“Despite being under the care of the medical team, Ms”
Dated 24 Sep 2024, from the coroner for Worcestershire. Sent to 1 organisation or person.
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 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.
- Report dated24 Sep 2024
- Deadline19 Nov 2024
- Published on judiciary.uk25 Sep 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 |
|---|---|
| Worcestershire Acute Hospitals NHS Trust | Response publishedPublished on judiciary.uk in September 2024. |
The coroner’s concerns
– 1) Despite being under the care of the medical team, Ms. Stevens did also receive input from the surgical team. Her situation was further complicated by the fact that for most of her admission she was placed as a medical outlier on 1 a surgical ward. In the event, no one consultant was in overall charge of her care, which meant that the issues identified in this case were not picked up on. I heard evidence that there was no policy in place at the Trust to give guidance as to how this sort of situation should be resolved, but instead that it was expected that consultants would liaise with each other in order to do so. That did not happen in this case; 2) No doctor providing care for Ms. Stevens followed the established principle that the prescription of intravenous fluids for a patient must be accompanied by regular testing of electrolytes. In Ms. Stevens’ case, this was particularly important because her baseline sodium level was low anyway, so the overprescription of fluids put her at greater risk of hyponatraemia; 3) There was no proper recording of Ms. Stevens’ fluid intake and output on fluid balance charts for most of her hospital admission. For the reasons set out at 2) above, this was vitally important in her case; 4) Ms. Stevens’ hospital notes revealed evidence of the routine “copying and pasting” of out-of-date care plans by previous doctors. This meant that the next person reading her notes would be left with an erroneous view of her current care plan.
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, 2024-0512
- 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