“I am concerned that, whilst there exist policies concerned with the provision of care to…”

The coroner’s concerns

– 1) I am concerned that, whilst there exist policies concerned with the provision of care to those patients with learning disabilities there may be a lack of disseminated guidance and protocols for the care of those patients who are unable to communicate verbally. It is of particular concern that, in such cases, measures should be identified by which a method of communication can be established and/or appropriate measures should be put in place to compensate for any lack of communication verbally, including but not necessarily limited to the use of objective observations. 2) There is a risk of future deaths because both patient care and the opportunity to learn valuable lessons following a death may be compromised by issues pertaining to the quality of record keeping and to the retention of records. Whilst it is understood that “NEWS 2” is being introduced and supersedes the early warning score system being used at the time of the Deceased’s death and whilst the early warning score system in use at the time does not, therefore, form the subject matter of this report: a) I am concerned that the evidence revealed that substantial periods of time elapsed, at times measuring 9 or more hours, when no entry was made in the Deceased’s History Sheet, notwithstanding the deteriorating nature of the Deceased’s condition. This approach to record keeping carries the risk of material information concerning the condition and care of patients not being communicated between medical, nursing and other clinicians; b) Complete records were not provided to the Court in accordance with directions given prior to the inquest. It was understood from the Trust that complete records were unavailable and yet it transpired on the first day of the inquest that further records were available but had not been found and produced previously. I am concerned that the system of record keeping gives rise to a risk that patients’ records which are material to their ongoing care will be lost or otherwise inaccessible. c) I am concerned that, without records of appropriate quality being made and retained, the opportunity to learn lessons through the process of internal investigations and, should it arise, the Coroner investigation and inquest process will be compromised. 3) I am concerned that communications between medical staff, between nursing staff and between medical and nursing staff should be accurate and that it should be ensured that they have been understood. By way of example, in this matter, there was either miscommunication or misunderstanding of the position concerning the taking of an abdominal x‐ray and an apparent miscommunication or misunderstanding of the level of expertise being offered in the interpretation of a chest x‐ray. 4) I am concerned that there is a lack of knowledge amongst medical and nursing staff who may come into contact with and have the responsibility for the care of patients who have undergone PEG surgery about the post‐operative risks of such surgery, in particular the risk of peritonitis, of the signs and symptoms which may give rise to a differential diagnosis of peritonitis and of measures which would be or may be contraindicated in the circumstances that complications, including peritonitis develop. This is illustrated in the present case by an apparent lack of awareness that peritonitis may develop and that the use of the PEG tube in the circumstances concerned was contraindicated and by the omission to place a warning label in the Deceased’s notes as provided for by the applicable protocol. The fact that the use of the PEG tube was contraindicated was not identified in the course of the internal serious incident investigation. 5) Related to 4) above I am concerned that the risk of peritonitis may have been shrouded by the identified risks of sepsis and of aspiration pneumonia and that the risk of peritonitis also needs to be identifiable by those providing care for patients following such surgery. 6) The evidence disclosed that certain essential medication had not been retained in close proximity to the Deceased, where it was required. I am concerned that, in such circumstances, essential medication may be required urgently to protect the life of a patient and that systems should be robust enough to ensure that it is available in the correct location.

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, 2019-0146

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