“The Level Two Comprehensive Investigation of the Worcestershire Acute Hospitals NHS 5…”
Dated 8 Jun 2022, from the coroner for Birmingham and Solihull. 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.
The 56-day response deadline
All responses publishedOrganisations 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.
- Report dated8 Jun 2022
- Deadline3 Aug 2022
- Published on judiciary.uk16 Sep 2022
- 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 |
|---|---|
| Worcestershire Acute Hospitals NHS TrustNamed in the report as “Worcestershire Acute Hospitals NHS trust” | Response publishedPublished on judiciary.uk in September 2022. |
The coroner’s concerns
– 1. The Level Two Comprehensive Investigation of the Worcestershire Acute Hospitals NHS 5 Trust ('WAH') concluded the root cause of Jack's death was: “There was no official national guidance and no approved Trust guidance on managing VITT in place at the time this patient was admitted to AGH, therefore staff are unlikely to have been aware of the timecritical need to transfer the patient to a specialist centre (QEHB).” The following care and service delivery problems were identified: “There was no written Trust or national guidance on managing VITT at the time the patient was admitted, therefore staff are unlikely to have been aware of the time-critical need to transfer the patient to a specialist centre (QEHB).” The following Contributory factors were identified: - The Neurosurgical team at QEHB were contacted for advice; had the Trust VITT guidance been in place at the time, it would have stipulated not to contact the Neurosurgical team, but instead to contact Haematology and Neurology at QEHB. - The Neurosurgical team at QEHB advised to continue medical management locally (at WAHT). - Had the Trust VITT guidance been in place at the time, the WAHT Haematologist would have been prompted to contact their counterpart Haematologist at QEHB which may have accelerated the process of transfer; this did not happen until the day after the patient’s admission. 2. Within the course of the evidence at the inquest it was identified that, whilst there was no NICE Guidance or a local policy at WAH, there was a number of publications on the management of VITT and patients presenting with complications post Astra Zeneca Vaccination: i. Guidance from the Expert Haematology Panel (EHP) on Covid-19 Vaccine-induced Immune Thrombocytopenia and Thrombosis (VITT) 28th May 2021 ii. Joint guidance from the Royal College of Emergency medicine, the Society for Acute Medicine and the Royal College of Physicians 'Management of patients presenting to the Emergency Department/ Acute Medicine with symptoms 5-42 days post Astra Zeneca vaccine' 24th May 2021 iii. 'Management of Cerebral Venous Sinus Thrombosis following COVID-19 vaccination. A neurosurgical guide.' from the British Society of Neurological Surgeons 19th April 2021 3. Evidence also identified that the University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust had also put in place a Regional VITT Pathway that was communicated to Haematologists and Neurologists across the region in March 2021. Prior to Jack's admission to the Alexandra Hospital on the 8th June 2021 4 patients had been transferred from the WAH to the QEH under the pathway including 1 patient from the Alexandra Hospital. 4. The WAH investigation did not identify the above guidance or Pathway and did not provide any explanation of why they were not followed in Jack's case. 5. Concerns were raised in the management of Jack's care whilst at the Alexandra Hospital, in particular the emergency department decision to refer to the medical and not neurology team, the level of observations whilst on ward 11 and the fact that family were reporting a concern that Jack was deteriorating during the afternoon of the 9th June 2021. The WAH investigation report does not record that these matters (or any other aspect of clinical care) were investigated, the conclusions reached or the bass for those conclusions. 6. This raises a concern that the investigation was not sufficient and as such has not served its purpose of safeguarding patients. 7. No adequate explanation was given in evidence to explain why the investigation was incomplete. 8. If WAH serious incident investigations are not sufficient the lessons arising will not be identified and necessary action will not be taken putting lives at risk.
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, 2022-0167
- 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