Minute Book, home
Coroner’s reportPrevention of future deaths · 2024-0510

“Mr Coulthard was assessed as being suitable for discharge on 18th December”

Dated 24 Sep 2024, from the coroner for Manchester South. 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.

Read the full report on judiciary.uk

How this works

The 56-day response deadline

All responses published

Replies were due by 19 Nov 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.

  1. Report dated24 Sep 2024
  2. Deadline19 Nov 2024
  3. Published on judiciary.uk24 Sep 2024
  4. Today27 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
Care Quality CommissionNamed in the report as “CQC”Response publishedPublished on judiciary.uk in September 2024.
Department of Health and Social CareNamed in the report as “Department of Health”Response publishedPublished on judiciary.uk in September 2024.
NHS Greater Manchester Integrated Care BoardNamed in the report as “Greater Manchester Integrated Care”Response publishedPublished on judiciary.uk in September 2024.

The coroner’s concerns

– 1. Mr Coulthard was assessed as being suitable for discharge on 18th December. He remained in an acute hospital setting for a further 4 weeks due to challenges in identifying a suitable care home. This was due the inquest was told to a shortage of suitable places and the Christmas period. The impact of this on Mr Coulthard was that he remained in an acute setting when the inquest was told the care he required would have been better delivered in a care home /nursing home setting. In addition the inquest heard evidence that it meant that an acute bed required for other patients was not available creating delays in allocating beds to patients requiring admission. The inquest was told that significant delays of this nature occur on a regular basis and are often exacerbated over the Christmas period. 2. The lack of effective communication between the discharging team and the community teams meant that it was not understood if Mr Coulthard was on End of Life Care or for rehabilitation. The staff at the first home treated him as an End of life patient / palliative care patient as a consequence even though the paperwork suggested he may be a discharge to assess patient. As a consequence he was moved to another care home for rehabilitation although the evidence was that there was little purpose in the transfer. 3. The inquest also heard evidence that the staff at the care home had queried what level and type of care was to be delivered to Mr Coulthard given his overall presentation. However there was no evidence that the management team had sought to clarify the position or ensure the internal documentation reflected the correct position. 4. The evidence before the inquest was that whilst in the community prior to his final hospital admission the access to information and support, from tissue viability and district nursing teams, to care for and treat his wounds was very limited. Better access to wound care would have reduced the risk of further wound deterioration in the community and reduced the risk of him requiring inpatient care for his wounds. However the demands across GM on TVN and DN services made this difficult to achieve.

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, 2024-0510
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