Source · Prevention of Future Deaths

Stephen Wells

Ref: 2022-0274 Date: 5 Sep 2022 Coroner: Karen Harrold Area: West Sussex Responses identified: 2 / 1 View PDF

Significant communication failures between trusts, an outdated service agreement, and reliance on informal referral "workarounds" led to a cancer patient missing crucial chemotherapy, with GPs lacking clear guidance on escalating concerns.

Date 5 Sep 2022
56-day deadline 1 Nov 2022
Responses identified 2 of 1
Hospital Death (Clinical Procedures and medical management) related deaths Other related deaths

Coroner's concerns

AI summary
Significant communication failures between trusts, an outdated service agreement, and reliance on informal referral "workarounds" led to a cancer patient missing crucial chemotherapy, with GPs lacking clear guidance on escalating concerns.
View full coroner's concerns
During the investigation, a) I heard evidence that Mr Wells GP wrote two urgent letters to the RSFT consultant oncologist and HPB surgeon dated 22 September 2021 raising concerns that the patient had heard nothing further after the liver surgery in September 2020. These letters were sent to the East Surrey hospital by the GP. I heard evidence that both consultants hold clinics in two East Surrey hospitals as well as within their own Trust area. Principally the letters were about lack of treatment for a cancer patient and I heard evidence during the inquest that the RSFT witness assisting the court on governance & risk issues did not know the doctors had received the letters and presumably were not logged on the Datix system thereby raising concerns regarding:
i. whether additional guidance may be appropriate for GPs to know where to raise concerns about patient treatment in hospital or tertiary care; and
ii. whether further guidance or refresher training is needed for hospital doctors regarding use of the relevant Datix system. b) I also heard evidence from SASH that they would not have expected Mr Wells to be transferred back to them after the liver surgery as further chemotherapy was needed. Conversely, RSFT were unable to explain why Mr Wells did not remain on the Somerset Cancer Registry (SCR) tracking system following discharge and the MDT discussion on 10 August 2020. I was told that the safety net to avoid a cancer patient such as Mr Wells failing to receive further treatment is an inter-provider transfer (IPT) to ensure the responsibility for care is formally transferred. In this case, a local process of consultant-to-consultant referrals, in other words a workaround, had evolved and both the hardcopy letter between doctors and an email from the CNS to two separate doctor’s secretaries had failed resulting in no further appointment been made. It was accepted that the communication failure was not identified in a timely manner and that communication systems between both Trusts had blurred with the suggestion that these could be clarified by a renegotiation of the Service Level Agreement (SLA). I was provided with a copy of the current SLA dated 1 January 2015 and note that the particulars state the contract term was 36 months with an end date of 31 December 2017. Given the importance of good systems of communication between Trusts and the IPT system I remain concerned about:
i. the lack of progress made in reviewing/renegotiating the SLA bearing in mind the difficulties in this case were drawn to the attention of the Trusts in September 2021.
ii. an ongoing firewall problem between the two Trusts as this places a current reliance on email rather than automatic electronic systems especially given the failure of emails in this case to secure a much-needed appointment. c) I heard evidence that Mr Wells was told his key contact in SASH was a named Clinical Nurse Specialist. When his care transferred to RSFT, witnesses expected his key contact to be changed to a CNS based within the St Luke’s Cancer Centre in Guildford. During the inquest I asked who the CNS was at RSFT and following enquiries learned that the St Luke’s staff believed the key contact was the SASH CNS. I remain concerned that there is insufficient clarity for both patients and staff when there is an IPT from SASH to RSFT and vice versa.

Responses

2 respondents
NHS England NHS / Health Body
5 Sep 2022 PDF
Action Taken

The Trusts have jointly developed a proforma letter to be given to patients when their care is transferred, containing key contact details and copied to the patient's GP and the receiving Clinical Nurse Specialist. The firewall issue between the Trusts has been resolved and electronic data connections are visible. (AI summary)

View full response
Dear Ms Harrold

Re: Regulation 28 Report to Prevent Future Deaths – Mr Stephen Wells who died on 04 October 2021

Thank you for your Report to Prevent Future Deaths (hereafter “Report”) 05 September 2022 concerning the death of Mr Stephen Wells on 04 October 2021.. In advance of responding to the specific concerns raised in your Report, I would like to express my deep condolences to Stephen’s family and loved ones. NHS England are keen to assure the family and the Coroner that the concerns raised about Stephen’s care have been listened to and reflected upon.

I am grateful for the further time granted to respond to your Report, and I apologise to the family for the delay.

Following the inquest, you raised concerns in your Report due to the lack of follow-up by an Oncologist after Stephen’s liver surgery on 3 August 2020, resulting in a gap of one year in providing Stephen with any further chemotherapy, or other treatment or monitoring, which would not have been curative but would have prolonged his life. To summarise, you queried whether additional guidance or refresher training would be appropriate (for GPs when raising concerns about patient hospital / tertiary treatment, and for hospital doctors regarding using Datix), and you raised several concerns about the communication between the two Trusts, particularly when there is an inter-provider transfer (IPT).

NHS England can advise that it is routine practice in primary care to have local systems in place to monitor cancer cases among patients. By September 2023, every local risk management supplier including Datix will need to connect to the Learn from patient safety events (LFPSE) service. The reporter can log the incident as occurring elsewhere by completing the question: “Under which organisation’s care did the incident occur”. NHS England’s Regulation 28 Working Group will notify regions and ICB (Integrated Care Board) quality teams / ICB patient safety specialists of any incident of concern occurring outside of primary care, so that this can be escalated to the other organisation. The Royal Surrey County Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (RSFT) have assured us that all consultants undertake yearly mandatory training, which includes the use of the Datix system and the expectation for Datix reporting of incidents.

Prior to the inquest, the Surrey and Sussex Healthcare NHS Trust (SASH) and RSFT conducted a joint review of the Service Level Agreement (SLA). The Trusts have been National Medical Director NHS England Wellington House 133-155 Waterloo Road London SE1 8UG

2 December 2022

working to ensure that the SLA has been reviewed and renegotiated, and that the learning from this inquest process and the concerns raised as a result have been incorporated into the new SLA.

RSFT have advised that they have developed a proforma letter to use at the point when a patient’s care is due to be transferred to another organisation. This letter is due to be ratified by the Oncology department and will then be used for all patients where care is being transferred from RSFT to other referring hospitals. Patients will receive a hard copy of this letter in person at their final face to face visit, which should avoid any issues with the letter being lost or delayed in a postal process, and ensure that the patient is clear on how and who to contact should they have concerns following their transfer of care. The letter will then be copied to the patient’s GP and to the Clinical Nurse Specialist at the receiving Trust, who will be taking on the role of the nominated point of contact for that patient.

RSFT and SASH have confirmed that the firewall problem between both Trusts has now been resolved and electronic data connections can be seen between both RSFT’s and SASH’s E-Tertiary system. It is hoped that the transfer and tracking of patient care can be monitored during December 2022. The system will go live in January 2023 for all hospitals referring into and receiving patients from the RSFT cancer services. Both Trusts have agreed to ensure that the transfer of information for all cancer patients should be in line with the ‘Cancer Waiting Times: Inter Provider Transfer Policy’. The policy has been developed by the NHS Wessex Cancer Alliance. This policy has been developed over the time period including Stephen’s inquest, and the lessons and concerns identified during this inquest have been considered during the development of the policy. A copy of the policy is enclosed with this response for your information.

I would also like to provide further assurances on the national NHSE work taking place around the Reports to Prevent Future Deaths. All reports received are discussed by the Regulation 28 Working Group, comprising Regional Medical Directors and other clinical and quality colleagues from across the regions. This ensures that key learnings and insights around events, such as the sad death of Stephen, are shared across the NHS at both a national and regional level, and helps us to pay close attention to any emerging trends that may require further review and action.

Thank you for bringing these important patient safety issues to my attention and please do not hesitate to contact me should you need any further information.
Royal Surrey Foundation Trust NHS NHS / Health Body
1 Nov 2022 PDF
Action Planned

The Trusts have jointly developed a proforma letter to be given to patients when their care is transferred, containing key contact details and copied to the patient's GP and the receiving Clinical Nurse Specialist. The firewall issue has been resolved. (AI summary)

View full response
Dear Mrs Harrold, Re: Regulation 28: Report to Prevent Future Deaths following the Inquest into the Death of Stephen Wells We are writing in response to the Report to Prevent Future Deaths which you issued to the Chief Executive Officers of both the Royal Surrey NHS Foundation Trust (RSFT) and Surrey and Sussex Healthcare NHS Trust (SASH) following the inquest touching upon the death of Mr Stephen Wells, which concluded on the 16th August 2022. Given that the concerns that you raised mainly involved the working communication and handover of care between both Trusts, and the fact that both Trusts have been working together since the inquest to address the concerns identified, we are submitting a jointly written and agreed reply addressing your concerns. We would like to thank you for investigating this matter so thoroughly and for bringing your concerns to our attention. The Prevention of Future Deaths report identifies five areas of concern, and we will address each of these areas of concern in turn below, along with details of the discussions and actions that we have undertaken or plan to undertake to address the issues identified.

1. Whether additional guidance may be appropriate for GPs to know where to raise concerns about patient treatment in hospital or tertiary care.

We have carefully considered this concern and believe that this will be answered by the changes that are being put into place in response to Concern 5, discussed below. These changes will ensure that both the patient and the GP are aware of the name and contact details of the patient’s nominated point of contact at all points in the patient’s pathway. This point of contact will, in almost all cases, be a Clinical Nurse Specialist. Should the GP have concerns about the care of their patient they would be able to raise their concerns directly with this nominated point of contact.

When this process is ready to go live RSFT will communicate this to all of our GP partners through direct communication, our regular monthly GP newsletter and our regular monthly ‘working together’ meeting held between primary and secondary care clinicians. This will ensure that all of our local GPs are aware of the new process and that should they wish to raise concerns about a specific patient they can do so using the contact details provided for

2

the nominated point of contact. The GPs local to RSFT also know that they can raise concerns directly through the ‘working together’ meeting or via email directly to the RSFT Medical Director and Deputy Medical Director. Similarly at SASH, the Surrey and Sussex GP groups both have a regular primary care interface meeting with the Trust’s Chief Medical Officer in which concerns can be raised or directly via email at any time.

2. Whether further guidance or refresher training is needed for hospital doctors regarding the use of the relevant Datix system.

This concern was raised following evidence heard by yourself during the inquest that the RSFT witness assisting the court on governance and risk issues did not know that the doctors had received letters from Mr Well’s GP raising concerns about the lack of ongoing follow up following his liver surgery.

This incident occurred at SASH and so the Serious Incident Investigation was conducted by SASH with input from RSFT. There was therefore no Datix incident raised at RSFT and additional documentation such as these letters would have been held at SASH rather than at RSFT.

At RSFT it would not be expected that consultants upload letters such as these to Datix as this would not be our normal process. However, it would be expected that letters such as these would have been identified during a Serious Incident Investigation and certainly during the preparation for inquest. At this point these letters would have been uploaded by the governance team to the Datix system and contained within the Serious Incident and inquest files. This data would then be provided to, and be reviewed by, the Trust witness assisting the court.

The RSFT Medical Director has asked the Deputy Medical Director and the Lead Consultant for Clinical Governance to conduct a review into the RSFT processes for Serious Incident Review and preparation for Inquest. This review will include ensuring that all relevant documents, such as letters, are identified and correctly contained within Datix and the Serious Incident review documentation, all documentation should then be reviewed by any witness attending an inquest to assist the court on governance and risk issues. There is a similar process at SASH.

To provide assurance about the raising of Datix incidents when a significant problem in patient care is identified, both Trusts can confirm that all consultants undertake yearly mandatory training which includes the use of the Datix system and the expectation for Datix reporting of incidents. The consultants also attend departmental and divisional governance meetings at which incidents are discussed that have been reported using the Datix system. There is therefore a high level of knowledge and awareness across the consultant body of the requirement to report incidents using the Datix system and of how to do this. The consultants, and all other staff members, are also aware of the need to report any patient identified as potentially lost to follow up immediately and to complete a Datix incident report. Incidents reported on Datix involving consultants, and other medical staff, are also discussed at their annual appraisal as a standard part of the appraisal process.

3. The lack of progress made in reviewing / renegotiating the SLA bearing in mind the difficulties in this case were drawn to the attention of the Trusts in September 2021.

Both Trusts recognise that greater progress should have been made in reviewing and renegotiating the SLA prior to the Inquest, particularly given that the Trusts were aware of the difficulties in this case in September 2021. We would like to thank you for bringing these issues to our attention both before and during the inquest. Since the inquest the Trusts have been working to ensure that the SLA has been reviewed and renegotiated and that the learning from

3

this inquest process and the concerns raised as a result have been incorporated into the new SLA. This SLA is now awaiting its final sign off by both organisations and we have enclosed a copy of the updated SLA with this response for your information.

Both Trusts have been discussing more broadly the provision of Oncology services between RSFT and SASH and how these may be delivered in the future. We are currently discussing a potential move to a new model of service delivery which would remove the division in care between the two Trusts and remove the need for a significant number of transfers of care between the two organisations.

RSFT are also reviewing their Cancer and Oncology SLAs with other Trusts and incorporating the learning from this event into those SLA renegotiations.

4. An ongoing firewall problem between the two Trusts as this places a current reliance on email rather than automatic electronic systems especially given the failure of emails in this case to secure a much-needed appointment.

The firewall problem has been resolved between the two Trusts and electronic data connections can be seen between the RSFT and SASH E-Tertiary systems. This data transfer is due to be further tested by the IT and Cancer teams in the week commencing the 7th November. The system will then be tested clinically as part of a planned move of Upper Gastrointestinal Oncology patients currently managed by SASH to the care of RSFT later in November when each patient will require a transfer of information.

Assuming that the testing scheduled for November is successful all RSFT cancer staff will be trained on the correct use of the E-Tertiary system and the transfer and tracking of patient care during December. The system will then go live for all hospitals referring into, and receiving patients from, the RSFT cancer services in January 2023.

Both Trusts have agreed to ensure that the transfer of information for all cancer patients should be in line with the ‘Cancer Waiting Times: Inter Provider Transfer Policy’ which has been developed by the Surrey and Sussex Cancer Alliance. This policy has been developed over the time period including this inquest and the lessons and concerns identified during this inquest have been considered during the development of the policy. A copy of the policy is enclosed with this response for your information.

RSFT is also working with all of the hospitals who refer patients into the Trust for cancer services to ensure that they also follow the practice laid out in the Surrey and Sussex Cancer Alliance policy.

5. Concerns that that there is insufficient clarity for both patients and staff as to the identity of the key contact for the patients care when there is an IPT from SASH to RSFT and vice versa.

Following the concerns identified during the inquest the Trusts have been working on an agreed pathway that will ensure that patients themselves receive a letter at the point when their care is due to be transferred to another organisation. This letter will contain the key contact details including a telephone number for the nominated point of contact at the receiving organisation. The patient will therefore always have the key contact details available to them. The letter will also be copied to the patients GP and to the receiving clinical nurse specialist at the receiving hospital. This ensures that the GP has access to the contact details of the nominated point of contact should they need to raise any concerns or otherwise make contact with the treating clinical team. The Inter Provider Transfer process will continue to be conducted in accordance with the Surrey and Sussex Cancer Alliance policy described in Concern 4.

4

RSFT have developed a proforma letter to use at the point when a patient’s care is due to be transferred to another organisation. This letter is due to be ratified by the RSFT Oncology department on the 4th November and will then be used for all patients where care is being transferred from RSFT to our referring hospitals. Patients will receive this letter in person at their final face to face visit, this will avoid any issues with the letter being lost or delayed in a postal process and ensure that the patient is clear on how and who to contact should they have concerns following their transfer of care. The letter will then be copied to the patient’s GP and to the Clinical Nurse Specialist at the receiving Trust who will taking on the role of the nominated point of contact for that patient.

On behalf of both Trusts we would like to take this opportunity to offer our sincere condolences to Mr Wells’ family for their loss. We hope that the actions outlined above assure you that we are committed to identifying learning and improving the quality of care for our patients.

Report sections

Investigation and inquest
On 12 October 2021, an investigation into the death of Stephen WELLS aged 59 years was commenced. The investigation concluded at the end of the inquest on 16 March 2022. The overall conclusion of the inquest was as follows: This was a death from natural causes, however, there was no follow-up for Mr Wells with an oncologist after his liver surgery on 3 August 2020 as recommended by the MDT meeting on 10 August. This resulted in a gap of one year in providing Mr Wells with any further chemotherapy or other treatment or monitoring, which his doctors agree would have prolonged his life. The medical cause of death was recorded as: 1a) Carcinoma colon with liver and lung metastases.
Circumstances of the death
Stephen Wells was 57 years old when he was referred by his GP to the Surrey and Sussex Healthcare Trust (SASH) on an urgent suspected cancer basis on 8 November 2019. He was seen in a colorectal clinic and investigations on 21 December 2019 led to a diagnosis of cancer with a tumour in the ascending colon. Following staging scans and a multidisciplinary team (MDT) meeting, Mr Wells had surgery to remove the tumour at East Surrey hospital on 16 January 2020. He was then referred to an oncologist as CT and MRI scans had previously shown multiple liver metastases. His care was transferred to the Royal Surrey County Hospital NHS Foundation Trust in order to receive chemotherapy. Four cycles were completed in Guildford from 20 March to 24 May 2020. The same day, Mr Wells had an MRI scan on his liver followed by a CT chest abdomen and pelvis on 9 June and these confirmed a moderate response to chemotherapy resulting in a referral to a consultant surgeon to consider liver surgery. This was performed on 3 August 2020 and Mr Wells was discharged home in the morning of 10 August 2020. In the afternoon of the same day an MDT was held at the Royal Surrey hospital and histology confirmed surgery had gone as well as could be expected but the results disclosed a lot more disease than had been expected. It was agreed there should be a follow-up appointment with an Oncologist. A post-surgery follow-up on 8 September 2020 noted that Mr Wells was making a slow but steady recovery. The surgeon explained the post-operative pathology findings to Mr Wells and why it was advisable to have a referral back to the oncologist to discuss the benefits of further chemotherapy or a period of surveillance. A referral letter from the surgeon to the oncologist in the same Trust was prepared dated 9 September 2020. During the inquest, it was accepted by both Trusts that despite an internal investigation no explanation could be provided as to what happened to that letter. The last step in the audit was that the letter was printed in the East Surrey hospital and it should have been sent internally to a secretary in Crawley Hospital. In addition, the internal investigation discovered that a colorectal cancer nurse specialist had reviewed the outcomes of the MDT held on 10 August 20 and emailed both the surgeon and oncologist secretaries asking if Mr Wells had been booked in at either SASH or Royal Surrey and requesting that a follow-up appointment be made. The last email that could be traced was from the Royal Surrey secretary to the SASH secretary confirming Mr Wells did not have an appointment at Royal Surrey and querying whether an appointment would be made at Crawley or Guildford. The outcome was that Mr Wells received no further contact from either Trust after the liver surgery follow up on 8 September 2020 and this resulted in a one-year gap in his treatment. Mr Wells saw his GP on 8 September 2021 who advised him to go straight to hospital. Further restaging scans demonstrated widespread liver disease and lung metastases that could not be treated. A referral was made to a hospice for palliative care, but Mr Wells was cared for by his family until his death at home on 4 October 2021. The internal investigation report noted the Oncologist confirmed that if he had seen Mr Wells in September 2020, he would have been offered three months of chemotherapy, but it was felt this would not have been curative as the patient had a poor prognosis at that time. It was accepted in the inquest that it was likely the additional treatment would have extended Mr Wells life expectancy by six months or more.
Copies sent to
b) Surrey & Sussex Healthcare NHS Trust c) Royal Surrey NHS Foundation Trust. :­ a) (GP) Moatfield Surgery, East Grinstead b) (Consultant Oncologist) St Luke’s Cancer Centre, Royal Surrey County Hospital c) (Consultant Surgeon) Royal Surrey County Hospital d) NHS Sussex
Inquest conclusion
This was a death from natural causes, however, there was no follow-up for Mr Wells with an oncologist after his liver surgery on 3 August 2020 as recommended by the MDT meeting on 10 August. This resulted in a gap of one year in providing Mr Wells with any further chemotherapy or other treatment or monitoring, which his doctors agree would have prolonged his life. The medical cause of death was recorded as: 1a) Carcinoma colon with liver and lung metastases.

Similar PFD reports

Shared signals

Related inquiry recommendations

Similar themes

Report details

Reference
2022-0274
Date of report
5 September 2022
Coroner
Karen Harrold
Coroner area
West Sussex

Responses identified

Responses identified 2 of 1
All listed responses identified

Organisations named in PFD reports are normally expected to respond within 56 days. Deadline: 1 Nov 2022.

Sent to

NHS England, Royal Surrey County Hospital NHS Foundation Trust and Surrey and Sussex Healthcare NHS Trust

Source links