“The inquest heard evidence that Macclesfield Hospital was part of East Cheshire NHS Trust…”
Dated 17 Jul 2024, from the coroner for Manchester South. 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.
The 56-day response deadline
All responses publishedReplies were due by 11 Sep 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 dated17 Jul 2024
- Deadline11 Sep 2024
- Published on judiciary.uk31 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 |
|---|---|
| NHS England | Response publishedPublished on judiciary.uk in July 2024. |
| East Cheshire NHS Trust | Response publishedPublished on judiciary.uk in July 2024. |
The coroner’s concerns
– 1. The inquest heard evidence that Macclesfield Hospital was part of East Cheshire NHS Trust and served a wide area a significant part of the area served was outside the footprint of the trust for example the High Peak in Derbyshire. The inquest was told that trust doctors were able to access GP records for patient’s registered with GPs in East Cheshire but not patients registered outside this area. The inquest was told there were discussions about how to try to resolve this but no firm steps or progress on this by the Trust. As a consequence doctors at the hospital were limited in understanding a patient’s history and crucial information was not always fully recognised/available. 2. The inquest was told that this inability to access information in GP records was a problem across the NHS due to differing IT systems and caused difficulties in providing effective and timely care to patients. 3. The inquest heard evidence that in September 2023 when he went to his GP practice he did not see a doctor. It was not recognised by the practitioner who saw him that there may need to be a follow-up appointment or a recommendation that he return to see a doctor should the x ray be negative given his history and presentation.
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, 2024-0381
- 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