Source · Prevention of Future Deaths

Leslie Harding

Ref: 2014-0169 Date: 8 Apr 2014 Coroner: Andrew Cox Area: Plymouth, Torbay & South Devon Responses identified: 1 / 1 View PDF

There was a failure to take prompt action and ensure robust treatment for a patient with a suspected life-threatening pulmonary embolus over a critical period.

Date 8 Apr 2014
56-day deadline 3 Jun 2014 est.
Responses identified 1 of 1
Community health care and emergency services related deaths

Coroner's concerns

AI summary
There was a failure to take prompt action and ensure robust treatment for a patient with a suspected life-threatening pulmonary embolus over a critical period.
View full coroner's concerns
1. took no action during the period from 18 – 28 September 2013. Patients with a suspected life-threatening condition (Pulmonary Embolus) must be promptly treated. The system for ensuring that the treatment is provided must be robust. That is particularly the case where it is already known that the patient suffers from an underlying condition that makes him prone to the particular life-threatening event.

2. Your practice will have a number of other patients in receipt of anti-coagulation treatment following recurrent Pulmonary Embolii. Given the omission that appears to have occurred here, you need to ensure that no other omissions have happened with any of the other patients

3. At Inquest, I gained the impression that Lez was felt to be non-compliant with his anti-coagulation regime. It was plain from the prescription history that there were repeated gaps in the provision of medication that Lez required. There seemed, however, in my view, to have been little effort given to addressing the reasons why, or indeed if, Lez actually was non-compliant with his medication. By way of illustration, I was not shown a letter from the Surgery to Lez bringing to his attention that he had failed to collect his monthly supply of Clexane and warning him of the risks of failing to maintain the treatment regime.

I heard evidence at Inquest that Lez could be an awkward patient. In my view, of itself, that is insufficient reason not to make every reasonable effort to ensure that a patient complies with an identified need for lifelong anti-coagulation.

4. I was advised that this death had not yet been reviewed in a significant events meeting. In my view, that should have taken place forthwith after Lez’s death. You may wish to convene a significant events Action should be taken

In my opinion action should be taken to prevent future deaths and I 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 date of this report, namely by 3 June 2014. I, 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.

Copies and publication

I have sent a copy of my report to the Chief Coroner and to the Interested Persons listed above.

I am also under a duty to send the Chief Coroner a copy of your response.

The Chief Coroner may publish either or both in a complete or redacted or summary form. He may send a copy of this report to any person who he believes may find it useful or of interest. You may make representations to me, the coroner, at the time of your response, about the release or the publication of your response by the Chief Coroner.

Responses

1 respondent
Oakside Surgery Other
22 Aug 2014 PDF
Action Planned

The doctor has decided to adopt a system of writing notes using the computer appointment system and a ring-bound notebook. The practice is composing a letter informing people of the risks of non-concordance with medication and has extended this review to patients receiving low molecular rate heparin and novel oral anti-coagulants; they have scheduled a further discussion of the case at the next significant event analysis meeting. (AI summary)

View full response
Dear A J Cox Re: Mr Lez Harding 27/08/1956 192 Kings Tamerton Road Kings Tamerton Plymouth PLS 2BS NHS: 452 703 0035 Thank you for your letter dated of July. I have now had the chance to read through your report and the concerns you raised. The paragraphs I have numbered below correspond to those in your Regulation 28 Report with your letter dated 2nd July 2014 on page 3. The relevant points are detailed below:
1) It was noted that took no action during the period from the 18th to September 2013 for Which he once expressed profound regret; As an individual he has decided to adopt system used by other members of Staff within the Practice of writing notes to himself using computer appointment system as well as a ring bound note book: I did note that Mr Harding was judged to have mental capacity and that he appeared to have made an informed decision in the days leading up to the 18th September 2013 on more than one occasion not to have been admitted to hospital and received what can consider to be the appropriate treatment: He appears to have made this decision in the knowledge that the outcome could have been fatal_ While this is clearly not a outcome that anyone would have wished for, I did note that it is important that our therapeutic relationship remains advisory and that patients with the appropriate mental capacity are allowed to make decisions which may lead too later harm and might be regarded as decision which do not conform with best medical practice: I also feel that it would have been inappropriate forf Ito have treated Mr Harding as if he had pulmonary embolism within the community without appropriately investigating it with investigations which were only available within a hospital setting: If he had done 5O, this would 17th 20th again

have raised the possibility of over anti-coagulating him, which could have had equally serious consequences The only alternative medications available for this (and the one which the medical notes was considering) are both unable to be closely monitored and are also irreversible in the event of catastrophic haemorrhage.
2) Having reviewed this case, I am undertaking a audit of all people receiving treatment for pulmonary emboli whether acute or recurrent to ensure that no similar omissions have occurred_
3) As a result of this situation, I have reviewed the advice given to people when they first begin anti-coagulation and as practice we are in the process of composing letter informing people of the risks of non-concordance with medication. We have also decided to extend this review to patients receiving low molecular rate heparin and novel oral anti-coagulants I am relatively new to the Practice but my colleagues were able to produce evidence that the situation had been reviewed formally on number of occasions and now we have your further report have scheduled a further discussion of the entire case at the next significant event analysis meeting in the Practice which will take place in September 2014. If you have any further questions then please do not hesitate to contact me

Similar PFD reports

Shared signals

Related inquiry recommendations

Similar themes

Report details

Reference
2014-0169
Date of report
8 April 2014
Coroner
Andrew Cox
Coroner area
Plymouth, Torbay & South Devon

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: 3 Jun 2014 (estimated).

Sent to

Oak Side Surgery

Source links