Source · Prevention of Future Deaths

Michael Newell

Ref: 2017-0123 Date: 13 Apr 2017 Coroner: James Adeley Area: Preston and West Lancashire Responses identified: 0 / 1 View PDF

Junior medical staff lacked awareness of liver failure's impact and early hypovolaemia, delaying critical treatment and consultant input. Inadequate nursing procedures and ineffective mortality reviews further compromised patient safety.

Date 13 Apr 2017
56-day deadline 28 Jul 2017 est.
Responses identified 0 of 1
Hospital Death (Clinical Procedures and medical management) related deaths

Coroner's concerns

AI summary
Junior medical staff lacked awareness of liver failure's impact and early hypovolaemia, delaying critical treatment and consultant input. Inadequate nursing procedures and ineffective mortality reviews further compromised patient safety.
View full coroner's concerns
In the circumstances it is my statutory to report to you: (1) the Accident & Emergency staff, neurosurgeons and ENT surgeons of various grades were unaware of the substantial effect that Mr Newell's decompensated liver failure would have on his clinical course and subsequent management: No input was sought from any medical team to assist in the management prior to Mr Newell's first collapse at 11:14 AM on 5 May 2014. This lack of awareness raises significant concerns about the knowledge base of Accident & Emergency and surgical junior staff of the significant effect of substantial underlying hepatic compromise may have on any form of admission with some form of haemorrhage_ As a result, the family were completely unaware of the significance of Mr Newell's admission due to the lack of awareness by attending clinicians. (2) thejunior ENT surgeons and neurosurgeons showed a startling lack of knowledge of the early signs of hypovolaemia and, if any did realise, made no attempt to treat Mr Newell adequately: Whilst this PFD report is primarily sent with regard to the death of Mr Newell, this has been a feature over a number of years of other cases where hypovolaemia was not appropriately diagnosed and late resuscitation ensued: (3) there was a worrying lack by the ENT surgeons to realise the complexity of the case due to the ongoing_haemorrhage,decompensated liver failure and associated coagulopathy_that there Coruncr' $ Court; 2 Farudoy Court; Furnduy Drive; Fulwood, Prcston; Lancashire, PR2 9NB Tcl 01772 703700 Fox 01772 704422 aged paid May duty were no base of skull fractures and to select a method of treatment with Rapid Rhino Pack5 that in the view of the ENT expert was only appropriate as a first-line measure and not for facial fractures: Firstly, there was no consultant ENT input into Mr Newell's case at any prior to his death: Secondly, none of the above issues were brought to the attention of the Court in the ENT consultants statement raising issues within the Trust for improving patient care_ (4) the Trusts ENT team made no input into the mortality review prior to it reaching its conclusions: Alternatively, the mortality review team made no request for ENT input prior to reaching its conclusions Either formulation reduces the effectiveness of the mortality review: (5) the conduct of the Nurse in charge of the ward of making no notes after her presence at a peri-arrest, neither seeking or obtaining any direction from the medical team as to future management; not directing any further resuscitation in accordance with documented medical plans in the notes and lack of completion of the fluid balance chart would suggest that the Trust's procedures for determining which nurse clinicians may lead a nursing shift should be reviewed:

Report sections

Investigation and inquest
On 4 April 2017 commenced an investigation into the death of Michael John NEWELL
70. The investigation concluded at the end of the inquest on 11 April 2017. The conclusion of the inquest was as set out in the attached summing up on the last page.
Action should be taken
In my opinion action should be taken to prevent future deaths and believe you have the power to take such action: your RESPONSE You are under a duty to respond to this report within 56 days of the dale of this report, namely by (DATE): !, the coroner, may extend the period: Your response must contain details of action taken or proposed to be taken, setting out the timetable for action: Otherwise you must explain why no action is proposed:

Similar PFD reports

Shared signals

Related inquiry recommendations

Similar themes

Report details

Reference
2017-0123
Date of report
13 April 2017
Coroner
James Adeley
Coroner area
Preston and West Lancashire

Responses identified

Responses identified 0 of 1
1 response not yet linked

Organisations named in PFD reports are normally expected to respond within 56 days. Deadline: 28 Jul 2017 (estimated).

Sent to

Lancashire Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust

Source links