Minute Book, home
Coroner’s reportPrevention of future deaths · 2023-0316

“ Concern 1 – that the medical professionals who work in a hospital emergency department…”

Dated 1 Sep 2023, from the coroner for Blackpool and Fylde. 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.

Read the full report on judiciary.uk

How this works

The 56-day response deadline

All responses published

Replies were due by 27 Oct 2023.

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 dated1 Sep 2023
  2. Deadline27 Oct 2023
  3. Published on judiciary.uk8 Sep 2023
  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

–  Concern 1 – that the medical professionals who work in a hospital emergency department are routinely expected to do so when the OPEL 4 applies, a recognition they are performing their roles when the hospital is “unable to deliver comprehensive care, and patient safety is at risk”. Such pressures may serve to leave the Emergency Department unable to triage patients such as Derek, and have no time to notify the doctors expecting his arrival (in this case doctors on the Surgical Assessment Unit) who are consequently left unaware that a patient has in fact arrived, all of which serves to place vulnerable patients such as Derek Pedley at serious risk.  Concern 2 - that there is a risk that the pressures on hospitals become so significant they are used as a default explanation for levels of patient care that fall below what they would wish to deliver. I found that the hospital Trust did not seek to do so in this case, but it seems to me there is a risk this could happen. The pressures are indeed significant, but ultimately this case involves a 90 year old man with what appears to be an acute medical problem finding himself attending his local emergency department, not being spoken to / triaged by a medical professional for almost two hours, and dying by the time he is called for. There is a clear risk that puts patients at risk and it would be remiss of me not to raise it.  Concern 3 - Finally, it is relevant to point out that Derek had not moved for some time before a medical professional called for Derek. I formed the view that there had been a reluctance on his Friend’s part to request assistance due to the pressures staff were clearly under, but also because he had already handed in Derek’s paperwork and was expecting some assistance imminently which did not arrive. I feel Derek and his Friend thought as they knew doctors had discussed his case with his GP and that his attendance was expected they did not need to raise a concern until it was too late. In actual fact, such are the pressures Emergency Departments are working under, this may not be the case. It is not for me to be prescriptive about what should be done, but unless GPs are provided with a realistic picture about how quickly their patients may be seen once they arrive at hospital (even if they have been in communication with the hospital doctors) their patients may arrive at hospital expecting to be seen quickly, when in reality this may not be the case particularly when the department is under significant pressures.

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, 2023-0316
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