Minute Book, home
Coroner’s reportPrevention of future deaths · 2024-0300

“(brief summary of matters of concern) 1”

Dated 3 Jun 2024, from the coroner for Surrey. 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

Deadline passed

Replies were due by 29 Jul 2024. A reply may have been sent and not yet published.

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.

  1. Report dated3 Jun 2024
  2. Deadline29 Jul 2024
  3. Published on judiciary.uk6 Jun 2024
  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

Responses from each recipient
Sent toResponse
Frimley Health NHS Foundation TrustResponse publishedPublished on judiciary.uk in June 2024.
REDACTEDDeadline passedNo response published on judiciary.uk so far. The 56-day deadline was 29 Jul 2024. A reply may have been sent and not yet published.

The coroner’s concerns

(brief summary of matters of concern) 1. In evidence I was advised during Mrs McCreadie's stay in hospital her dietetic needs were not addressed as there was insufficient staffing in the dietician department. I asked the hospital when giving evidence if these issues had been addressed and was advised that there were still ongoing. I am concerned that if appropriate staffing levels are not put in Regulation 28 – After Inquest Document Template Updated 30/07/2021 place, patient's needs will not be met. 2. During evidence I was advised that a training need had been identified for staff regarding pressure sores following the passing of Mrs McCreadie. I have been advised in submissions by the hospital that they intend to address this training need by identifying elearning staff can complete. Given in evidence it was identified that a) some staff do not know how to support and or handle patients who are in pain and refuse to be repositioned; and b) the staff are unaware of the techniques needed to be used to reposition patients who have multiple injuries, I do not consider that these can be adequately addressed by elearning. 3. During the doctor's evidence, at inquest, an issue was highlighted regarding ordering of fortsips on the hospital computer system, a dietary supplement. An order had been made to be started on 10th May to 3rd June twice daily. This was not processed. I was advised in evidence by the hospital that the doctor could be shown how to release it. However, there is no evidence as to how this error could be identified if it should reoccur and a clinician was not aware that the order for fortsips was not released on the system. 4. At the time of the inquest, I was informed during Mrs McCreadie's stay a number of staff were agency staff. I note that the hospital now have more permanent staff in place on the ward than when Mrs McCreadie was on the ward. I remain concerned that agency staff who may still need to be called to assist on the ward may not have sufficient training on the computer system used for recording medical care provided before they are required to do so whilst working on the ward. At the inquest there was evidence that insufficient training had been given and therefore there were inconsistencies in recording of treatment given or needed. I understand permanent staff receive 9 hours of training, whereas agency staff may receive only up to 1 hour of training.

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, 2024-0300
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