“(brief summary of matters of concern) 1”
Dated 21 Dec 2023, from the coroner for Nottingham City and Nottinghamshire. Sent to 3 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
All responses publishedReplies were due by 15 Feb 2024.
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.
- Report dated21 Dec 2023
- Deadline15 Feb 2024
- Published on judiciary.uk25 Jan 2024
- 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 |
|---|---|
| NHS England | Response publishedPublished on judiciary.uk in January 2024. |
| UK Health Security AgencyNamed in the report as “UKHSA” | Response publishedPublished on judiciary.uk in January 2024. |
| National Institute for Health and Care ExcellenceNamed in the report as “National Institute for Clinical Excellence” | Response publishedPublished on judiciary.uk in January 2024. |
The coroner’s concerns
(brief summary of matters of concern) 1. 2. 3. I am concerned that the current clinical and public health guidelines do not identify Healthcare professionals as a group at heightened risk of TB exposure. I am concerned that the current definition of ‘close contact’, thus triggering a contact trace or warn and inform letter, sets the bar too high for notifying NHS staff of the risk of exposure to TB. I am concerned that there are insufficient education measures in place to inform NHS staff of the TB symptoms to looks out for, and the need to inform any assessing clinician of their possible exposure to the condition in order to facilitate early diagnostic testing. Carrianne was exposed to a very aggressive form of TB from what seemed to be a rather transient exposure to the index patient during her occupation as a Nurse. Of course, not each and every contact with a patient will be logged within the medical records, especially in relation to an ambulatory patient such as the index patient in this case, and so it is possible that Carrianne had greater exposure to the patient while on the ward than interrogation of the medical records would suggest. But at its height, she had only been at work on the unit at the same time as the index patient over 23 and 24 November. The index patient was cared for in a side room with infection prevention measures in place but Carrianne may well have been unaware that the infectious disease in question was TB as she was not the “named nurse” for this patient and lots of patients had increased infection prevention measures in place during the pandemic. Indeed, Carrianne had denied any known TB exposure when asked by doctors during her respiratory illness. Carrianne’s case highlights the increased transmissibility of smear positive TB in the context of limited exposure to the index patient. I heard evidence from an expert who told me of cases of medical professionals contracting the condition despite no known direct contact with the patient but having spent time in a corridor containing an air vent leading from the infected patient’s room. The warn and inform parameters did not alter (as in broaden) to reflect the fact that the index case was smear positive and highly transmissible, and the patient was known to be ambulatory on the ward. I cannot see a good reason for restricting the warn and inform letter process, rather than applying the same broadly to all staff who worked on the unit at the relevant time. Carrianne’s case highlights the importance of warning all staff of TB cases on their wards, so that if they do become symptomatic in the coming months, and it may be many months later, they will be equipped with the necessary information to share with their treating clinicians. I heard evidence that the NHS hospital’s Occupational Health team will issue contact tracing or warn and inform letters to staff, but this may not include Agency workers, and, in this case, Nurses seconded from the RAF. This is a missed opportunity to ensure that the relevant OH team or GP is aware of the potential exposure to add to the clinical picture should the patient develop atypical respiratory symptoms. 6 I understand that your agency has input into the UK’s TB Action Plan, and I hope that the above concerns can be considered in your drive to reduce the incidence of TB nationally, but also specifically with regard to healthcare professionals to ensure they are given the greatest possible protection from TB related harm and death.
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, 2024-0032
- 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