“(brief summary of matters of concern) 5 CORONER’S CONCERNS During the course of the…”
Dated 15 Jul 2024, from the coroner for Suffolk. 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
Deadline passedReplies were due by 9 Sep 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.
- Report dated15 Jul 2024
- Deadline9 Sep 2024
- Published on judiciary.uk30 Jul 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 |
|---|---|
| REDACTED | Deadline passedNo response published on judiciary.uk so far. The 56-day deadline was 9 Sep 2024. A reply may have been sent and not yet published. |
| REDACTED | Deadline passedNo response published on judiciary.uk so far. The 56-day deadline was 9 Sep 2024. A reply may have been sent and not yet published. |
| Norfolk and Suffolk NHS Foundation TrustNamed in the report as “Norfolk and Suffolk Foundation Trust” | Response publishedPublished on judiciary.uk in July 2024. |
The coroner’s concerns
(brief summary of matters of concern) 5 CORONER’S CONCERNS During the course of the inquest the evidence revealed matters given rise to concern. In my opinion there is a risk that future deaths could occur unless action is taken. In the circumstances it is my statutory duty to report to you; the MATTERS OF CONCERN as follows. – Regulation 28 – After Inquest Document Template Updated 30/07/2021 In evidence it was heard that Owen had a limited short-term memory and a cognitive deficit, due to the previous Traumatic Brain Injuries that he had suffered. As a result of Owen’s limited short-term memory and cognitive deficit, it was agreed that his next of kin would be informed of all of the appointments Owen had with the NSFT clinician’s providing his care. Evidence at inquest heard that Owen’s next of kin had been informed of such meetings on some occasions, but that it did not occur on every occasion. In addition, evidence was heard that when meetings were changed a short notice (due to unforeseen circumstances, staff sickness or leave absence), Owen himself would be informed, but not his agreed next of kin contact. This led to Owen missing a number of appointments as he had forgotten the changes made, whereas his next of kin would have been able to remind him, and prompt him to attend. It was acknowledged by the court, that in Owen’s case there was no evidence that his attendance at one of his missed appointments would have changed the tragic outcome. However, I am concerned that in the future, an individual with a short-term memory and a cognitive deficit will miss an appointment which could prevent their death, if their next of kin (or chosen point of contact) are not also told of short notice changes to the timings of that appointment. Evidence was heard that there is no system in place to facilitate this.
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, 2024-0374
- 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