“Evidence was heard that: (1) A recommended home assessment was not completed as part of…”
Dated 3 Feb 2021, from the coroner for Mid Kent and Medway. 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
Deadline passedReplies were due by 31 Mar 2021. A reply may have been sent and not yet published.
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.
- Report dated3 Feb 2021
- Deadline31 Mar 2021
- Published on judiciary.uk5 Feb 2021
- 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 Trust | Deadline passedNo response published on judiciary.uk so far. The 56-day deadline was 31 Mar 2021. A reply may have been sent and not yet published. |
| Adult Safeguarding Kent County Council | Deadline passedNo response published on judiciary.uk so far. The 56-day deadline was 31 Mar 2021. A reply may have been sent and not yet published. |
The coroner’s concerns
– Evidence was heard that: (1) A recommended home assessment was not completed as part of Mr Smith’s planned discharge from hospital. (2) The next of kin was incorrectly recorded on Mr Smith’s medical records and the family were not informed of his discharge home as part of the discharge planning that he required care. (3) Mr Smith remained on a discharge ward from 2nd February until his discharge on 10th February even though he suffered a deterioration in his medical condition. Mr Smith’s capacity fluctuated during his admission, he was noted by nurses to be confused and his capacity was not reassessed. (4) Nursing notes in respect of Mr Smith’s discharge were incomplete, incorrect, and led to assumptions being made that Mr Smith a. had capacity to make decisions about his care and treatment b. was being cared for in the community. (5) Mr Smith has extensive leg ulcers that required specialist input. No district nurse referral was made to ensure that Mr Smith’s leg ulcers were treated. (6) Transport staff returning Mr Smith home found he had no key. One was located and on entering the property found conditions that caused them serious concern about the hygiene and health and safety within the property with a leak, uncleanliness and exposed electrical wiring and that there was no bed. (7) Transport staff were informed by the hospital not to return Mr Smith to the hospital as there was no bed available and they therefore raised a safeguarding alert. The safeguarding alert was not acted upon and Mr Smith was found by family after five days lying on the floor of his home with no dressing on his legs, unable to move and with no access to food or drink. (8) On readmission to hospital his dietary requirements were not adequate for his needs.
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, 2021-0025
- 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