“: 1”
Dated 31 Mar 2021, from the coroner for City of London. Sent to 4 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 Jun 2021, after the 56 days for replies had ended (26 May 2021). 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 dated31 Mar 2021
- Deadline26 May 2021
- Published on judiciary.uk28 Jun 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 |
|---|---|
| Public Health England | Response publishedPublished on judiciary.uk in June 2021. |
| National Institute for Cardiovascular Outcomes Research | Report put online after its 56 daysNo response published on judiciary.uk. judiciary.uk put this report online on 28 Jun 2021, after the 56 days for replies had ended (26 May 2021). These dates can’t tell us whether a reply was due before it went online. |
| Society for Cardiothoracic Surgery | Report put online after its 56 daysNo response published on judiciary.uk. judiciary.uk put this report online on 28 Jun 2021, after the 56 days for replies had ended (26 May 2021). These dates can’t tell us whether a reply was due before it went online. |
| College of Clinical Perfusion Scientists | Report put online after its 56 daysNo response published on judiciary.uk. judiciary.uk put this report online on 28 Jun 2021, after the 56 days for replies had ended (26 May 2021). These dates can’t tell us whether a reply was due before it went online. |
The coroner’s concerns
: 1. It is apparent that it is important that the nationally recognised level of the risk of developing Mycobacterium Chimaera from exposure to a heater cooler unit is accurate, in that it accurately reflects the most current statistical data, and is based on the best gathering of statistical data as to the true incidence of such infection as can practicably be achieved. This is because the nationally recognised level of risk is the proper basis upon which – (i) The informed consent of a patient for a relevant surgery is obtained, and (ii) Post-operatively, the patient and the clinician(s) caring for him (including his General Practitioner) will base their “threshold for suspicion” for Mycobacterium Chimaera if the patient develops an infection which cannot quickly be identified and treated. 2. Public Health England, together with the National Institute for Cardiovascular Outcomes Research, the Society for Cardiothoracic Surgery, and the College of Clinical Perfusion Scientists, are the national bodies which are able to co-ordinate collation of relevant statistical evidence and then formulate and disseminate accurate information about the level of risk. It is inappropriate for individual hospitals, cardiac centres, or Trusts to formulate risk level on the basis of their own data as this would result, nationally, in the dissemination of inconsistent information. 3. Public Health England’s “Clinical guidance for secondary care” and “Information for general practice” are based on January 2017 data. Further, on its website, under the heading “Who could be at risk of Mycobacterium chimaera infection”, Public Health England currently states, “People most at risk are those who’ve had heart valve surgery since January 2013. About 1 person in every 5,000 who has this type of surgery will develop the infection.” This assessment is also based on data collated to January 2017. 4. The evidence at the inquest showed that the figure of “1 person in every 5,000” is inaccurate, in that : (i) It is based on data from 2017 and not updated data, and (ii) It is based on data which reflects only those patients who are reported to Public Health England as having died of Mycobacterium Chimaera infection, whereas the true incidence of the infection is very likely to be higher; the likelihood is that there is a potentially significant number of deaths from undiagnosed Mycobacterium Chimaera, given the patient cohort’s usual level of co-morbidities and clinicians’ low threshold of suspicion for this infection. 5. A more accurate assessment of the risk, and more accurate guidance, would therefore result from – (i) An immediate review by Public Health England of all data held to date with a re-calculation of the incidence of Mycobacterium Chimaera infection and consequential risk being reflected in updated guidance and web-site information, and (ii) Consideration being given by all the bodies to whom this Report is sent of whether there is a better investigative basis which could be used for obtaining relevant data and statistics as to the true incidence of Mycobacterium Chimaera infection, whether by means of a research study or otherwise.
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, 2021-0204
- 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