstanding pathology reports. Other departments such as orthopaedics did not. As a result, clinicians could not readily identify where there was delay in receipt of information required to assess and diagnose a patient. The I.T systems of the pathology department of the Trust and other hospital Trusts were incompatible with each other. This meant that transfer of information between trusts to obtain a second opinion were more difficult. The Inquest heard that the delay in analysis of the sample taken was due to a backlog. The backlog was not unique to the Trust and such backlogs were prevalent across pathology departments nationally due to a local and national shortage of pathologists.

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, 2018-0244
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