“Having had a CT scan at Birmingham Heartlands Hospital on 14th June 2023, James 5 Pearson…”
Dated 14 May 2024, 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 publishedReplies were due by 9 Jul 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 dated14 May 2024
- Deadline9 Jul 2024
- Published on judiciary.uk20 May 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 |
|---|---|
| University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation TrustNamed in the report as “University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation” | Response publishedPublished on judiciary.uk in May 2024. |
The coroner’s concerns
– 1. Having had a CT scan at Birmingham Heartlands Hospital on 14th June 2023, James 5 Pearson was diagnosed with severe pelvic injuries, and the Radiologist reported findings which were consistent with an active pelvic bleed. 2. At 03.16, observations were taken, and the Doctor was satisfied that James was maintaining his blood pressure and therefore was not actively bleeding at that time. 3. During the inquest, I heard that James was attached to a monitor, which was taking his observations every 15 minutes. None of these observations, however, were documented. This is of concern, as it is not possible to know at what point James began to decline. I am concerned that lack of proper documented observations could lead to future deaths, as staff will not be able to follow the observation pattern and notice a decline in presentation. 4. At 04.20am, James became more agitated and nurses noted a drop in consciousness. At this point the Major Haemorrhage Protocol was activated at 04.23am, as there was now a suspicion of ongoing bleeding. 5. Whilst waiting for his blood products, James suffered a cardiac arrest at 04.25am 6. told me in evidence that during the time since his last review by a Doctor at 03.16am, and his cardiac arrest at 04.25am, James was not seen by a Doctor, and only Nurses were available in the department. The only Doctor on shift at that time was dealing with another very unwell patient, who also required resuscitation. 7. told me that at the point in time the deterioration in James was noted, sometime between 04.00-04.20am, James should have received fluids, and in his opinion, if he had done so, on the balance of probabilities, he would not have had a cardiac arrest. He added that this was beyond what he would expect a nurse to adduce, however, if the Doctor had been present, he believed this would have been done. 8. I am therefore concerned that there were not enough Doctors in the department at the time, meaning that there is no resilience to deal effectively with more than one very unwell patient at any given time. If this is not addressed, there is a risk of future deaths. 9. I further heard from that the blood products at Birmingham Heartlands Hospital are not kept in the ED, and are kept some distance away, and could take up to 20 minutes to obtain after the major haemorrhage protocol is activated. Whilst this is unlikely to have affected the outcome for James, due to his sudden deterioration, I am concerned that a delay in obtaining blood products could lead to future deaths.
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, 2024-0266
- 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