“Amember of the Trust’s community nursing team gave evidence to the effect that it was…”
Dated 17 May 2019, from the coroner for Manchester South. Sent to 2 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 28 Jul 2019, after the 56 days for replies had ended (12 Jul 2019). 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 2019
- Deadline12 Jul 2019
- Published on judiciary.uk28 Jul 2019
- 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 |
|---|---|
| Tameside and Glossop Integrated Care NHS Foundation TrustNamed in the report as “Tameside and Glossop Care NHS Trust” | Response publishedPublished on judiciary.uk in July 2019. |
| Tameside General Hospital | Report put online after its 56 daysNo response published on judiciary.uk. judiciary.uk put this report online on 28 Jul 2019, after the 56 days for replies had ended (12 Jul 2019). These dates can’t tell us whether a reply was due before it went online. |
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.
- 1. Amember of the Trust’s community nursing team gave evidence to the effect that it was ‘common’ not to receive timely referrals in respect of patients who were discharged from hospital and required community nursing services. Whilst it was apparent from the evidence before the court as a whole that this concern does not relate solely to patients who have been receiving in-patient care at Tameside General Hospital, and that some improvements have been made with the introduction of an e-discharge system, itis a matter of particular concern that this problem continues to subsist at the Trust in particular due to the integrated care model as between acute and community services the organisation purports to espouse; 2. The Ward Manager of Ward 31 confirmed in her evidence that, at the time of the care provided to Mr Beard, there was only one permanent substantive registered nurse working on the ward, with the vast majority of shifts being fulfilled by agency workers; Whilst the Ward Manager gave evidence of significant improvements to recruitment and retention of nursing staff on the ward, and of additional actions her and her team have introduced to promote consistency amongst agency staff, it is a matter of concern that there is still significant reliance on agency nurses {with the financial and continuity of care implications which can arise from that) within the Trust.
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, 2019-0157
- 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