Minute Book, home
Coroner’s reportPrevention of future deaths · 2020-0186

“During the course of the hearing it became apparent that staff on the ward (whether…”

Dated 28 Sep 2020, from the coroner for Essex. 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.

Read the full report on judiciary.uk

How this works

The 56-day response deadline

All responses published

Replies were due by 23 Nov 2020.

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.

  1. Report dated28 Sep 2020
  2. Deadline23 Nov 2020
  3. Published on judiciary.uk23 Nov 2020
  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

The coroner’s concerns

– (1) During the course of the hearing it became apparent that staff on the ward (whether doctor or nurse) were not familiar with either the national morphine guidelines (BNF) or indeed those of the hospital. The Court is concerned that such lack of awareness may not be limited to that ward or that hospital. (2) It was concerning that even the hospital’s own Serious Incident report had incorrectly quoted the hospital’s guidelines as to the safe dose of IV morphine and that neither the investigatory team or any of the clinical staff who subsequently read that report had picked up on this. (3) I am concerned as to the adequacy of education re safe morphine doses that newly qualified doctors and locum doctors receive, and how this is audited. 4) I am concerned that the hospital’s own guidelines regarding morphine administration for acute pain management have not been revised since 2013 and are at odds with the current BNF guidelines (in terms of appropriate doses and patient vulnerability). 5) I was concerned that this incident arose as a result of a doctor and a nurse failing to understanding each other, and the nurse subsequently feeling that she had no choice but to administer an IV dose that she believed to be dangerous, and in particular that: a) The drug charts design did not facilitate clear instructions for titration for one-off doses of IV morphine. b) The nurse did not feel confident enough to challenge the prescription (as she perceived it) effectively or escalate / refer to another doctor.

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, 2020-0186
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