Source · Prevention of Future Deaths

James Graham

Date: 17 Dec 2015 Coroner: Andrew Tweddle Area: County Durham Responses identified: 1 / 3 View PDF

Critical communication failures between primary care and podiatry, coupled with a lack of ownership in referral processes and administrative errors, caused significant delays in secondary care access.

Date 17 Dec 2015
56-day deadline 11 Feb 2016 est.
Responses identified 1 of 3
Hospital Death (Clinical Procedures and medical management) related deaths

Coroner's concerns

AI summary
Critical communication failures between primary care and podiatry, coupled with a lack of ownership in referral processes and administrative errors, caused significant delays in secondary care access.
View full coroner's concerns
(1) It is clear that on 16'h October 2014 the deceased was seen by a general practitioner and a podiatrist at more or less the same time. The GP did not fully examine the deceased because he knew he was to see a podiatrist: The podiatrist discovered serious problems with the deceased's foot and planned an urgent referral to the GP and did so by means of an electronic note which was seen by the GP who had seen the deceased immediately prior to the podiatrist, the after, who then referred the matter to another GP to make a letter of referral and then because of administrative failures not referral to secondary care was made before the deceased died on 2"d November 2014. This shows a total lack of communication between the GP and the podiatrist who should have considered it appropriate to speak to one another whilst the deceased was still present in order t0 move matters forward elfectively. (2)The GP who had most contact with the deceased in a 2 year period considered making a referral to secondary care on 17ih Oclober 2014 and instead of making the referral himself, passed the responsibility t0 make a referral to another GP (who worked one per week) and who had previously sent a one page letter of referral to secondary care more than 2 years earlier: The GP gave evidence that he thought it appropriate for the original GP t0 make the referral as that GP had done the first one and was acquainted with the matter second GP gave evidence to say that she did not agree with this action because although, in principle, if there had been a recent referral it might have been appropriate for the original referring GP t0 make a second referral however after 2 years it was "stretching it a bit" . There was a lack of ownership and responsibility for the deceased's care and making a referral t0 secondary care_ There needs to be consideration given t0 the formulation of clear guidance as to which GP and in what circumstances has a responsibility for referrals to secondary care.

(3) The GP who agreed to make a referral to secondary care gave evidence that she hand wrote out a letter of referral and handed it to a member of the administrative team for typing and gave verbal instructions that this needed to be dealt with quickly and that if there were any problems she was t0 be contacted. For an unknown reason the letter of referral was not dispatched: Some consideration has been given to this issue following publication of the PPO report but in the light of the evidence given in court the thoroughness and robustness of that letter of direction , particularly bearing in mind there have been a number of changes to the providers of healthcare in the prison, should be considered

Responses

1 respondent
James Graham
17 Dec 2015 PDF
Action Taken

G4S Forensic & Medical Services has circulated and discussed GMC guidelines on delegation and referral as part of Continuing Professional Development. An investigation into the individual's professional practice has concluded with remedial action and learning requirements. Work is ongoing to standardise the structure of all referrals for consistent information transfer, and the organisation will ensure cascaded learning across all staff. (AI summary)

View full response
Dear Sir

Inquest touching the death of James Bewick Graham Date of death: 2 November 2014 - HMP Frankland

I write in response to your report dated 17 December 2015 made under paragraph 7, Schedule S of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 and regulations 28 and 29 of the Coroners (Investigations) Regulations 2013.

G4S Forensic & Medical Services (UK) Ltd took over responsibility for provision of healthcare services at HMP Frankland on 1 April 2015.

G4S Forensic & Medical Services (UK) Ltd is responsible for primary care and substance misuse care at HMP Frankland and employs a team made up of qualified registered general nurses, mental health nurses and healthcare support workers, together with separate administration staff, for this work.

An organisation called Spectrum Community Health CIC is contracted separately to provide GP and Pharmacy Services at HMP Frankland.

Mental health services at HMP Frankland are provided by Tees, Esk and Wear Valley NHS Trust. As part of its responsibilities, the mental health team is responsible for conducting mental health assessments.

Podiatry services at HMP Frankland are provided by Premier Physical Healthcare.

Following Mr Graham's death, my predecessor wrote to the Gables Medical Practice, which was until 1 April 2015 responsible for providing GP services at HMP Frankland, to ensure that all clinicians understood and used the appropriate referral process and to ensure that all urgent referrals to secondary services were recorded and monitored.

The computerised medical records system, SystmOne is used at HMP Frankland. SystmOne is a centrally hosted clinical computer system used by healthcare professionals in the UK predominantly in Primary Care. The system is one of the accredited systems in the government's programme of modernising IT in the NHS and is used across the entire Prison Estate to ensure consistency and full access for medical personnel regardless of which prison at which the prisoner is residing. It is important that the procedures in place regarding referrals are complied with consistently to ensure optimum treatment and to avoid any possibility of relevant matters being overlooked. As part of the procedures in operation, SystmOne incorporates an

1

electronic referral system to help ensure referrals are accurately and promptly made and appropriately. monitored.

The procedure in place for referrals to secondary care, both routine and urgent, involve the GP handwriting a referral or typing the contents of the referral onto an electronic task. If handwritten, the GP would hand the document to the administrator responsible for secondary care or if an electronic task, would send this to the administrator. The administrator types the referral up on to Systmone. The referral is then saved in the referrals section of the clinical tree.

The typed referral is printed by the administrator and returned to the GP for consideration and signature. The referral is then sent to the Central Appointments Bureau.

The method of communicating the referral by the GP would depend on each GP's preference and other factors such as workload.

For urgent referrals to secondary care, the GP should highlight the urgency of the referral to the administrator, to enable the process to be fast tracked or so the referral can be sent direct to a hospital department, to ensure it is prioritised.

All referrals into secondary care are reviewed by a senior nurse or above to ensure they are within the right pathway.

The following steps have been taken to address your concerns surrounding the manner in which referrals to secondary care are made and monitored:-

* An instruction was sent to the Medical Director of The Gables Medical Offender Health Ltd by the former Head of Healthcare at HMP Frankland to instruct GPs that all urgent referrals to secondary care are discussed with the senior administrator and senior nurse in order to ensure that patients are managed through the correct process which will ensure clear management plans when ensuring pathways are monitored both clinically and with regard to security issues by the Security Department.

* Following the commencement of the new contract arrangements relating to the provision of healthcare services at HMP Frankland on 1 April 2015, the former head of healthcare at HMP Frankland is now employed by Spectrum Community Health CIC and therefore the current provider of GP Services at HMP Frankland is aware and informed of the requirements relating to referrals to secondary care.

I trust my response addresses the nursing concerns outlined in your recent report.

Report sections

Investigation and inquest
On 11.11.2014 commenced an investigation into the death of James Bewick Graham 67 years. The investigation concluded at the end of the inquest on 17lh December 2015. The conclusion of the inquest was Natural Causes
Circumstances of the death
Mr Graham was known by prison healthcare providers to have peripheral vascular disease from at least May 2011. He had been treated correctly for peripheral vascular disease associated risk factors after & visit t0 a consultant in 2012 From 2012 until the date of his admission to University Hospital of North Durham on 20'h October 2014 Mr Graham was seen by a number of healthcare professionals on a number of occasions complaining of problems with his left foot None of the doctors treating him concluded his presenting problems to be a worsening of his vascular disease which would lead to a referral to secondary care until 17 October 2014_ There is evidence which would have justified an earlier referral to secondary care At the time of his admission to hospital on 29lh October 2014 no referral letter had been dispatched to secondary care providers even though Mr Graham's foot had been considered to have deteriorated dramatically: An earlier referral to secondary care would have led to an expert consideration of his symptoms and condition and may have afforded Mr Graham offered medical treatment: It cannot be determined on a balance ol probabilities when such a referral would have had to have been made to give rise to the possibility of saving his (which was amputated on 30lh of October 2014) or his life The earlier the referral the greater the chance of a successful outcome for Mr Graham: A doctor who examined Mr Graham the before his emergency admissions to University Hospital of North Durham did not consider an early admission to hospital to be appropriate: Mr Graham's medical condition was s0 compromised that his_post operative prognosis was Peripheral being leg day poor and he died in University Hospital of North Durham on 2 of November 2014.
Action should be taken
In my opinion action should be taken t0 prevent future deaths and believe you and your organisation have the power to take such action: YouR RESPONSE You are under & duty to respond to this report within 56 days of the date 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 the timetable for action. Otherwise you must explain why no action is proposed: day day The out

Similar PFD reports

Shared signals

Related inquiry recommendations

Similar themes

Report details

Date of report
17 December 2015
Coroner
Andrew Tweddle
Coroner area
County Durham

Responses identified

Responses identified 1 of 3
2 responses not yet linked

Organisations named in PFD reports are normally expected to respond within 56 days. Deadline: 11 Feb 2016 (estimated).

Sent to

G4S Medical Services
Premier Physical Healthcare
Spectrum Community Health CIC

Source links