Source · Prevention of Future Deaths

Janet Rice

Ref: 2024-0397 Date: 23 Jul 2024 Coroner: Janine Richards Area: Durham and Darlington Responses identified: 1 / 1 View PDF

The patient safety investigation report was significantly delayed and not a comprehensive review of omissions in anti-coagulant provision, with a limited remit and action plan focused only on the community hospital setting; training was also limited to the community hospital setting.

Date 23 Jul 2024
56-day deadline 17 Sep 2024 est.
Responses identified 1 of 1
Hospital Death (Clinical Procedures and medical management) related deaths

Coroner's concerns

AI summary
The patient safety investigation report was significantly delayed and not a comprehensive review of omissions in anti-coagulant provision, with a limited remit and action plan focused only on the community hospital setting; training was also limited to the community hospital setting.
View full coroner's concerns
(1) The final version of the patient safety investigation report carried out by the Trust was only received on the first day of the Inquest, some 16 months after the death. The concerns raised in this Inquest have been well known to the Trust for a considerable period of time and the concern is that lessons cannot be learned in a timely fashion if patient safety investigations are so significantly delayed.

(2) The patient safety investigation report is not a comprehensive and robust review of the omissions in provision of anti coagulant and does not consider or address the omission to administer anti coagulant because the deceased was transferred between hospitals, nor does it detail all of the incidents of missed anti coagulant, some of which only became apparent upon receipt of the independent expert report. It’s remit and action plan are limited to the community hospital only, and do not consider or address the further instances of omission to administer anti coagulant in the acute hospital setting, where there was a continued failure to carry out a capacity assessment and any subsequent best interests decision making process, failure to escalate these issues, and/or to consider any alternative treatment to reduce the high risk of DVT/PE.

(3) Although evidence was heard in relation to the provision of further training in relation to the issues of capacity and best interests decision making, to address the concerns identified in this investigation this was limited to the community hospital setting, when it is known that the issues continued in the acute hospital setting.

Responses

1 respondent
Durham and Darlington NHS NHS Trust
13 Sep 2024 PDF
Action Taken

Durham and Darlington NHS have completed actions including improving documentation, sharing learning, and pharmacy attendance at Sister's Away Day. These actions are designed to address concerns about omissions in anti-coagulant provision and capacity/best interest decision making. (AI summary)

View full response
Dear Ms Richards, Re: Janet Rice We are writing in response to your request for the Trust to take action in relation to concerns as detailed below: (1) The final version of the patient safety investigation report carried out by the Trust was only received on the first day of the Inquest, some 16 months after the death. The concerns raised in this Inquest have been well known to the Trust for a considerable period of time and the concern is that lessons cannot be learned in a timely fashion if patient safety investigations are so significantly delayed. (2) The patient safety investigation report is not a comprehensive and robust review of the omissions in provision of anti-coagulant and does not consider or address the omission to administer anti-coagulant because the deceased was transferred between hospitals, nor does it detail all of the incidents of missed anti-coagulant, some of which only became apparent upon receipt of the independent expert report. It’s remit and action plan are limited to the community hospital only, and do not consider or address the further instances of omission to administer anti-coagulant in the acute hospital setting, where there was a continued failure to carry out a capacity assessment and any subsequent best interests decision making process, failure to escalate these issues, and/or to consider any alternative treatment to reduce the high risk of DVT/PE. (3) Although evidence was heard in relation to the provision of further training in relation to the issues of capacity and best interests decision making, to address the concerns identified in this investigation this was limited to the community hospital setting, when it is known that the issues continued in the acute hospital setting. The Trust would like to offer its sincere condolences to Janet’s family for their loss. We take very seriously the concerns which you have raised and have provided a response below. The final version of the patient safety investigation report carried out by the Trust was only received on the first day of the Inquest, some 16 months after the death. The concerns raised in this Inquest have been well known to the Trust for a considerable period of time and the concern is that lessons cannot be learned in a timely fashion if patient safety investigations are so significantly delayed.

The Trust has robust processes in place in relation to the investigation of any patient safety incidents identified. When the Trust were made aware that there were patient safety concerns relating to Janet’s care, in April 2024, a review commenced of her care led by one of the Community matrons. The time taken to conclude and ensure the report had progressed through the appropriate Trust governance resulted in the report not being available to yourself until the morning of the inquest. However we recognise that this was not an acceptable timeframe to enable you to properly review the report. Whilst the progress of patient safety investigations have always been tracked by the corporate patient safety team, additional processes have now been established whereby these cases are tracked at the weekly Friday Senior Clinical Leaders patient safety forum. The patient safety investigation report is not a comprehensive and robust review of the omissions in provision of anti-coagulant and does not consider or address the omission to administer anti-coagulant because the deceased was transferred between hospitals, nor does it detail all of the incidents of missed anti-coagulant, some of which only became apparent upon receipt of the independent expert report. It’s remit and action plan are limited to the community hospital only, and do not consider or address the further instances of omission to administer anti-coagulant in the acute hospital setting, where there was a continued failure to carry out a capacity assessment and any subsequent best interests decision making process, failure to escalate these issues, and/or to consider any alternative treatment to reduce the high risk of DVT/PE. The Trust acknowledges this and the report has now been reviewed and updated to ensure that all elements of Janet’s care, both acute and community, have been included which is also reflected and incorporated in the action plan (included in Appendix A). Although evidence was heard in relation to the provision of further training in relation to the issues of capacity and best interests decision making, to address the concerns identified in this investigation this was limited to the community hospital setting, when it is known that the issues continued in the acute hospital setting. This is addressed in the action plan included in appendix A. Conclusion We trust that the responses detailed in this letter are sufficient to address the concerns you have highlighted. However, please feel free to contact us if you need any additional information or have further queries.

Report sections

Circumstances of the death
Janet Rice, 65 years, died in hospital on the 19.3.23 as a result of pulmonary and cerebral embolism, subsequent to surgery to repair a hip fracture which she had sustained in an accidental fall on the 19.2.24. In the aftermath of her surgery the deceased did not receive prophylactic anti coagulant medication consistently. On one occasion this was missed due to a transfer between hospitals. On five further occasions this was omitted as a result of the deceased declining such, at a time when she was suffering an acute delirium, and described variously as confused, paranoid and agitated. No assessment of her capacity to decline the medication was carried out, and therefore no best interests decision was made, nor any further consideration given as to how the known high risk of blood clots subsequent to the surgery could be best or alternatively managed. There was no escalation to an Advanced Nurse Practitioner or Doctor to consider these issues further. It is unlikely that the deceased had capacity to decline treatment but impossible to know what the result of any best interests decision would have been, and whether further or alternative actions would have prevented her death. It is accepted that the omission of anti coagulant contributed more than minimally to the development of the Pulmonary Embolism and thus to death.

Similar PFD reports

Shared signals

Related inquiry recommendations

Similar themes

Report details

Reference
2024-0397
Date of report
23 July 2024
Coroner
Janine Richards
Coroner area
Durham and Darlington

Responses identified

Responses identified 1 of 1
All listed responses identified

Organisations named in PFD reports are normally expected to respond within 56 days. Deadline: 17 Sep 2024 (estimated).

Sent to

County Durham and Darlington NHS Foundation Trust

Source links