Minute Book, home
Coroner’s reportPrevention of future deaths · 2025-0093

“are, as follows: 1”

Dated 17 Feb 2025, from the coroner for Inner North London. 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.

Read the full report on judiciary.uk

How this works

The 56-day response deadline

All responses published

Replies were due by 14 Apr 2025.

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 dated17 Feb 2025
  2. Deadline14 Apr 2025
  3. Published on judiciary.uk20 Feb 2025
  4. 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.

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

The coroner’s concerns

are, as follows: 1. The consultant geriatrician’s evidence was that CT scan was requested to take place ‘as soon as possible’ following the first unwitnessed fall on 25 July 2024; however, they accepted that this was not conducted in a timely manner. Further, following the second unwitnessed fall on 28 July 2024, there was a further delay in a CT scan taking place. I was told that this scan should have been conducted within 1-2 hours of the request being made, yet it took place over three hours after the patient was reviewed by the doctor and the request for the scan was made. In Mr Eastman’s case, the delays in receiving the scans transpired to be immaterial in the particular circumstances. However, I am concerned that if delays in such scans, where traumatic injury is suspected, are repeated in the future, there is a risk that deaths could occur. 2. There was evidence of what I considered to be ‘widespread communication issues’ in the care provided to Mr Eastman. These included: • When the on-call doctor attended to review Mr Eastman at approximately 02:45 on 28 July 2024, ward staff (incorrectly) told the doctor that nobody had fallen on the ward, which lead to the doctor leaving the ward without Mr Eastman having been reviewed. As the consultant geriatrician said in his evidence, communication between the ward staff and medical staff was not good. The evidence revealed that there were deficiencies in basic record keeping. 3. As set out above, there was clear evidence that the Trust has put extensive measures in place to address the issue of staff having not followed the Trust’s own post-fall procedures and protocols. However, I am concerned that the issue may not be limited to just those particular protocols and may be indicative of a wider skills/knowledge deficit. 4. Following on from the matter set out in paragraph 3 above, the evidence revealed a lack of professional curiosity on the part of some staff members (nursing and medical). In my view, this could also be indicative of an underlying skills/knowledge deficit. 6.

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, 2025-0093
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