Source · Prevention of Future Deaths

Adrian Ashford

Ref: 2020-0054 Date: 7 Feb 2020 Coroner: Andrew Harris Area: London Inner South Responses identified: 1 / 1 View PDF

There was no systematic process for recording patient weights to identify critical changes, and a consultant failed to recognise serious GI bleed risks or make appropriate specialist referrals for a deteriorating patient.

Date 7 Feb 2020
56-day deadline 13 May 2020 est.
Responses identified 1 of 1
Hospital Death (Clinical Procedures and medical management) related deaths Mental Health related deaths

Coroner's concerns

AI summary
There was no systematic process for recording patient weights to identify critical changes, and a consultant failed to recognise serious GI bleed risks or make appropriate specialist referrals for a deteriorating patient.
View full coroner's concerns
The family have made a submission listing eleven concerns, which say trigger my Regulation 28 These have been carefully considered: Three general remarks are needed; Firstly individual matters of clinical misjudgment_still less Upper from day, day drop day they duty: retrospective missed opportunities do not in themselves trigger my statutory Secondly that Mr Ashford'$ death and the hearing of this inquest has raised awareness of risks and led to professionals reviewing their clinical practice: Thirdly setvice developments have addressed some risks such as the urgent cancer referral process and the unified connect care system, health care across organizations, which is being implemented: The court has received submissions from QEH; that a PFD report is not required. CORONER'S GP and Divisional Medical Director, both gave cvidence of the value of having some system for regular weighing, and that it might save lives This would enable reported weight loss to be verified and quantified and highlight triggers for investigation in timely manner, But there appears to be no systematic process of recording weights. The consultant in acute medicine, who was on call when Mr Ashford was admitted to AkE on 12*h December 2018 by psychiatrists, concerned about the risk of GI bleeding, diagnosed constipation and returned him to psychiatric bed. It appears he failed to identify the risks of GI bleed identified in AGE on nor the reasons for concern for urgent transfer (dehydration and drop in haemoglobin from 126 to 102g/1). On 14h he also failed to consider referral to a gastro-enterologist; after his blood pressure fell to 83/59 with a tachycardia of 112. He told the court "he was not thinking GI bleed". Asked about learning this death, he said that there was no change in his practice, other than increased awareness

Responses

1 respondent
Lewisham and Greenwich NHS Trust. NHS / Health Body
7 Feb 2020 PDF
Action Taken

Lewisham and Greenwich NHS Trust has implemented a trust-wide electronic patient record system that enables weight to be consistently recorded and observed by all staff. The consultant involved in the case has conducted a case review and reflection to use in their annual appraisal, and a new standard operating procedure for managing suspected upper GI bleeding has been produced and circulated. (AI summary)

View full response
Dear Mr Harris

REGULATION 28 REPORT TO PREVENT FUTURE DEATHS Re: Mr Adrian Ashford

I am writing in response to your report dated 7th February 2020 and referenced above. The report raised two matters of concern

The matter raised are:

1. Dr , GP and , Divisional Medical Director, both gave evidence of the value of having some system for regular weighing and that it might save lives.. This would enable reported weight loss to be verified and quantified and highlight triggers for investigation in a timely manner. But there appears to be no systematic process of recording weights.

2. The consultant in acute medicine who was on call when Mr Ashford was admitted to A&E on 12th December 2018 by psychiatrists, concerned about the risk of GI bleeding, diagnosed constipation and returned him to a psychiatric bed. It appears he failed to identify the risks of GI bleed identified in A&E on 11th, nor the reasons for concern for urgent transfer (dehydration and drop in haemoglobin from 126 to 102g/l). On 14th he also failed to consider referral to a gastro- enterologist, after his blood pressure fell to 83/59 with a tachycardia of 112. He told the court “he was not thinking GI bleed”. Asked about learning from this death, he said that there was no change in his practice, other than increased awareness.

In response to the first matter:

Whether there is benefit in a systematic process of recording patients’ weights-

In accordance with your recommendation, the Trust agrees that there is a benefit in a systematic process of recording patients’ weight”.

To this effect:

- The Trust has now implemented a trust-wide electronic patient record system (since May-June
2019). The system enables weight to be consistently recorded electronically which can then be observed by all staff within the Trust

- The Trust also has a systematic process in place that covers weekly weights. On admission, there is a nursing task called safety assessment. The safety assessment is a set of assessments bundled into one task. One of the assessments within the safety assessment is the Nutritional Assessment, which includes patient weight/ height/ BMI. This task is then presented automatically on a weekly basis following admission. Weights and heights are then viewable in iView for all staff within the Trust

- Additionally, the electronic medicines management system has recently implemented a new way in which to get weights onto the system. There is now an order on the system that can be ordered to any desired frequency. This needs to be completed from the drug chart. Once completed in the drug chart the weights are viewable in iView as well.

In response to the second matter:

Whether the consultant involved in this case would benefit from reporting this case to whoever conducts his appraisal to consider if he would benefit from further support or professional development-

I have met with the consultant involved and we have discussed this case fully. The consultant has conducted a complete case review and reflection that he will use in his annual appraisal. He has changed his own clinical practice and has also made his colleagues aware through a grand round to share the learning. A new standard operating procedure for managing suspected upper GI bleeding has been produced and circulated.

I wish to assure you that my team and I take these concerns very seriously and remain open to any suggestions about how we could further improve current processes.

Should you have any questions in regard to any of the information in this letter or require any further information please do not hesitate to contact me.

Report sections

Investigation and inquest
opened an inquest into the death of Mr Adrian Ashford, who died on 15th December 2018 in Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Woolwich (0345218 JB). An inquest was opened on 7u June 2019 and was concluded on 7h January 2020. The medical cause of death waS: la gastrointestinal bleeding 1b Chronic Peptic Ulcer. The conclusion was Natural Causes_
Circumstances of the death
Mr Ashford suffered psychotic depression with associated anorexia, weight loss and constipation, about which he was fixated. This Was sufficiently severe to have a colonoscopy which was normal and to require admission to & mental health ward. On 11th December he was transferred to A& E with concern about the risk of a GI bleed He was transferred back as he was stable, without referral to & gastroenterologist: He was admitted to a medical ward the following but the risk of "bleeding on initial assessment that was not communicated to the consultant reviewing him on [2t. He was rehydrated and his further in haemoglobin ascribed to dilution. His circulation was restored with fluids the following when the haemoglobin and blood pressure further dropped. He died after a massive GI bleed at 15.52 on 15th, from which he could not be resuscitated Even if thc diagnosis of his asymptomatic chronic peptic ulcer had been made by endoscopy before death, it cannot be concluded it would have enabled his life to be saved.
Action should be taken
In my opinion action should be taken to prevent future deaths: [believe that the NHS Trust medical director would wish to learn of the evidence given in the inquest about the circumstances of this death and are in a position to mitigate Or prevent future deaths and consider: Whether there is benefit is a systematic process of recording patients' weights
6) Whether the consultant involved in this case would benefit from reporting this case to whoever conducts his appraisals, to consider ifhe would benefit from further support or professional development:

Similar PFD reports

Shared signals

Related inquiry recommendations

Similar themes

Report details

Reference
2020-0054
Date of report
7 February 2020
Coroner
Andrew Harris
Coroner area
London Inner South

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: 13 May 2020 (estimated).

Sent to

Queen Elizabeth Hospital

Source links