Source · Prevention of Future Deaths

John Hay

Ref: 2026-0189 Date: 31 Mar 2026 Coroner: Hassan Shah Area: Northamptonshire Responses identified: 3 / 4 View PDF

Risk assessments in the care plan were not completed or reviewed with nursing or medical input, and the escalation process for medical input was unclear; also unclear was the system for actioning missing or spent medication.

Date 31 Mar 2026
56-day deadline 29 May 2026
Responses identified 3 of 4
Community health care and emergency services related deaths

Coroner's concerns

AI summary
Risk assessments in the care plan were not completed or reviewed with nursing or medical input, and the escalation process for medical input was unclear; also unclear was the system for actioning missing or spent medication.
View full coroner's concerns
1. The Risk Assessment in the Care Plan is neither completed nor reviewed with nursing or medical input, but includes, amongst other things, actions to be taken when a person is on blood thinners. In the present case, the only scenario covered was in relation to a person who has “heavy bleeding”. The obligation to complete the risk assessment and determine actions falls upon the care team, none of whom have any medical training, aside from basic first aid. 

2. The process/system for escalation to get medical input was unclear. In the current case, it was accepted with the benefit of hindsight that when a frail elderly person on blood thinners suffers a fall, a medical assessment should probably be done. However, after the morning visit, it was Mr Hay himself who made the decision (despite having suffered a fall and having a diagnosis of dementia) without input from his family. At the time of the evening visit, the care team contacted the son for a decision rather than simply assessing the situation and making a decision. 

3. The process/system by which missing or spent medication is actioned was unclear. In the current case, Mr Hay’s son was responsible for ordering medication. However, the system by which the care team would notify him was unclear.   The three concerns raised above did not cause or contribute to Mr Hay’s death, but they might in other cases.

Responses

3 respondents
The Care Bureau
31 Mar 2026 PDF
Action Taken

The Care Bureau has already revised its risk assessment policy and guidance, implemented new protocols for managing insufficient medication for new care plans, and delivered enhanced training to staff on risk assessment and escalation. (AI summary)

View full response
Dear Mr Shah Prevention of Future Deaths Report – Mr John Hay Response to Regulation 28 Report dated 31 March 2026 Thank you for your Regulation 28 Report dated 31 March 2026 following the inquest into the death of Mr John Hay, which concluded on 31 March 2026. I attended the inquest on behalf of The Care Bureau Limited (“TCB”) together with (Regional Manager) and (Registered Manager). We are grateful to the Coroner for the thorough and careful conduct of the inquest and we again extend our sincere condolences to the Hay family. This letter sets out TCB’s response to each of the three matters of concern identified in section 5 of your report. We note that this response will be shared with . We address the question of publication at the end of this letter. Background TCB is a domiciliary care provider registered with the Care Quality Commission (“CQC”). The business began in 1997 as a nursing agency and became a domiciliary care provider to Warwickshire County Council in 2000. TCB entered the Northamptonshire domiciliary care market in 2005. We are currently contracted as a domiciliary care provider to both North and West Northamptonshire County Councils and were a provider to the predecessor Northamptonshire County Council. In addition to our work across the West Midlands, we also have domiciliary care services in Telford and Torquay. Today, our 290 field staff provide care to approximately 600 service users on a weekly basis. TCB provides reablement care, domiciliary care and supports services users with more complex needs including overnight support. We were commissioned by West Northamptonshire Council (“WNC”) under their 2023 Framework Agreement for the Provision of Homecare Services (the “WNC Framework”) to provide reablement support to Mr John Hay (“JH”) following his discharge from Northampton General Hospital in September 2024. We carried out an in-person assessment and produced a Care Plan. We first provided care on 17 September 2024. JH was last in our care on 26 September 2024. The Care Bureau Limited Registered Office: Unit 5 Jephson Court ● Tancred Close ● Leamington Spa ● CV31 3RZ ● Telephone: 01926 427423 Company No. 3303146 ● Registered with The Care Quality Commission - www.cqc.org.uk

[Page 2] The Coroner concluded that JH died as a result of an unwitnessed fall and noted that, in the opinion of the Consultant Emergency Physician, it is unlikely that JH would have survived his injuries even if he had presented at hospital 12 hours earlier. We acknowledge that this does not diminish the importance of the concerns raised in your report, which we take very seriously. Since the Coroner’s Regulation 28 Report, we have been in communication with CQC as our regulator. We provided a detailed account of the events of 26 September 2024, together with supporting documentation, to CQC in a letter on 1 May 2026. For the avoidance of doubt, our response to the Regulation 28 Report is consistent with that letter. Concern 1: Risk Assessment The Coroner’s concern: “The Risk Assessment in the Care Plan is neither completed nor reviewed with nursing or medical input, but includes, amongst other things, actions to be taken when a person is on blood thinners. In the present case, the only scenario covered was in relation to a person who has “heavy bleeding”. The obligation to complete the risk assessment and determine actions falls upon the care team, none of whom have any medical training, aside from basic first aid.” TCB’s response: It is important to clarify that “[the] obligation to complete the risk assessment” did not fall on the care team. The risk assessment formed part of JH’s documented Care Plan. JH’s Care Plan was completed by experienced supervisors and was based on the commissioning documentation provided by WNC and an in-person assessment of JH. It is correct that the care team must determine actions based on the Care Plan and the actual circumstances of delivering care. TCB’s Care Plan for JH correctly identified the risk of falls and included clear guidance that “[if] Client falls then carers must dial 999.” It also separately identified the risk of anticoagulant medication and included guidance on what to do in the event of heavy bleeding. As the Coroner rightly identifies, the two risks were not linked: the anticoagulant section did not address the heightened risk that a fall poses for a person on blood thinners, where internal bleeding may not be immediately visible. Equally the fall section did not highlight the heightened risk from anticoagulants. On further reflection and analysis we also identified that our standard falls risk did not distinguish between unwitnessed and witnessed falls. On the question of medical or nursing input: TCB is a homecare provider regulated by the CQC. JH’s care was delivered by our Northampton service, which is only authorised to provide personal care. TCB does not provide medical or nursing services and we do not represent ourselves as doing so. Like all providers of this type, our staff are not medically trained, and it is not our role to provide medical or nursing assessments. Our risk assessments are based on information provided by the commissioning authority, the service user themselves, next of kin and other relevant persons. In this case, our assessment correctly recorded JH’s medical conditions – including his anticoagulant medication, his heart condition, and his dementia diagnosis – and these were reflected in the risk The Care Bureau Limited Registered Office: Unit 5 Jephson Court ● Tancred Close ● Leamington Spa ● CV31 3RZ ● Telephone: 01926 427423 Company No. 3303146 ● Registered with The Care Quality Commission - www.cqc.org.uk

[Page 3] management plan. We work alongside health professionals and other agencies; we do not replace them. That said, we accept that our risk assessments should do more to link related risks and set out clearer escalation guidance. Actions: We have taken the following actions:
1. Updated Anticoagulant Risk: we have updated our standard anticoagulant risk assessment across all our services. The updated version now explicitly lists a fall or any blow to the head as a trigger requiring carers to call 999 and to inform emergency services that the service user is on anticoagulant medication.
2. Updated Falls Risk: we have updated our standard falls risk across all our services. The updated version distinguishes between witnessed falls (requiring a 999 call) and unwitnessed falls (requiring a 111 call), and in both cases requires carers to check whether the service user is on anticoagulant medication and to inform the relevant emergency service.
3. Review of Relevant Service Users: we have reviewed the Care Plans and Carer App notes for all service users who use anticoagulants to ensure that the Anticoagulant Risk is appropriately highlighted.
4. Systems Update: our system uses competency codes to help match carers with appropriate experience to service users. We modified the “Anticoagulant” code to further optimise matching. Timetable: The above actions are complete. Concern 2: Decision-Making, Personal Autonomy and Escalation The Coroner’s concern: “The process/system for escalation to get medical input was unclear. In the current case, it was accepted with the benefit of hindsight that when a frail elderly person on blood thinners suffers a fall, a medical assessment should probably be done. However, after the morning visit, it was Mr Hay himself who made the decision (despite having suffered a fall and having a diagnosis of dementia) without input from his family. At the time of the evening visit, the care team contacted the son for a decision rather than simply assessing the situation and making a decision.” The Care Bureau Limited Registered Office: Unit 5 Jephson Court ● Tancred Close ● Leamington Spa ● CV31 3RZ ● Telephone: 01926 427423 Company No. 3303146 ● Registered with The Care Quality Commission - www.cqc.org.uk

[Page 4] TCB’s response: The Coroner’s concern raises a genuine and important question about the balance between respecting the wishes of a service user (in this case with a dementia diagnosis) and following a Care Plan. Person centred care and the promotion of personal autonomy are at the heart of the regulatory framework for domiciliary care providers. Regulation 9 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014 ('Person-centred care') requires that care and treatment must meet the needs and preferences of the service user, and Regulation 11 adds that “[care] and treatment of service users must only be provided with the consent of the relevant person” provided they have capacity. The CQC’s own standards, and the commissioning framework under which WNC engages providers such as TCB, require providers to respect the wishes of service users. Regulation 11 is mirrored in the Service Specification of the WNC Framework, which requires that “[all] safeguarding activity must be informed by… Empowerment - People being supported and encouraged to make their own decisions and informed consent”. It is well understood across the sector that carers cannot, and should not, force a service user to accept personal care, take medication or agree to emergency assistance if they have capacity and decline. JH’s dementia diagnosis was clearly recorded in the Care Plan, both in the Medical History section and in a dedicated Mental Ability section. The Care Plan recorded that, at the time of assessment, JH’s condition did not affect his ability to understand what was being communicated to him or to answer questions, and that he retained the ability to make informed decisions and choices. Prior to his hospitalisation in August 2024 JH had been living independently, managing his own daily routine and finances (with family support). Following his recovery, the hospital and WNC were satisfied that he could be discharged home with continuing support from his family and reablement support from TCB. The WNC Framework is clear that “[capacity] is time and decision-specific, and an individual is assumed to have capacity unless, on the balance of probabilities, it is established otherwise.” Our carers are trained to look out for and escalate signs of changes in capacity, but TCB had only been providing care to JH for nine days at the time of the events in question. Our carers had limited opportunity to build familiarity with JH. At the morning call on 26 September 2024 JH reported a prior unwitnessed fall to the carer. The carer sought to follow the Care Plan and offered to call 999 but deferred to JH. The carer respected JH’s assumed capacity and autonomy. At the tea call, JH was found on the floor. In this instance the carer contacted the office who contacted JH’s son. We acknowledge that the handling of the two incidents was inconsistent and with the benefit of hindsight medical input from either the 111 or 999 services would have been appropriate. On further reflection and analysis, we also identified that while appropriate to notify and involve JH’s son, neither our Assessment nor Care Plan clearly recorded whether either or both of JH’s sons The Care Bureau Limited Registered Office: Unit 5 Jephson Court ● Tancred Close ● Leamington Spa ● CV31 3RZ ● Telephone: 01926 427423 Company No. 3303146 ● Registered with The Care Quality Commission - www.cqc.org.uk

[Page 5] held relevant powers of attorney. This information could be relevant in similar situations where capacity is more in issue. Actions: In addition to actions 1-4 above, we are taking the following actions:
5. Emergency Action Plan: we are updating our Care Plans to include a clear Emergency Action Plan which will signpost to service users and their families the actions carers will take in certain circumstances. To ensure we continue to deliver person-centred care, this before- the-fact clarity is important. It has always been TCB’s policy that input from emergency must be sought in the case of falls, but it is clear that this was inconsistently applied in JH’s case. Our new falls risk (see above) makes it clear that advice from either 111 (unwitnessed falls) or 999 (witnessed falls) must be sought. Service users (with capacity) and their family (where relevant) can then factor that advice into their own decision making. We have implemented this for new Care Plans in May 2026 and will add this to existing Care Plans as they are periodically reviewed.
6. Powers of Attorney: we have reviewed and updated our assessment documentation to include questions regarding both health and financial lasting powers of attorney. We will be implementing this for new Assessments in June 2026 and will also check power of attorney details in existing Care Plans as they are periodically reviewed.
7. Training: we have reviewed our Manual Handling training module with our external trainers and confirmed that it does already and appropriately cover actions in the event of falls.
8. Lessons Learned: JH’s case will be presented as a lessons learned case study to all Registered Managers at our next Registered Managers’ meeting, with a specific focus on the tension between person-centred care and escalation obligations. The Registered Managers will then share the case study with both care and office staff in their respective branches. Timetable:  The training review is complete.  The Emergency Action Plan has been implemented for new Assessments. Existing Care plans will be updated as they are periodically reviewed in the normal course of operations. For the avoidance of doubt, existing Care Plans for service users with anticoagulant risk have already been reviewed and updated as necessary.  The Power of Attorney questions will be implemented for new Assessments in June 2026. Existing Care plans will be updated as they are periodically reviewed in the normal course of operations.  The Lesson Learned case study will be presented at the Registered Managers’ meeting in June 2026. The Care Bureau Limited Registered Office: Unit 5 Jephson Court ● Tancred Close ● Leamington Spa ● CV31 3RZ ● Telephone: 01926 427423 Company No. 3303146 ● Registered with The Care Quality Commission - www.cqc.org.uk

[Page 6] Concern 3: Medication Management The Coroner’s concern: “The process/system by which missing or spent medication is actioned was unclear. In the current case, Mr Hay’s son was responsible for ordering medication. However, the system by which the care team would notify him was unclear.” TCB’s response: The responsibility for ordering and collecting JH’s medication was recorded in the Care Plan’s Medication Plan. JH’s son is documented as the person responsible for ordering and collecting medication. JH’s pharmacy details were also recorded. Our carers are trained and do know what action to take when medication is insufficient. We acknowledge, however, that our Care Plan did not include a sufficiently clear written protocol for what carers should do when medication was found to be unavailable, and specifically did not make it clear that carers should notify the office and the responsible person in a timely manner when medication was running low. Actions: We are taking the following actions:
9. Reminder to Field Staff: a written reminder has been sent to all field care staff requiring them to request additional medication at least seven days before a service user’s supply runs out and to notify the office if medication is unavailable or running low at any visit.
10. Written Protocol: we are updating our Care Plans to include a specific and clearly worded protocol for insufficient medication. This will make explicit the obligation to notify both the office and the responsible person (whether the service user, a family member, or another party) when medication is low or unavailable, together with a clear escalation path if medication runs out. We have implemented this for new Care Plans in May 2026 and will add this to existing Care Plans as they are periodically reviewed. Timetable:  The reminder to field staff has been actioned.  The written protocol for insufficient medication has been implemented for new Care Plans. Existing Care plans will be updated as they are periodically reviewed in the normal course of operations. Representation Regarding Publication Pursuant to section 8 of your report, we respectfully request that this response is not published, whether in full, in redacted form, or in summary. Our reasons are as follows: The Care Bureau Limited Registered Office: Unit 5 Jephson Court ● Tancred Close ● Leamington Spa ● CV31 3RZ ● Telephone: 01926 427423 Company No. 3303146 ● Registered with The Care Quality Commission - www.cqc.org.uk

[Page 7]  This response has been prepared in a spirit of openness and constructive engagement. Publication would not add to the public interest in this matter beyond what is already captured in the Coroner’s report itself.  TCB is a small domiciliary care provider and publication could have a disproportionate adverse impact on the business and, indirectly, on the service users who depend on our care.  The actions described in this response are either already complete or are being implemented. Publication is not necessary to ensure accountability. We would be grateful if you and the Chief Coroner would have regard to these representations when considering publication. We believe that the actions described in this response directly address each of the three matters of concern raised in your report and will materially reduce the risk of a similar incident occurring. We are committed to completing the outstanding actions. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you require any further information or clarification.
CQC Regulator / Inspectorate
28 May 2026 PDF
Noted

The CQC has contacted The Care Bureau Limited to request evidence of actions taken in response to the concerns raised. CQC's response outlines its existing regulatory framework for assessing compliance with risk assessment, escalation, and medicines management in care providers. (AI summary)

View full response
Dear HM Coroner Mr Hassan Shah Prevention of future death report following inquest into the death of Mr John Hay Thank you for sending the Care Quality Commission (CQC) a copy of the prevention of future death report issued following the death of Mr John Hay. CQC has contacted The Care Bureau Limited to request written confirmation and evidence of the action they have taken to date following this death and any additional action they intend to take in response to the prevention of future death report. We note the legal requirement upon The Care Bureau Limited to respond to your report within 56 days. I would firstly like to express my deepest condolences to Mr Hay’s family for their loss. I note your Regulation 28 report was addressed to The Care Bureau Limited and West Northamptonshire Council as well as to CQC; this response is prepared solely on behalf of the CQC. It relates to the role of CQC as well as its assessment and inspection methodology for those organisations it regulates. Regulatory history: The Care Bureau Limited - Domiciliary Care – Northampton was last inspected 24 November 2022 and was rated Requires Improvement with a breach of Regulation in relation to the governance and oversight of the service. The provider submitted an action plan to CQC 15 March 2023 to set out how it intends to improve to address the breach of regulation identified in the last inspection. We continue to monitor the service through our ongoing monitoring processes.

[Page 2] Matters of concern We acknowledge the Coroner’s view that the matters of concern raised did not cause or contribute to Mr Hay’s death, but they might in other cases.
1. The Risk Assessment in the care plan is neither completed nor reviewed with nursing or medical input, but includes, amongst other things, actions to be taken when a person is on blood thinners. In the present case, the only scenario covered was in relation to a person who has “heavy bleeding”. The obligation to complete the risk assessment and determine actions falls upon the care team, none of whom have any medical training, aside from basic first aid. We have reviewed evidence from The Care Bureau Limited showing that they have updated their anticoagulant and fall risk assessment template and that this is in place across all their services. The Care Bureau Limited have themselves identified that although the care plan for Mr Hay identified the risk of falls and his anticoagulant risk, the Risk Management Plan treated these as separate risks. The Care Bureau Limited have acknowledged that their Care plan did not distinguish between witnessed and unwitnessed falls. They have recognised that for an unwitnessed fall it may be harder to assess whether there was any risk from potential head trauma. We have reviewed evidence from The Care Bureau Limited that they are updating their electronic care records App, used by care staff, to ensure anticoagulant risk is appropriately highlighted to provide clearer guidance for care staff. The Care Bureau Limited have also stated to CQC that they are updating people’s care plans to include a clearly signposted Emergency Action Plan to clarify the actions that care staff will take in certain emergency situations including calling 999 in the event of a witnessed fall. The Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014: Regulation 12 Safe care and treatment includes risk management and CQC’s assessment framework includes a quality statement looking at how care providers work with people to understand and manage risks. We assess how care providers are meeting these requirements through our ongoing monitoring of services which includes reviewing information we receive from and about services. We also assess through our inspection activity. CQC would expect to see care plans and risk management plans clearly identifying risks to people and the actions staff should take to mitigate those risks. We would expect care providers to ensure that staff understood people’s care plans and risk management plans. This should be monitored through the provider’s oversight and auditing systems. This is an area that we consider during our assessment and inspection activity in relation to Regulation 17: Good governance.

[Page 3]
2. The process/system for escalation to get medical input was unclear. In the current case, it was accepted with the benefit of hindsight that when a frail elderly person on blood thinners suffers a fall, a medical assessment should probably be done. However, after the morning visit, it was Mr Hay himself who made the decision (despite having suffered a fall and having a diagnosis of dementia) without input from his family. At the time of the evening visit, the care team contacted the son for a decision rather than simply assessing the situation and making a decision. We sought clarification from The Care Bureau Limited, who confirm that Mr Hay’s assessment and care plan did not give detail in relation to any powers of attorney in place. Nor did it include the scope of any powers to make decisions in relation to medical treatment. There is no clear rationale for why the care staff accepted Mr Hay’s decision that he did not want to call for an ambulance after his unwitnessed fall on 26 September 2024 or whether any other medical assessment was considered. Mr Hay’s care plan of 18 September 2024 stated that although he had a diagnosis of dementia this did not affect his capability to understand what others are communicating with him or his ability to answer questions. The decision about whether to seek emergency medical assessment was not a day-to-day decision. It would require careful consideration in relation to whether Mr Hay had the mental capacity to make this decision having had regard to the increased risks relating to the anticoagulants prescribed. When Mr Hay was found on the floor during the afternoon call on 26 September 2024 again it is unclear why an ambulance is not called and staff again took the decision not to follow Mr Hay’s care plan which stated “If Client falls carers must dial 999”. The care staff did notify the The Care Bureau Limited office staff. The office staff then notified Mr Hay’s son, who they say who advised not to call an ambulance. It appears staff took this direction despite the lack of evidence in relation to any power of attorney or assurances that Mr Hay’s son was aware of the risks associated with falling for people who are taking anticoagulants. The Care Bureau Limited have acknowledged that there lacked detail in Mr Hay’s care records of whether any power of attorney was in place. The Care Bureau Limited also recognise that further clarity was needed for people using the service and relatives regarding the action staff will take in the event of known risks such as falls. The Care Bureau Limited have committed to reviewing their assessment documentation relating to powers of attorney before the end of May 2026. They are also reviewing and updating risk assessments, guidance in relation to falls and anticoagulant medicines. In addition, they are reviewing staff training in moving and handling which incorporates falls. In addition to the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014: Regulation 13: Safeguarding service users from abuse and improper treatment

[Page 4] and Regulation 11: Need for consent, CQC’s Assessment framework includes the quality statement Consent to Care and Treatment. This considers how care providers are meeting the requirements of The Mental Capacity Act 2025. Regulation 12: Safe care and treatment includes risk management in conjunction with a quality statement which focuses on how care providers work with people to understand and manage risks. We assess compliance with the quality statement and Regulations as part of our ongoing monitoring and assessments of registered care providers.
3. The process/system by which missing or spent medication is actioned was unclear. In the current case, Mr Hay’s son was responsible for ordering medication. However, the system by which the care team would notify him was unclear. CQC would expect to see this detail within people’s care plans particularly where responsibility for the management of medicine is shared between care staff and the person or family members. The Care Bureau Limited have provided evidence to CQC to show that they have issued a reminder to all field staff to request additional medication at least seven days before a service user’s supply runs out. They are also updating care plans to reference this instruction which they state should be completed by the end of May. The Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014: Regulation 12 Safe care and treatment includes medicines management and additionally CQC’s assessment framework includes a quality statement relating to Medicines optimisation. We assess compliance with this quality statement and Regulation as part of our ongoing monitoring and assessments. If you require any further information or clarification please do not hesitate to contact CQC using the following contact details: By email: By post: Care Quality Commission Citygate Gallowgate Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 4PA Please include the reference number
West Northamptonshire Council Local Authority / Fire Service
5 Jun 2026 PDF
Noted

West Northamptonshire Council has acknowledged the coroner's concerns, liaised with The Care Bureau regarding their actions, and confirmed that anticoagulant management will be a key focus in future monitoring visits to care providers. (AI summary)

View full response
[Page 1] From: Sent: 05 June 2026 12:46 To: Subject: FW: Regulation 28 following the inquest of John HAY Categories: Good Morning, Please accept my sincere apologies for the delay in responding to your Section 28 request. Since 2 April 2026, West Northamptonshire Council has been liaising with the Care Bureau to further investigate the concerns you raised. In addition, we have been in contact with from the Care Quality Commission (CQC), who has also been reviewing these matters. has shared feedback with the Council from the Nominated Individual at the Care Bureau, outlining the actions taken to address the concerns raised by the Coroner. Furthermore, West Northamptonshire Council has engaged with the Adult Quality Team, who have been made aware of your concerns. They have confirmed that anticoagulant management will be a key focus during future monitoring visits at the Care Bureau, as well as across wider provider services. Taking all of the above into account, West Northamptonshire Council is satisfied that appropriate measures have been implemented to address the concerns and reduce the likelihood of similar issues arising in the future. Kind Regards Team Manager Assurance Hub – Safeguarding Adults Team People Services 1

[Page 2] West Northants Council Adult Services welcomes feedback on the services we provide and the experience you receive. Please use the QR code below to complete our feedback survey. Adult Services Feedback Form 2

Report sections

Investigation and inquest
On 04 October 2024 I commenced an investigation into the death of Mr John Hay aged 85.  The investigation concluded at the end of the inquest on 31 March 2026. The conclusion of the inquest was that:  Mr John Hay died 2 October 2024 at Cynthia Spencer Hospice, Northampton, as a result of an unwitnessed fall at home which caused a head injury.
Circumstances of the death
Mr Hay lived alone in his own home but was receiving domiciliary care in the form of 3 daily  visits from non-nursing carers. He had ischemic heart disease and atrial fibrillation. As a  consequence, he was prescribed anti-coagulant medication, important in the context of a fall as it can make any haematoma more extensive.

In 2017 fragile fractures were identified and a diagnosis of osteoporosis was made. In 2021, he was diagnosed with dementia. In mid-August 2024, Mr Hay suffered a fall at home with a long lie, described by his GP as a “non-specific fall attributed to old age”. A safeguarding referral was made, carers were engaged  and a Care Plan was done on 18 September 2024, which included a risk assessment. In  relation to blood thinners, the assessment states “if client has heavy bleeding, carers to ring  999 immediately and then phone office / on call”. 

Around 6 weeks after the first fall, on 26 September 2024, Mr Hay suffered a fall at home.  When his carer visited at 10.34am, Mr Hay was found sitting in his chair and declined  paramedics – Mr Hay’s son was not consulted or notified about this decision. No concerns  were documented by the carer at the time of the lunchtime visit. At the time of the third visit  at 5.55pm, Mr Hay was found on the floor. The carer called his supervisor who in turn called  Mr Hay’s son – no calls were made to 111 or 999. Mr Hay’s son arrived and called paramedics at 7.15pm. My Hay was conveyed to hospital. CT imaging revealed an acute right frontal,  parietal and temporal subdural bleed with a maximum depth of 7mm (described at shallow).  Sadly, Mr Hay became more unstable and sadly passed away on 2 October 2024. In the  opinion of the Consultant Emergency Physician, it is unlikely that Mr Hay would have survived his injuries even if he had presented at hospital 12 hours earlier – his injuries were not  amenable to emergency surgery.    

The care team’s medication charts for 26 September 2024 reveal that two items prescribed were “missing”, presumed run out – Adcal and Esure Compact. 

The medical cause of death was:- 1A – Subdural haemorrhage 1B – Fall 2 – Ischemic heart disease, atrial fibrillation

A narrative conclusion was given as follows –

Mr John Hay died 2 October 2024 at Cynthia Spencer Hospice, Northampton, as a result of an unwitnessed fall at home which caused a head injury.

Similar PFD reports

Shared signals

Related inquiry recommendations

Similar themes

Report details

Reference
2026-0189
Date of report
31 March 2026
Coroner
Hassan Shah
Coroner area
Northamptonshire

Responses identified

Responses identified 3 of 4
1 response not yet linked

Organisations named in PFD reports are normally expected to respond within 56 days. Deadline: 29 May 2026.

Sent to

CQC
QCC
Care Bureau
West Northamptonshire Council

Source links