Source · Prevention of Future Deaths

Gladys Rich

Ref: 2018-0149 Date: 14 May 2018 Coroner: Hassan Shah Area: Northamptonshire Responses identified: 1 / 4 View PDF

The care home failed in fall risk assessment and action plan implementation, while the under-resourced Falls Prevention Service lacked proactive follow-up and discharge mechanisms.

Date 14 May 2018
56-day deadline 10 Jul 2018
Responses identified 1 of 4
Care Home Health related deaths Hospital Death (Clinical Procedures and medical management) related deaths

Coroner's concerns

AI summary
The care home failed in fall risk assessment and action plan implementation, while the under-resourced Falls Prevention Service lacked proactive follow-up and discharge mechanisms.
View full coroner's concerns
1. In relation to Avenue House Nursing and Care Home.  a) Failure to identify Mrs Rich as a falls risk during a pre‐assessment process,  despite the fact that she had sustained a fall requiring hospitalisation 9  months before. The pre‐assessment check may not therefore be  sufficiently robust.  b) The policy of waiting for 3 falls before making a referral seems to be  arbitrary and also at odds with the Fall Prevention Service requirement of 1  fall within a 12 month period before a referral will be accepted.  c) Once a referral was made, and a falls risk action plan was received the  advice within does not appear to have been properly considered or  actioned. Furthermore, the action plan was returned to the Falls  Prevention Service by post rather than the required method of facsimile.  Although the care home was notified that the Falls Prevention Service had  not received the completed action plan, it was not resubmitted. Despite  Mrs Rich then suffering a series of further falls, no new referrals were  made to the Falls Prevention Service.  d) The care home may not have some of the equipment that they require for  patients such as Mrs Rich e.g. a bed sensor mat. 

2. In relation to the Falls Prevention Service.  a) Despite Mrs Rich having been referred to the Falls Prevention Service by  her GP and the service being notified of a fall related hospitalisation in  August 2016, the onus was placed on the patient and her family to make a  further appointment. In the absence of any further contact, the service  assumes that their input is no longer required. As is clear in the case of Mrs  Rich, the prevention service was very much still required. Again, when the  service was contacted in November 2016 the failure to receive a form or a  response to the subsequent letter again led to an automatic assumption  that input was no longer required despite the fact that this was the second  referral to have been made in relation to Mrs Rich. It was explained in  evidence that the reason the service cannot be more proactive is because  they are inadequately resourced. 

3. There does not seem to be any mechanism for ensuring that Falls Prevention  Service input is in fact delivered when it is required and that a patient is only  ever discharged when it is clear that the underlying symptoms causing the falls  are resolved or that measures have been put in place to mitigate the falls risk.

Responses

1 respondent
Avenue House Care Home Other
PDF
Action Planned

The care home will contact the Falls Team after sending referrals and action plans to confirm receipt and intended actions, recording all contact in residents' care plans. (AI summary)

View full response
Dear Ms A. Pember & Mr H. Shah Thank you for your report in relation to the death of Mrs Rich. I outline below our response to your matters of concern and what actions we have already taken in relation to them: A) Our pre-assessment was completed by a previous manager and we believe it is likely that the previous falls were not disclosed to her at the pre-assessment stage prior to Mrs Rich's admission. In addition, there was nothing in Mrs Rich's pre-assessment or care plan to indicate that the family had ever informed the home of Mrs Rich's previous falls. Ultimately we have to rely on the honesty and full disclosure by residents (if they have capacity), relatives and other professionals.
8) The management of the home followed the company's policy about making a referral after three falls (that it was aware of). We believe the company's policy is reasonable and is common across the care home industry. However, if the home had been informed of Mrs Rich's previous falls, and her previous referrals to the falls team, the home would have referred Mrs Rich sooner under this reasonable and balanced policy. The Coroner should also note that the home has recently referred residents, who have had 3 or 4 falls to the Falls Team, and even after this number of falls, the Falls Team have made the decision not to get involved in the management of these residents' falls. C) The management of the home completed the falls risk assessment and action plan and sent this by post, albeit not by the fax facility. There was a copy of this in the resident's file for reference. There was no information in the resident's file to say that the falls team hadn't received this information. Mrs Rich had also been referred to the Falls Team prior to admission to Avenue House and again this was not followed up by the Falls Team. Once falls risk action plans are received by the falls team, they do not typically give the home even a rough estimate of how long it will be before it is followed up and the resident is seen. Therefore the care home simply has to wait for the Falls' Team's input. Although we believe we followed normal and reasonable procedures in this case, in future to further mitigate against shortcomings of the Falls Team, we will contact the them after sending them referrals and action plans. This will be done to ensure that the Falls Team have received them and to find out what action they intend to take. All contact will be recorded in our residents' care plans under the visiting professionals' information section. D) The home was never recommended to put in place any additional equipment for Mrs Rich, such as a bed sensor mat. However, despite most of Mrs Rich's falls not being when she got jasmine Avenue House Care Home ,s owned by Jasmine Healthcare Limited Registered oflice, Suite One, Patt,~son House Oak Park. East Road. Sleaford. Lincolnshire NG34 7EQ Reg,s!ered Ill England No 04974703

out of bed, she did have a sensor mat on the floor by her bed, which did alert staff if she was up and walking around her bedroom. A floor based sensor mat is the normal equipment used in care homes for residents at risk of falls. Bed sensor mats are extremely rare and we believe do not offer any advantages over floor based pressure mats. Mrs Rich also had falls in the communal areas of the home and unfortunately no equipment could safely be used to reduce the likelihood of these. However, staff were aware of her high falls risk, and did monitor her when mobilising independently with her frame. I hope you will deem the above responses and proposed actions reasonable in the circumstances. Please don't hesitate to let me know if you need any further information.

Report sections

Investigation and inquest
On the 15/03/2017 I commenced an investigation into the death of Gladys  Kathleen Rich. The investigation concluded at the end of an inquest on  28/02/2018. The conclusion of the inquest was accidental death.
Circumstances of the death
Mrs Rich was referred by her GP to the Falls Prevention Service in July 2013. An  appointment was made to see her at home on 13/08/2013 but this was  subsequently cancelled by Mrs Rich’s daughter because Mrs Rich had been  admitted to hospital with a fall on 02/08/2013. The falls service did not seek to  re‐book the appointment or attempt to reach out to Mrs Rich in order to  determine whether their input was still required.  

On 28/07/2016, Mrs Rich sustained a fall, fracturing her right greater  trochanter. Around 9 weeks later, on 07/10/2016, Mrs Rich moved into Avenue  House Nursing and Care Home. The home undertook a pre‐assessment but  none of the witnesses were able to confirm its outcome. It was not known if any  of the previous history including the recent fall had been considered. It was not  known if Mrs Rich had been identified as being at risk of falls. 

The care home’s policy was to wait for 3 falls before making a referral to the  falls prevention service. However, the Falls Prevention Service only require  there to have been one fall within the past 12 months before they will accept a  referral. Mrs Rich suffered falls on the 8/10/2016, 13/10/2016 and 8/11/2016.  The care home then sent a referral on 10/11/2016 to the Falls Prevention  Service. 

The Falls Prevention Service then sent a 12 page assessment document to the  care home which included guidance on how to reduce the risk of falls. Page 4 of  the document which relates to cognitive impairment suggests possible options  as follows: 
1. Instigate more frequent checks on residents [there was no evidence that  the care home changed the supervision regime from 2 to 1 hourly, save  in relation to the immediate aftermath of 2 falls]. 
2. Move resident’s rooms nearer to care station [the care home stated  there were no such rooms available] 
3. Check for infections [the care home only undertakes general  observations monthly and were not able to say how regularly Mrs Rich  was checked. Infections are only checked when symptoms present]. 
4. Consider use of chair/bed sensor mats [it was established at the inquest  that bed sensor mats were perhaps the most appropriate for Mrs Rich  however none were available at the care home]. 
5. consider review by community psychiatric nurse [the care home was not  able to confirm if this had been considered].  The falls risk action plan and its covering letter both specify that if further input  is required, the action plan must be sent by fax to the falls service. Instead, the  care home retuned the form by post and it was not received by the Falls  Prevention Service.  

On 9/12/2016, the Falls Prevention Service wrote to the care home stating that  they had not received a falls risk action plan and on that basis it was assumed  the service was no longer required and the patient would be discharged. It was  again stated that if further input is required, the falls action plan should be sent  by fax. The care home did not respond to this letter and did not re‐submit the  falls action plan. 

During this period, Mrs Rich suffered further falls, more specifically on  21/11/16, 27/11/16, 10/12/16, 24/12/16 and 28/12/16. Despite this, the care  home made no further referrals to the Falls Prevention Service.  

Mrs Rich suffered 2 falls of 28/12/16. The first was at 7.15am. Mrs Rich was  taken to hospital. Her GCS was 14/15. Neurological examination was clear.  Other tests were in the normal ranges except for slightly increased  inflammatory markers for which antibiotics were prescribed. The doctor in A&E  at Kettering General Hospital consulted the frailty team who flagged that Mrs  Rich was "prone to falls". Despite this, following a consultation with Mrs Rich  and her daughter and in light of the fact that Mrs Rich had returned to her  baseline, she was discharged back to the care home, without a referral to the  Falls Prevention Service. 

Before 10pm on 28/12/2016, Mrs Rich suffered a further fall which led to a  traumatic subdural and sub arachnoid haemorrhage plus an acute skull fracture.  It was those injuries that led to Mrs Rich’s death on 3/03/2017.   The Falls Prevention Service confirmed that they are a county wide service but  only employ 6 people. Although there is County Council strategic  implementation group, no entity exists which has an overarching responsibility  for ensuring that GPs, care homes and hospitals are fulfilling their falls risks  prevention obligations. The Falls Prevention Service do not currently have the  resources to do follow ups. 

Following a post mortem, the medical cause of death was: 

1a) Chest infection  1b) Left subdural haemorrhage and small left subarachnoid haemorrhage  1c) Fall 
2. Rectal cancer with liver metastases
Copies sent to
9 H ShahMr H ShahAssistant Coroner  14th May 2018

Similar PFD reports

Shared signals

Related inquiry recommendations

Similar themes

Report details

Reference
2018-0149
Date of report
14 May 2018
Coroner
Hassan Shah
Coroner area
Northamptonshire

Responses identified

Responses identified 1 of 4
3 responses not yet linked

Organisations named in PFD reports are normally expected to respond within 56 days. Deadline: 10 Jul 2018.

Sent to

Avenue House Nursing and Care Home
Care Quality Commission
Kettering General Hospital
Northamptonshire Healthcare NHS Trust

Source links