Source · Prevention of Future Deaths
Alan Ludlow
Ref: 2015-0470
Date: 23 Nov 2015
Coroner: Allison Summers
Area: Mid Kent and Medway
Responses identified: 0 / 1
View PDF
Critical information about residents' past incidents and risks is not adequately exchanged between care providers during placement. This leads to new homes being unaware of vital safety history for vulnerable individuals.
Date
23 Nov 2015
56-day deadline
18 Jan 2016 est.
Responses identified
0 of 1
Coroner's concerns
Critical information about residents' past incidents and risks is not adequately exchanged between care providers during placement. This leads to new homes being unaware of vital safety history for vulnerable individuals.
View full coroner's concerns
During the course of the inquest the evidence revealed matters giving rise to concern as to the exchange of information. In my opinion there is a risk that future deaths will occur unless action is taken. One of the matters which became apparent during the course of the evidence related to the issue of ensuring that when someone is assessed for a particular placement within residential and nursing environments that those undertaking the assessments and the home in which a person is placed, have all relevant information to ensure that the placement is the most appropriate for that person.
Once a person is placed in a home the suitability of that placement must be kept under review to ensure that any changing needs continued to be met. It stands to reason if people are not appropriately placed there will be risks of harm to both themselves and to others.
The specific issue which came to my attention in this case was this: After the incident between Mr Ludlow and RT, RT was moved from the home to other accommodation. However, more recently, following deterioration in his mental state, he was admitted to another care home. This care home was not provided with any information about the incident which led to Mr Ludlow’s death by RT’s social worker or those who would be expected to know about the incident. The only reason the care home in fact became aware of the background was because it was part of the same group of care homes to which the original care home belonged and it was only by chance that someone recognised the name and made the connection.
Once a person is placed in a home the suitability of that placement must be kept under review to ensure that any changing needs continued to be met. It stands to reason if people are not appropriately placed there will be risks of harm to both themselves and to others.
The specific issue which came to my attention in this case was this: After the incident between Mr Ludlow and RT, RT was moved from the home to other accommodation. However, more recently, following deterioration in his mental state, he was admitted to another care home. This care home was not provided with any information about the incident which led to Mr Ludlow’s death by RT’s social worker or those who would be expected to know about the incident. The only reason the care home in fact became aware of the background was because it was part of the same group of care homes to which the original care home belonged and it was only by chance that someone recognised the name and made the connection.
Report sections
Investigation and inquest
On the 30th April 2013 an investigation into the death of Alan Ludlow was commenced. The investigation concluded at the end of the inquest on the 22nd October 2015. I reached a narrative conclusion.
Circumstances of the death
Alan Ludlow died at Maidstone Hospital on the afternoon of Sunday 24th March 2013. He was 84 years old. He had been admitted to hospital at about 5.30am on the 21st March. The reason he had been admitted to hospital on that morning was because at about 4.15am, carers at the nursing home where Mr Ludlow resided, had found him in an unresponsive state in his bathroom. Having been taken to hospital a head scan showed a massive subdural haematoma. Following consultation with experts at Kings College Hospital it was determined that due to Mr Ludlow’s frailty he would not survive the operation necessary to save his life. He was therefore managed conservatively. Mr Ludlow subsequently developed pneumonia which led directly to his death.
As to the cause of the head injury, on the evening of 20th March Mr Ludlow had received a blow to the left side of his face from another resident (RT). I was satisfied that it was that blow which caused the bleed which ultimately led to Mr Ludlow’s death.
Both Alan Ludlow and RT were residents at Lulworth House, a Residential Home for elderly adults with dementia and related illnesses. Both gentlemen were elderly. Mr Ludlow was 84 years old and RT was 77 years old. Both gentlemen had dementia although Mr Ludlow’s dementia was at a much more advanced stage. Both presented at times with what may be properly called ‘challenging behaviour’ entirely in keeping and associated with their declining mental and physical states.
The circumstances giving rise to the blow to Mr Ludlow can be stated as follows: On 20th March 2013 shortly after 7.30pm when the nightshift staff had arrived at Lulworth House, Mr Ludlow and RT became involved in an altercation. They were observed to be arguing with raised voices when a member of the domestic staff, , saw RT punch Mr Ludlow striking Mr Ludlow in the left eye area causing his head to turn to the side. The punch did not knock Mr Ludlow off his feet and Mr Ludlow was immediately seen to raise his own fists.
As to the cause of the head injury, on the evening of 20th March Mr Ludlow had received a blow to the left side of his face from another resident (RT). I was satisfied that it was that blow which caused the bleed which ultimately led to Mr Ludlow’s death.
Both Alan Ludlow and RT were residents at Lulworth House, a Residential Home for elderly adults with dementia and related illnesses. Both gentlemen were elderly. Mr Ludlow was 84 years old and RT was 77 years old. Both gentlemen had dementia although Mr Ludlow’s dementia was at a much more advanced stage. Both presented at times with what may be properly called ‘challenging behaviour’ entirely in keeping and associated with their declining mental and physical states.
The circumstances giving rise to the blow to Mr Ludlow can be stated as follows: On 20th March 2013 shortly after 7.30pm when the nightshift staff had arrived at Lulworth House, Mr Ludlow and RT became involved in an altercation. They were observed to be arguing with raised voices when a member of the domestic staff, , saw RT punch Mr Ludlow striking Mr Ludlow in the left eye area causing his head to turn to the side. The punch did not knock Mr Ludlow off his feet and Mr Ludlow was immediately seen to raise his own fists.
Copies sent to
I am also under a duty to send the Chief Coroner a copy of your response
Similar PFD reports
Related inquiry recommendations
Southport Inquiry
Shared multi-agency risk-assessment tool
Southport Inquiry
LCC online harms risk assessment review
Post Office Horizon Inquiry
Amend GLOS to allow claimants oral submissions at panel hearings
Post Office Horizon Inquiry
Post Office to engage in negotiations during HSSA appeal period
Muckamore Abbey Inquiry
Whole-system commissioning with cross-agency risk assessment
Muckamore Abbey Inquiry
Inpatient facilities on risk register
Muckamore Abbey Inquiry
Cumulative risk assessment across protection plans
Muckamore Abbey Inquiry
Risk-based inspection prediction
Muckamore Abbey Inquiry
Blue light protocol for at-risk registers
Infected Blood Inquiry
Pre-1996 Transfusion Testing
Report details
- Reference
- 2015-0470
- Date of report
- 23 November 2015
- Coroner
- Allison Summers
- Coroner area
- Mid Kent and Medway
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: 18 Jan 2016 (estimated).
Sent to
- Kent County Council