“In the course of the inquest, I found the following facts to have been established: 1)…”

The coroner’s concerns

– In the course of the inquest, I found the following facts to have been established: 1) Although Mr. Bradley had already been documented to have been hard of hearing, the urological appointment he was offered in March 2021 was by telephone, and he had not confirmed prior to that appointment that he would be willing and able to attend it. It is quite possible that he did not hear the telephone when attempts were made to contact him. It was conceded at 1 inquest by , who conducted a serious incident investigation on behalf of the Trust, that it was a mistake to have tried to arrange this appointment by telephone, and that it should have been conducted in person; 2) After the urology appointment in March 2021 was missed, there is no evidence that letters seeking to rearrange it were sent either to Mr. Bradley or to his GP. In his evidence at the inquest, stated: “[ the Trust’s ] tracking system should have picked up on the fact that Mr. Bradley’s treatment targets had not been met”; and “the urology team’s system for tracking cancer patients needs to be improved...” but that “[ there is ] still some disagreement as to how this should be done”. 3) Between March 2021 and December 2022, despite receiving no follow up from the urology team, Mr. Bradley continued to have appointments with Prof. Downing’s vascular team, to whom he had been referred because of a potential weakness in his aorta, which may have affected the decision to proceed with a nephrectomy. He did not, however, attend for PET scan appointments in the summer of 2021 which the vascular team had organised. There is no evidence that the vascular team wrote to Mr. Bradley or to his GP about those missed scan appointments; 4) Despite contact with the vascular team relating directly to his urological issues, there is no evidence that either team contacted the other about Mr. Bradley’s missed appointments; nor did the vascular team update the urology team about the appointments which Mr. Bradley did attend. In his evidence at the inquest, stated: “I think the vascular team should have been keeping the urology team abreast of their contacts with Mr. Bradley. I think maybe they lost focus of the bigger picture, i.e. that these vascular investigations were being done because of the potential renal surgery.” I was therefore satisfied that: (a) The Trust’s urology team had no clear system in place to try to ensure that a patient who missed an important urology appointment could be followed up, and his treatment targets met. That still appears to be the case; (b) Where, as here, more than one team was involved in a patient’s care, there was no clear system in place to ensure that the teams involved communicated with each other about the progress they were making with the patient, and about any appointments missed by the patient.

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, 2024-0301

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