“The inquest heard evidence that the GP practice had in accordance with the local…”
Dated 15 Oct 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 10 Dec 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 dated15 Oct 2024
- Deadline10 Dec 2024
- Published on judiciary.uk16 Oct 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 |
|---|---|
| Department of Health and Social Care | Response publishedPublished on judiciary.uk in October 2024. |
| NHS Derby and Derbyshire Integrated Care BoardNamed in the report as “Derby and Derbyshire Integrated Care Board” | Response publishedPublished on judiciary.uk in October 2024. |
The coroner’s concerns
– 1. The inquest heard evidence that the GP practice had in accordance with the local requirements introduced an electronic patient enquiry service alongside a telephone service. Patients contacting the surgery had to select which stream within the practice their enquiry went to. It was not always clear from the headings whether the query would be seen by a GP or the admin team. Information that went into the admin work stream from a patient did not go onto the patient record and was not seen by a doctor. The GPs at the practice were unaware of this and patients had no way of knowing that the information they had sent in was not in the patient record. The practice involved in this inquest had taken steps since identifying the issue to mitigate the risks. However the evidence before the inquest was that the software in question was widely used by GP practices within Derbyshire and nationally. 2. The evidence from the ENT consultant was that it was important that where a patient presented with a hoarse voice that all health professionals explored for how long it had been an issue and whether there was a realistic treatable cause for it .In the absence of any clear cause such as a throat infection or where there was no clear response to treatment then a hoarse voice should be seen as a red flag symptom for laryngeal cancers and result in a referral on the 2 week wait. It was clear from the evidence at the inquest that unlike other cancer red flags such as blood in urine the significance of a persistent hoarse voice was not recognised by a number of different healthcare professionals who saw him. The inquest was told that early detection of laryngeal cancers through early referrals on the 2 week wait significantly improves the outcomes for patients because far more treatment options are open to clinicians. 3. A number of different health professionals had input into his care. This meant that there was no one health professional who had a good insight into his overall deterioration and symptoms. Where multiple practitioners were involved one person needed to maintain oversight or the electronic patient record needed to have easily accessible clear action plans and notes were required so that a patient and their symptoms could be seen holistically rather than a one off. 4. There was also evidence that there is limited public awareness of how significant a change in voice can be and recognising it as a potential cancer symptom. Greater public awareness of symptoms of laryngeal cancers would ensure the public were better placed to seek help at an early stage. 2
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, 2024-0555
- 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