“The pupils at Karanbir’s school had a patchy understanding of his allergies, what they…”
Dated 10 May 2019, from the coroner for Inner North London. Sent to 8 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 29 Jul 2019, after the 56 days for replies had ended (5 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 dated10 May 2019
- Deadline5 Jul 2019
- Published on judiciary.uk29 Jul 2019
- Today27 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 |
|---|---|
| William Perkin High School | Report put online after its 56 daysNo response published on judiciary.uk. judiciary.uk put this report online on 29 Jul 2019, after the 56 days for replies had ended (5 Jul 2019). These dates can’t tell us whether a reply was due before it went online. |
| London North West University Healthcare NHS Trust | Response publishedPublished on judiciary.uk in July 2019. |
| London Ambulance Service NHS TrustNamed in the report as “London Ambulance Service” | Response publishedPublished on judiciary.uk in July 2019. |
| Mylan Pharmaceuticals | Report put online after its 56 daysNo response published on judiciary.uk. judiciary.uk put this report online on 29 Jul 2019, after the 56 days for replies had ended (5 Jul 2019). These dates can’t tell us whether a reply was due before it went online. |
| British Society for Allergy and Clinical Immunology | Report put online after its 56 daysNo response published on judiciary.uk. judiciary.uk put this report online on 29 Jul 2019, after the 56 days for replies had ended (5 Jul 2019). These dates can’t tell us whether a reply was due before it went online. |
| Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health | Report put online after its 56 daysNo response published on judiciary.uk. judiciary.uk put this report online on 29 Jul 2019, after the 56 days for replies had ended (5 Jul 2019). These dates can’t tell us whether a reply was due before it went online. |
| Department of Health and Social Care | Report put online after its 56 daysNo response published on judiciary.uk. judiciary.uk put this report online on 29 Jul 2019, after the 56 days for replies had ended (5 Jul 2019). These dates can’t tell us whether a reply was due before it went online. |
| Department for Education | Report put online after its 56 daysNo response published on judiciary.uk. judiciary.uk put this report online on 29 Jul 2019, after the 56 days for replies had ended (5 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
1. The pupils at Karanbir’s school had a patchy understanding of his allergies, what they were and the consequences of exposure to allergens. Targeted education about this would improve safety. 2. Karanbir’s school care plan and medical box were not checked or audited to ensure, for example, that if his care plan stipulated two EpiPens® (adrenaline auto-injectors), the box contained two EpiPens. 3. Karanbir’s EpiPen was out of date. There must be systems in place to ensure that medication in schools is in date. 4. Allergy action plans are not standardised across hospitals and schools, so messages are not as clearly delivered as they could be. This is vital particularly when they may be read for the first time in a desperate situation where panic has set in. 5. The allergy action plan drafted by Karanbir’s doctors at Ealing Hospital did not find its way to his school. There is no standardised approach to this, for example always sending a copy to the school designated safeguarding lead, as well as giving parents/carers a copy for themselves and a copy for the school in case the posted version does not arrive. 3 6. Karanbir’s treating doctors wanted him to re-attend for asthma and allergy review four months after his last consultation. An appointment was made but cancelled by the hospital. By the time of his death four months later he had still not been seen again. There needed to be recognition of the time critical nature of this appointment. It needed to be re-booked without delay. 7. Karanbir had one EpiPen at home, one at school and one at his father’s home. There is clearly a need for medical teams to emphasise that two EpiPens must be available at all times. 8. There appears to be a lack of awareness nationally of the simple but vital messages that: if a person with an allergy has been exposed to an allergen and develops any respiratory compromise, so any breathing difficulty at all, then adrenaline (via EpiPen or other) should be administered immediately, before any asthma pump and even before calling for help; if there is a deterioration after giving one EpiPen, then another should be administered immediately, or in any event after five minutes if there is no improvement. 9. The EpiPen box does not contain these instructions on the outside. 10. These instructions were not communicated effectively as part of the school staff’s first aid and EpiPen training. 11. The London Ambulance Service 999 operator did not at any time suggest that a second EpiPen be given, because this is not contained within the algorithm. That could be remedied internationally. 12. The allergy specialist who gave evidence was firmly of the view that generic adrenaline auto-injectors should be available, in much the same way as defibrillators, in public spaces. This was the view of the respiratory physician who gave evidence in May 2017 and about which I wrote then to the Chief Medical Officer for England. Is this worthy of reconsideration?
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, 2019-0161
- 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