Source · Prevention of Future Deaths
Douglas Grey
Ref: 2013-0253
Date: 3 Oct 2013
Coroner: Chinyere Inyama
Area: London (East)
Responses identified: 0 / 2
View PDF
Lack of clear written procedures for equipment delivery, installation, and review. Carers also failed to recognise and report faulty equipment despite a written policy, compromising resident safety.
Date
3 Oct 2013
56-day deadline
28 Nov 2013 est.
Responses identified
0 of 2
Coroner's concerns
Lack of clear written procedures for equipment delivery, installation, and review. Carers also failed to recognise and report faulty equipment despite a written policy, compromising resident safety.
View full coroner's concerns
1. Evidence was given at the inquest that there was no clear written procedure or policy in place to ensure notification to the district nurses of delivery of equipment they had assessed as being needed, correct installation of that equipment and review of the equipment’s performance.
2. Evidence was given at the inquest that despite a clear written policy on recognising and reporting faults in equipment delivered for residents, carers did not appear to recognise the faulty nature of the inflatable mattress and act in accordance with the written policy of the home.
2. Evidence was given at the inquest that despite a clear written policy on recognising and reporting faults in equipment delivered for residents, carers did not appear to recognise the faulty nature of the inflatable mattress and act in accordance with the written policy of the home.
Report sections
Investigation and inquest
On 14th May 2012 I commenced an investigation into the death of Douglas Grey then aged 72 years. The investigation concluded at the end of the inquest on the 25th September 2013. I concluded the inquest with a narrative, the medical cause of death being right sided pneumonia due to an acute subdural haematoma.
Circumstances of the death
1. The deceased had been in a residential home since 2008 and, as a result of pressure sores after discharge from hospital, was given an inflatable mattress which was placed on top of the original mattress on his bed.
2. There were no cot sides or other safety features used.
3. He suffered a fall from his bed on the day the inflatable mattress was installed. Staff removed the mattress as they were concerned over it ‘slipperiness’. He then suffered a second fall a few days later. The mattress was then advised to be removed by the district nurse.
4. A few days after the second of the falls he became unconscious and had to be transferred to hospital where he died, despite treatment, in the early hours of the 5th May 2012.
2. There were no cot sides or other safety features used.
3. He suffered a fall from his bed on the day the inflatable mattress was installed. Staff removed the mattress as they were concerned over it ‘slipperiness’. He then suffered a second fall a few days later. The mattress was then advised to be removed by the district nurse.
4. A few days after the second of the falls he became unconscious and had to be transferred to hospital where he died, despite treatment, in the early hours of the 5th May 2012.
Action should be taken
For recipient (1) it is clear a system to carefully monitor installation and performance of equipment recommended by district nursing teams should be set up. In addition, the operation of the system should be audited on a regular basis since potential consequences of absence of or poor operation of such systems are potentially so serious. For recipient (2) it is clear that the operation of the practice and procedures set down by written protocols need to be audited clearly and regularly.
7. You are under a duty to respond to this report within 56 days of the date of this report namely by 3rd December 2013. 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.
7. You are under a duty to respond to this report within 56 days of the date of this report namely by 3rd December 2013. 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.
Similar PFD reports
Related inquiry recommendations
Muckamore Abbey Inquiry
Key individual for resettlement communication
Scottish Hospitals Inquiry
Training for IPC professionals engineers and clinicians
Scottish Hospitals Inquiry
IPC role specifications and staffing levels
Southport Inquiry
Autism spectrum disorder police training
Southport Inquiry
Prevent training on online activity assessment
Southport Inquiry
Neurodiversity training for Prevent practitioners
Southport Inquiry
Balancing vulnerability with professional curiosity
Southport Inquiry
Sharing information about closed Prevent referrals
Southport Inquiry
Prevent Supervisor training on closure decisions
Southport Inquiry
Prevent referral training for organisations
Report details
- Reference
- 2013-0253
- Date of report
- 3 October 2013
- Coroner
- Chinyere Inyama
- Coroner area
- London (East)
Responses identified
Responses identified
0 of 2
2 responses not yet linked
Organisations named in PFD reports are normally expected to respond within 56 days. Deadline: 28 Nov 2013 (estimated).
Sent to
- Consumer Relations and Legal Affairs
- Floron Residential Home