“is as follows”
Dated 17 May 2018, from the coroner for Mid Kent and Medway. 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
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 24 Sep 2018, after the 56 days for replies had ended (12 Jul 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.
- Report dated17 May 2018
- Deadline12 Jul 2018
- Published on judiciary.uk24 Sep 2018
- 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 |
|---|---|
| Medway NHS Foundation TrustNamed in the report as “Medway NHS Trust” | Report put online after its 56 daysNo response published on judiciary.uk. judiciary.uk put this report online on 24 Sep 2018, after the 56 days for replies had ended (12 Jul 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.
is as follows. — Given the proximity of the endoscopy (which required nil by mouth) to the CT with contrast, the concern which arises is whether Mr Fagg should have been considered for and given intravenous fluids. The doctor who gave evidence said that having requested an endoscopy he would not necessarily have known when this procedure would take place. It is not suggested that the endoscopy should not have taken place but during the course of the evidence the doctor did raise the point that had he known that the endoscopy was to take place the day after the CT scan with contrast he may have considered intravenous fluids. The matter of concern is therefore whether a patient, even with normal renal function, should be considered for intravenous fluids in cases where they have had a CT scan with contrast and within a short time frame thereafter are required to undergo a procedure which will necessarily mean they will not be allowed to eat or drink for several hours.
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, 2018-0245
- 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