Harry Pryal
PFD Report
All Responded
Ref: 2015-0391
All 4 responses received
· Deadline: 23 Nov 2015
Sent To
Response Status
Responses
4 of 3
56-Day Deadline
23 Nov 2015
All responses received
About PFD responses
Organisations named in PFD reports must respond within 56 days explaining what actions they are taking.
Source: Courts and Tribunals Judiciary
Coronerisconcerns
Dirg the course of the Inquest the evidence revealed matters giving rise to concern; In my opinion there is a risk that future deaths will occur unlessaction is taken. In the circumstances it is my statutory to report to you: During the Inquest evidence was heard that SBP contact WWL for advice in relation to medical treatment for patients at the Lakeside Unit on a regular basis as a matter of protocol_The_Doctors _in psychiatry at the Lakeside_Unit_are the hrs the Meeting the first being the Pryal from Pryal duty dependent upon such advice for treatment and care of patients. The evidence identified that there is no note of the advice in the aecords maintained by WWL, neither to identify the Doctor giving advice nor the content of advice. Furthermore evidence was given that this was a situation arising on a nationwide scale, The absence of any notes prevents a record of the adviceeforahe purpose of continuity %f treatment and any subsequent referrals, particularly in a case When the Doctor giving the advice is no Tonger available and further advice is requested by the Doctor for medical treatment; TThe Service Agreement entered into between SBP and WWL for the period from the 1s April 2014 to the 31" March 2015 was One subject of different interpretations by each Trust: There was confusion in relation to the prioritisation of imaging and there was a fundamental conflict in relation interpretation of clause 2.1. The Agreement provided for meetings between nominated officers from each trust at intervals not exceeding months from the effective date of the Agreement to consider issues arising from the operation and performance of any Agreement; as provided in paragraph 14.1 on page 10 of the Agreement: The evidence of the Inquest confirmed that no meetings had taken place the concurrence of the Agreement and there was no proactive involvement of the nominated officers to identify any issues arising from the operation and performance of the Agreement; Furthermore evidence was given that there Were similar Service Agreements for the period from 1st April 2013 to the 31s March 2014 and the 1s April 2015 to the 31s March 2016 with similar provisions for meetings during the concurrence of the Agreements but no meetings between nominated officers had ever taken place: The evidence identified a lack of liaison and understanding between SBP and WWL in relation to the Agreement and geir relationship, even in circumstances where both trustszare operating on same site at Leigh Infirmary, Leigh. During the Inquest WWL confirmed that had similar Service Agreements in relation to the provision of services to health professionals in other areas of treatment and the provisions of all Agreements Were similar and the provisions in all Agreements may not be performed in accordance with the requirements of each Agreement; The evidence given by WWL was that there were no time lines in Telation to the reporting of X-rays performed at the Leigh other than_national _timelines_although _it was accepted_ the the referring the every the during from the they Infirmary that the Service Agreement provided that 'urgent or unexpected significant clinical findings will be communicated to referring clinicians at the time of the Consultant Radiological reporting" . It was accepted that if there was an unexpected significant clinical ferding it would be necessary to communicate the finding to the referring clinician without delay. WWLi dotnot have any triage procedures in relation to X-ray examinations 50 that any "urgent or unexpected significant clinical would not be reported to the clinician for some time after the examination, An early triage of the examination within a short period of the examinadoe %Otle allaw any urgent or unexpected significant clinical to be communicated to the referring clinician without delay: iv SBP accepted that the Service Agreement provided for web viewing of the X-rays but accepted that the software operated 58P does not allow web viewing of Xtadysanof5BPrdidpot tedby network connections to view the X-rays electronically by access to the WWL network: In any event the Consultant Psychiatrist from the Lakeside Unit indicated that the Doctors in her team based at the Lakeside Unit; may not have the expertise to interpret the xa rays on Web view and the Doctors would be dependent upon formal report; either verbal or written; Radiologist: The evidence at the Inquest revealed that the notes completed bvclinicians at the Lakeside Unit; failed to identify the times of actions by them and in one note failed to identify identity of the clinician the note. The notes were inadequate, particularly the notes which accompanied Mr Pryal on his transfer from the Lakeside Unit; to RAEI, The details to be included in a request for X-ray examination and the fact that a urgent X-ray examination required either telephone call to the Radiologist or a note of priority on X-ray form did not appear to be understood by clinicians at the Lakeside Unit; and demonstrated a lack of Iiaison and understanding between the two Trusts, Which would be necessary to allow the terms of the Service Agreement to be operated and performed, vi Evidence was given at the Inquest that there was no physiotherapy or occupational therapy at the Lakeside Unit to deal with physical health needs of any patients on the Unit: There was no Service Agreement for the provision of physiotherapv and occupational therapy and no understanding as to who would provide such services; The evidence indicated that the Clinical Commissioning Group in Wigan would provide Services and SBP were not in a position to enter Into agreements for the provision of services from elsewhere; Evidence was gitenrby SBP that the Clinical Commissioning Group in Wigan had not provided services so that the physical health needs of finding" referring finding - from the the making the the the patients in the Lakeside Unit; were not being satisfied in relation to physiotherapy and occupational
vii. The evidence raised concerns that there is a risk that future deaths will occur unless action is taken to review the above issues_ Irequest you to consider the above concerns and to carry out review with regard to the following: Ihe Secretary_of_State for_Health_SBP and WL The provision of notes within hospital records in relation to telephone referrals or other referrals 'health erofessionas for advice in relation to the treatment and care of a patient aThe review should include the retention of such notes for observation bvcother clinicians who may become involved subsequently to ensure continuity of advice in relation to treatment and care The review is requested by Secretary of State in view of the evidence that the absence of notes is a problem on a nationwide scale. ji
vii. The evidence raised concerns that there is a risk that future deaths will occur unless action is taken to review the above issues_ Irequest you to consider the above concerns and to carry out review with regard to the following: Ihe Secretary_of_State for_Health_SBP and WL The provision of notes within hospital records in relation to telephone referrals or other referrals 'health erofessionas for advice in relation to the treatment and care of a patient aThe review should include the retention of such notes for observation bvcother clinicians who may become involved subsequently to ensure continuity of advice in relation to treatment and care The review is requested by Secretary of State in view of the evidence that the absence of notes is a problem on a nationwide scale. ji
Responses
Response received
View full response
8 OECEIVED From Ben Gummer MP 0 3 NOV 2015 Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Care Quality Departmert-33235323 Richmond House of Health 79 Whitehall London POCS 960976 SWIA 2NS Tel: 020 7210 4850 Mr A. Walsh Area Coroner Bolton Coroner' s Office Paderborn House Howell Croft North 3 0 Oct 2015 Bolton BLI IJW klz ( Ull Thank you for your letter of 28th September 2015,following the inquest into the death of Pryal. I was sorry to hear of Mr Pryal's death and wish to extend my condolences to his family. There appear to be two main issues of concern that you raise in this case. One is that X-ray information was not available in a timely manner to all of the professionals caring for Mr Pryal: You outline the circumstances which led to this situation and direct several concerns to the 5 Boroughs Partnership NHS Foundation Trust (SBP) and Wrightington Wigan and Leigh NHS Foundation Trust (WWL) which relate to their joint Service Agreement, the reporting times for X-rays, the electronic systems available to support web viewing of X-rays and the recording of appropriate patient notes. These concerns are about the local systems that are in place and rightly addressed to the local providers, who I am confident will consider and review. The other main issue You raise is about the lack of recording of information in the patient 's notes, by medical professionals, that would have ensured a consistency of care for the patient Not only was this an issue in this case but evidence suggested that the lack of recording of appropriate notes in hospital patient records is & problem on a nationwide scale. Whilst the actual recording of patient notes is something that is agreed and implemented at local level, the general move away from paper to integrated digital care records should improve the comprehensiveness of information held, including essential diagnostic tests and it's availability to all professionals engaged in the care of individual patients. Harry
further advantage of digital systems is that they can be programmed to alert all professionals involved in the organisation and delivery of care about any outstanding test results_ Currently, the Health and Social Care Information Centre (HSCIC) is developing the Transfer of Care Initiative. Further information about the Initiative can be found on the HSCIC website. This Initiative recognises that; in order to support the delivery of high quality care; there is an increasing need to share information in a more efficient and consistent way across health and social care_ This is especially important in care settings that cross organisational boundaries The Initiative aims to enable consistent electronic exchange of information between different care professionals and organisations This will be achieved by driving the establishment and uptake of consistent professional and technical Transfer of Care data standards across the health and care sector; in direct support of the National Information Board (NIB) objectives, to 'help clinicians ensure that patients are safely transferred between episodes of care In terms ofhow information is captured and recorded in a consistent manner in clinical systems; the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges (AoMRC) has produced Standards for the clinical structure and content of patient records (2013). These Standards can be found on the Royal College of Physicians website. This work is important in standardising approaches for clinicians and healthcare professionals regardless of the care setting and is equally relevant for those who develop and implement electronic or paper care records. The AoMRC standards document states: 'To record clinical information in @ way that can be shared and re-used safely in an electronic environment; the structure must be standardised For this to be realistically achievable, the standards for structure must reflect the way that patients and clinicians work together to the common of best practice and high quality care. This necessity has been recognised by the establishment of an independent Professional Record Standards Body to oversee rigorous development and maintenance Of health and social care records _ The scope of the AoMRC standards includes the structure and content of patient records, covering hospital referral letters, inpatient clerking, handover communications, discharge summaries and outpatient letters. The adoption of these standards was proposed by the National Information Board in their published framework for action, (November 2014) which states: goal _
"We propose the adoption of the Academy of Royal Medical Colleges' publication Standards for the clinical structure and content of patient records, with a requirement that all organisations and clinical systems should implement the standards, following consultation and completion of an impact assessment. In addition, the HSCIC strategy 2015-20, Information and technology for better care, drew particular attention to the AoMRC standards: We will lead the work to deliver one of the commitments in the National Information Board Framework for all health and care organisations to adopt the Academy of Royal Medical publication Standards for the Clinical Structure and Content of Patient Records: This will improve the timely integration of information across care settings The AoMRC standards are being further developed and implemented as part of the Transfer of Care Initiative. The Initiative has already published specifications AoMRC standards for the electronic transmission of discharge summaries between acute and mental health providers and GPs. [am grateful to for bringing the circumstances of Mr Pryal 's death to my attention and hope that you find this reply helpful. CO1T 8hele BEN GUMMER key Colleges using you
further advantage of digital systems is that they can be programmed to alert all professionals involved in the organisation and delivery of care about any outstanding test results_ Currently, the Health and Social Care Information Centre (HSCIC) is developing the Transfer of Care Initiative. Further information about the Initiative can be found on the HSCIC website. This Initiative recognises that; in order to support the delivery of high quality care; there is an increasing need to share information in a more efficient and consistent way across health and social care_ This is especially important in care settings that cross organisational boundaries The Initiative aims to enable consistent electronic exchange of information between different care professionals and organisations This will be achieved by driving the establishment and uptake of consistent professional and technical Transfer of Care data standards across the health and care sector; in direct support of the National Information Board (NIB) objectives, to 'help clinicians ensure that patients are safely transferred between episodes of care In terms ofhow information is captured and recorded in a consistent manner in clinical systems; the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges (AoMRC) has produced Standards for the clinical structure and content of patient records (2013). These Standards can be found on the Royal College of Physicians website. This work is important in standardising approaches for clinicians and healthcare professionals regardless of the care setting and is equally relevant for those who develop and implement electronic or paper care records. The AoMRC standards document states: 'To record clinical information in @ way that can be shared and re-used safely in an electronic environment; the structure must be standardised For this to be realistically achievable, the standards for structure must reflect the way that patients and clinicians work together to the common of best practice and high quality care. This necessity has been recognised by the establishment of an independent Professional Record Standards Body to oversee rigorous development and maintenance Of health and social care records _ The scope of the AoMRC standards includes the structure and content of patient records, covering hospital referral letters, inpatient clerking, handover communications, discharge summaries and outpatient letters. The adoption of these standards was proposed by the National Information Board in their published framework for action, (November 2014) which states: goal _
"We propose the adoption of the Academy of Royal Medical Colleges' publication Standards for the clinical structure and content of patient records, with a requirement that all organisations and clinical systems should implement the standards, following consultation and completion of an impact assessment. In addition, the HSCIC strategy 2015-20, Information and technology for better care, drew particular attention to the AoMRC standards: We will lead the work to deliver one of the commitments in the National Information Board Framework for all health and care organisations to adopt the Academy of Royal Medical publication Standards for the Clinical Structure and Content of Patient Records: This will improve the timely integration of information across care settings The AoMRC standards are being further developed and implemented as part of the Transfer of Care Initiative. The Initiative has already published specifications AoMRC standards for the electronic transmission of discharge summaries between acute and mental health providers and GPs. [am grateful to for bringing the circumstances of Mr Pryal 's death to my attention and hope that you find this reply helpful. CO1T 8hele BEN GUMMER key Colleges using you
Response received
View full response
Dear Mr Walsh Regulation 28 Report Many thanks for the Regulation 28 Report dated 28th September 2015. This letter is to provide you with assurance that actions are being taken by the CCG in response to the report and the actions that you have recommended to prevent future deaths_ Action VI was "A review of the provision of physiotherapy and occupational therapy to deal with the physical health needs of patients at the Lakeside Unit, to ensure that appropriate treatment is available to those patients"_ In response to the above recommended action, the CCG has formally written to SBP on 13t October 2015, stating that the CCG believes that SBP should have a service agreement in place with a suitable provider for the provision of physiotherapy and occupational therapy: Please see letter attached (Appendix A): 5BP has since confirmed via e-mail dated 28th October that assurance that all requests for physiotherapy or occupational therapy will be flagged to SBP Clinical Director who will ensure that this need is met. Please see e-mail attached (Appendix B): The CCG does not envisage this to be an issue going forward, however, if there are, then it will be dealt with at the Contract Monitoring Group Meetings with 5BP . Wigan Life Centre College Avenue WNI INJ www wiganboroughccg nhs.uk Chairman: Dr Tim Dalton Chief Officer; Trish Anderson Healthy People, Healthy Place. Wigan
WHS Wigan Borough Clinical Commissioning Group
WHS Wigan Borough Clinical Commissioning Group
Response received
View full response
Dear Mr Walsh Regulation 28 Response: Pryal (Deceased) Thank you for your Regulation 28 Report to Prevent Future Deaths, dated 28 September 2015. Within that Report a number of concerns were highlighted to Wrightington, Wigan and Leigh NHS Foundation Trust ("the Trust") following the evidence heard at the inquest of Mr Harry Pryal held on 3 and 4 September 2015 have been fully advised of the circumstances relating to Mr Pryal's death, and having read your Report, am gratefulto you for bringing these concerns to my attention: Since the conclusion of the inquest the Trust has undertaken a great deal of work to address these areas of concern, and have been working alongside the 5 Boroughs Partnership NHS Foundation Trust ("SBP"), to ensure lessons have been learnt from the events surrounding Mr Pryal's death_ would like to take this opportunity to advise you ofthe actions already taken by the Trust to address the concerns outlined on pages and & of your Report; and proposed action to be taken in the future: The provision of notes within hospital records in relation to any telephone referrals or other referrals from health professionals for advice in relation to the treatment and care ofa patient, The review Chairman: Robert Armstrong Chief Executive: Andrew Foster CBE DIsAB Wigan Harry any Jouti 6
should include the retention of such notes for observation by other clinicians who may become involved subsequently to ensure continuity of advice in relation to treatment and care: understand the above was also raised with SBP, as well as the Secretary of State for Health, as it was acknowledged that this was a nationwide concern: It has been shared with the Trust's Clinical Directors for Medicine, Scheduled and Unscheduled Care; to enquire into what processes could be in place within the organisation _ am advised that the Trust's Medical Registrar on-call receives approximately 60 to 70 bleeps a during his 12 hour shift: The majority of those relate to internal queries; however around 5-10% are telephone referrals from external providers, (such as SBP, GPs, and other NHS hospitals) Often these calls are taken whilst the health professional is on a ward undertaking clinical duties, therefore making it difficult for a note to be made of that discussion, especially as these calls do not relate to patients currently being treated within the Trust_ The majority of these external referrals also relate to patients who do not have medical records, either because they have never attended the Trust before; or the medical records are held offsite in storage (making them inaccessible at the time of the discussion): This makes it very difficult for the health professional to document a contemporaneous record of the referral According to the General Medical Council, and Royal College guidance, there is a duty on the health professional seeking the advice to ensure a full and accurate record is kept; note a directive has been given to clinicians within SBP to ensure all clinical advice received is fully recorded, and for the documentation to include the health professional'$ name, grade and contact details_ In addition, the Trust has been working with SBP to create a standardised proforma for use on transfers between the two organisations (please see Appendix 1) The proforma, setting out the patient's medical background, reason for referral, and any prior discussions, would be sent upon transfer and kept within the medical records. Both Trusts are looking to pilot these proformas following approval from the respective clinical committees As stated above, note this matter has been raised with the Secretary of State for Health: would be grateful if vou could share his response to this concern so that we seek to take further action, in addition to that outlined above put day may
A review of the Iiaison, understanding and interpretation of the provisions of the Service Agreement in relation to Radiology for the period from the 1 April 2015 to 31 March 2016 and subsequent years, taking account of the evidence heard at the inquest: The review should include the operation and performance of the terms of the Agreement; and should extend to the involvement of the two Trusts, particularly on the same site at Leigh Infirmary: The review should also take account ofany other Service Agreements in existence and entered into by both Trusts either collectively or individually: Shortly following the conclusion of Mr Pryal' $ inquest; discussions were held regarding the interpretation ofthe Service Agreement for Radiology between the two organisations. Leading on these discussions for the Trust has been ((Associate Director of Finance) and Andrew Beatty (Radiology Directorate Manager) , with (Contract Manager for SBP): A further meeting was held on 18 November 2015 where a joint review was undertaken of the Service Agreement for Radiology to ensure patient safety is now at the heart of specification and Andrew have also presented to the Trust's Quality and Safety Committee on what lessons have been learnt following Mr Pryal's death. It is acknowledged that there are a number of other Service Agreements the Trust has in place with SBP, which relate to pharmacy, anaesthetics, domestics, psychology, counter fraud and estates: These Agreements have also been discussed and work is undertaken to review the terms to ensure a consistent approach by both organisations_ In addition to the above, the Trust's Standing Financial Instructions (SFI's) have also been updated in respect of the process for sign off for Service Agreements (please see Appendix 2). The attached document will be used as a sign off sheet; and is now required for every new Service Agreement the Trust enters into. The revised SFIs have been approvedat Trust Board level The Service Agreement will be owned by the operational manager ("Responsible Officer" within the department which it relates to. It will be their responsibility to send out the sign off sheet to all those named seeking approval, and thereafter to cascade it down to those who provide the service (i.e. the health professionals) to ensure it is complied with. Divisional Accountant will remain responsible for the financial aspects of the Service Agreement; and the document itself will sit with the Trust Board Secretary: any the being The
A review of the electronic systems, which allow access by SBP to network connections in relation to WWL systems, particularly to allow web viewing of x-ray examinations in accordance with the Service Agreement Following discussions with SBP, it was agreed that the Trust would grant secure web based viewing for all diagnostic reports via a secure system which can be accessed by an agreed username and password It will be decided by SBP which oftheir health professionals has access to this system_ This is an interim measure until further developments can be made via the Trust's HIS system which is due to be implemented next year. The Trust is aware that not all health professionals at SBP have the expertise to identify interpret diagnostic reports. Therefore in addition to the above, the Trust has a 24/7 "on call" Radiologist who is able to assist in interpreting X-rays, scans etc, ifthe health professionals are unable to do so. This has been communicated to SBP who in turn will share this information with their staff: A review of the reporting times for X-ray examinations with particular reference to triage to identify any urgent or unexpected significant clinical findings, which will need to be communicated to the referring clinicians at the earliest time. In the case of Mr Pryal, the X-rays undertaken by SBP at Leigh Infirmary were treated the same as if he were based at an out-patient facility: It is acknowledged that there was a lack of understanding by health professionals at the Trust that Lakeside Unit is an inpatient facility- Mr Pryal's X-rays should have been reviewed as if he was an inpatient; and then they would have been reported sooner: Discussions been held at the Radiology Governance Meeting on 22 September and 15 October 2015 reminding all health professionals that patients at Lakeside Unit are to be treated as in-patients. The Radiology Information System (CRIS) has also been updated to reflect this, to prevent a similar delay occurring Within the Emergency floor at the Trust there is a "red dot" system in place so that if Radiographers have any concerns, an * is put on the CRIS system to alert the referring clinician that they may be an untoward finding: This is something that is currently being considered to be used throughout the organisation, ongoing discussions at being held within the Governance meetings_ and have and
"Hot reporting" has also been in place since early 2015 during week days. This means that X-rays are reported "as close to immediately as possible following the X-ray being undertaken" (unless the referring clinician is able to review and interpret them directly). This is currently not in place at weekends due to lack of resources However reporting radiographers are currently trained to interpret chest X-rays One has already been trained and funding is in place for another: Due to Mr Pryal's X-ray request including a chest X-ray it meant; at the time, that it had to be reported by a radiologist: Due to New Year and bank holidays, there was no radiologist available to report plain films, which led to the delay: The risk ofthis delay happening again has been reduced by the introduction of Specialist Radiographer chest X-ray reporting: Finally consideration is also given to creating a Policy or Standard Operating Procedure around radiographers identifying unsuspected clinical findings, and bringing urgent X-rays to radiologist's attention: This is also being discussed at the Governance meeting within the Radiology department: hope the above response is testament to how serious the Trust has dealt with the events surrounding Mr Pryal's death: Ifyou have any comments or suggestions in relation to the proposed actions above, would be only too pleased to hear from you_
should include the retention of such notes for observation by other clinicians who may become involved subsequently to ensure continuity of advice in relation to treatment and care: understand the above was also raised with SBP, as well as the Secretary of State for Health, as it was acknowledged that this was a nationwide concern: It has been shared with the Trust's Clinical Directors for Medicine, Scheduled and Unscheduled Care; to enquire into what processes could be in place within the organisation _ am advised that the Trust's Medical Registrar on-call receives approximately 60 to 70 bleeps a during his 12 hour shift: The majority of those relate to internal queries; however around 5-10% are telephone referrals from external providers, (such as SBP, GPs, and other NHS hospitals) Often these calls are taken whilst the health professional is on a ward undertaking clinical duties, therefore making it difficult for a note to be made of that discussion, especially as these calls do not relate to patients currently being treated within the Trust_ The majority of these external referrals also relate to patients who do not have medical records, either because they have never attended the Trust before; or the medical records are held offsite in storage (making them inaccessible at the time of the discussion): This makes it very difficult for the health professional to document a contemporaneous record of the referral According to the General Medical Council, and Royal College guidance, there is a duty on the health professional seeking the advice to ensure a full and accurate record is kept; note a directive has been given to clinicians within SBP to ensure all clinical advice received is fully recorded, and for the documentation to include the health professional'$ name, grade and contact details_ In addition, the Trust has been working with SBP to create a standardised proforma for use on transfers between the two organisations (please see Appendix 1) The proforma, setting out the patient's medical background, reason for referral, and any prior discussions, would be sent upon transfer and kept within the medical records. Both Trusts are looking to pilot these proformas following approval from the respective clinical committees As stated above, note this matter has been raised with the Secretary of State for Health: would be grateful if vou could share his response to this concern so that we seek to take further action, in addition to that outlined above put day may
A review of the Iiaison, understanding and interpretation of the provisions of the Service Agreement in relation to Radiology for the period from the 1 April 2015 to 31 March 2016 and subsequent years, taking account of the evidence heard at the inquest: The review should include the operation and performance of the terms of the Agreement; and should extend to the involvement of the two Trusts, particularly on the same site at Leigh Infirmary: The review should also take account ofany other Service Agreements in existence and entered into by both Trusts either collectively or individually: Shortly following the conclusion of Mr Pryal' $ inquest; discussions were held regarding the interpretation ofthe Service Agreement for Radiology between the two organisations. Leading on these discussions for the Trust has been ((Associate Director of Finance) and Andrew Beatty (Radiology Directorate Manager) , with (Contract Manager for SBP): A further meeting was held on 18 November 2015 where a joint review was undertaken of the Service Agreement for Radiology to ensure patient safety is now at the heart of specification and Andrew have also presented to the Trust's Quality and Safety Committee on what lessons have been learnt following Mr Pryal's death. It is acknowledged that there are a number of other Service Agreements the Trust has in place with SBP, which relate to pharmacy, anaesthetics, domestics, psychology, counter fraud and estates: These Agreements have also been discussed and work is undertaken to review the terms to ensure a consistent approach by both organisations_ In addition to the above, the Trust's Standing Financial Instructions (SFI's) have also been updated in respect of the process for sign off for Service Agreements (please see Appendix 2). The attached document will be used as a sign off sheet; and is now required for every new Service Agreement the Trust enters into. The revised SFIs have been approvedat Trust Board level The Service Agreement will be owned by the operational manager ("Responsible Officer" within the department which it relates to. It will be their responsibility to send out the sign off sheet to all those named seeking approval, and thereafter to cascade it down to those who provide the service (i.e. the health professionals) to ensure it is complied with. Divisional Accountant will remain responsible for the financial aspects of the Service Agreement; and the document itself will sit with the Trust Board Secretary: any the being The
A review of the electronic systems, which allow access by SBP to network connections in relation to WWL systems, particularly to allow web viewing of x-ray examinations in accordance with the Service Agreement Following discussions with SBP, it was agreed that the Trust would grant secure web based viewing for all diagnostic reports via a secure system which can be accessed by an agreed username and password It will be decided by SBP which oftheir health professionals has access to this system_ This is an interim measure until further developments can be made via the Trust's HIS system which is due to be implemented next year. The Trust is aware that not all health professionals at SBP have the expertise to identify interpret diagnostic reports. Therefore in addition to the above, the Trust has a 24/7 "on call" Radiologist who is able to assist in interpreting X-rays, scans etc, ifthe health professionals are unable to do so. This has been communicated to SBP who in turn will share this information with their staff: A review of the reporting times for X-ray examinations with particular reference to triage to identify any urgent or unexpected significant clinical findings, which will need to be communicated to the referring clinicians at the earliest time. In the case of Mr Pryal, the X-rays undertaken by SBP at Leigh Infirmary were treated the same as if he were based at an out-patient facility: It is acknowledged that there was a lack of understanding by health professionals at the Trust that Lakeside Unit is an inpatient facility- Mr Pryal's X-rays should have been reviewed as if he was an inpatient; and then they would have been reported sooner: Discussions been held at the Radiology Governance Meeting on 22 September and 15 October 2015 reminding all health professionals that patients at Lakeside Unit are to be treated as in-patients. The Radiology Information System (CRIS) has also been updated to reflect this, to prevent a similar delay occurring Within the Emergency floor at the Trust there is a "red dot" system in place so that if Radiographers have any concerns, an * is put on the CRIS system to alert the referring clinician that they may be an untoward finding: This is something that is currently being considered to be used throughout the organisation, ongoing discussions at being held within the Governance meetings_ and have and
"Hot reporting" has also been in place since early 2015 during week days. This means that X-rays are reported "as close to immediately as possible following the X-ray being undertaken" (unless the referring clinician is able to review and interpret them directly). This is currently not in place at weekends due to lack of resources However reporting radiographers are currently trained to interpret chest X-rays One has already been trained and funding is in place for another: Due to Mr Pryal's X-ray request including a chest X-ray it meant; at the time, that it had to be reported by a radiologist: Due to New Year and bank holidays, there was no radiologist available to report plain films, which led to the delay: The risk ofthis delay happening again has been reduced by the introduction of Specialist Radiographer chest X-ray reporting: Finally consideration is also given to creating a Policy or Standard Operating Procedure around radiographers identifying unsuspected clinical findings, and bringing urgent X-rays to radiologist's attention: This is also being discussed at the Governance meeting within the Radiology department: hope the above response is testament to how serious the Trust has dealt with the events surrounding Mr Pryal's death: Ifyou have any comments or suggestions in relation to the proposed actions above, would be only too pleased to hear from you_
Response received
View full response
Dear Mr Walsh Re: Harry Pryal Thank you for your letter dated 28 September 2015 with regards the inquest findings into the death of Mr Pryal and the directions given under regulation 28 of the Coroners and Justice act 2009 (a2013). would like to inform you that many actions were being progressed by a number of the organisations to the inquest and this has enabled the Trust to provide you with a detailed response In preparing this response 5 Boroughs Partnership NHS Foundation Trust (the Trust) have worked jointly with Wrightington; Wigan and Leigh NHS Foundation Trust and have been in contact with Wigan Clinical Commissioning Group to ensure that all actions align to achieve a more integrated care pathway_ would like to advise you of the actions the Trust has taken since receiving your letter. Taking your points in turn can confirm the Trust has taken the following steps: The provision of notes within hospital records in relation to telephone referrals or other referrals for advice in relation t0 the treatment care Of the patient: Chief Executive: Mr. Simon J Barber Chairman: Mr. Bernard Pilkington Trust Headquarters , Hollins Park House, Hollins Lane; Winwick, Warringlon, WA?Z 8WA Mini Com Number 01925 664094 "1s48 Your prior and
We have developed a standardised proforma for use_on transfer between the Trust and Wrightington, Wigan and Leigh NHS Foundation Trust to be kept within the care record: These proforma have been created by the clinicians who will be using them and have been discussed at the Wigan Medial Staff Committee (minutes available) We have shared this work with our colleagues in Wrightington, Wigan and Leigh NHS Foundation Trust who are looking at a pilot to test the clinical appropriateness of the proforma. A directive has been given to all clinicians within the Trust relating to the recording of clinical advice by specialist services. In Mr Pryal's case; this was with the medical registrar for medicine. There is requirement that all clinical advice we receive is fully recorded, with emphasis on the recording of the name; grade and contact details of clinical colleagues we speak to. This been sent out for immediate action via an internal email: Although this incident occurred in Wigan, it is important to share the wider learning across the Trust To facilitate the learning this incident will be discussed at the next Lessons Learned Forum on 24 November 2015 chaired by our Medical Directors_ Further dissemination of the lessons learned from this incident will be developed at the forum and will be communicated Trust wide_
ii. A review of the Iiaison, understanding and interpretation of the service level agreement in relation to radiology: A joint review of all SLAs held between Wrightington, Wigan and Leigh NHS Foundation Trust and 5 Boroughs Partnership NHS Foundation Trust is underway: This includes, and has started with the service level agreement for the provision of radiology services The review process will incorporate the following steps: a) A thorough review of service specification by 5 Boroughs Partnership NHS Foundation Trust clinicians to assure themselves that the service specification is sufficiently robust and specific to support the provision of clinically safe services_ b) A review of the service specification by Wrightington, Wigan and Leigh NHS Foundation Trust to ensure that the agreed service specification is deliverable. c) A review of the wording in the service level agreement to remove any ambiguity and to ensure a consistent interpretation by both parties_ d) The identification of performance indicators management information to be provided to allow for appropriate monitoring of the service provided. e) Identification of a 5 Boroughs Partnership NHS Foundation Trust clinical and operational lead for each service level agreement: Scheduling of routine service review meetings between 5 Boroughs Partnership NHS Foundation Trust and Wrightington, Wigan and Leigh NHS Foundation Trust_ Chief Executive: Mr: Simon J. Barber Chairman: Mr: Bernard Pilkington Trust Headquarters , Hollins Park House Hollins Lane, Winwick Warrington, WAZ 8WA Switchboard 01925 664000 Better View_. of mind & body has the key
Feedback from 5 Boroughs Partnership NHS Foundation Trust clinicians on service specifications is being sought and an initial meeting with Wrightington , Wigan and Leigh NHS Foundation Trust has taken place.
iii. Review of electronic systems At present each organisation is responsible for the creation, safe storage and maintenance of its own clinical records. As we move to an ever increasing paper-light NHS, we are now doing more and more on computers_ In Mr Pryal's case_ there was a failure between the Trust and Wrightington , Wigan and Leigh NHS Foundation Trust to appropriately locate or share information critical to Mr Pryal's care: As an immediate but interim step, we have received agreement from Wrightington, Wigan and Leigh NHS Foundation Trust to secure web- based viewing to all diagnostic reports via system that can only be accessed from an NHS computer via a secure log in. The provision of the log-in accounts is in progress but early signs are that all substantive medical staff will receive one, and we are reviewing how we manage out of hour's access with the medical rotation of doctors. This challenge will form part of our on going action plan_ Wigan Borough Clinical Commissioning Group has set out commissioning intentions for the 2016/17 contract with the focus on delivery of the borough's major transformation programme_ In November 2015 the urgent care service who deliver out of hours care and assessment were granted access to the Medical Interoperability Gateway This allows real time access to all primary care records that the service has permission to see_ Whilst this doesn't directly Iink to Mr Pryal's case_ this is a further step taken to align health information in the Wigan Borough: All clinical letters and information routinely sent to a GP_ in this case information from Wrightington, Wigan and Leigh NHS Foundation Trust to GPs will be accessible with patient consent to Trust staff. As the Trust is moving to a purpose built bespoke mental health hospital in 2016/17 an IT work stream has been initiated to review all future IT connectivity needs to ensure that all these systems are fully compatible in the new hospital once we move off Wrightington, Wigan and Leigh NHS Foundation Trusts site_ This project has recently incorporated North West Ambulance Service.
iv. Review of notes The Trust's records manager is reviewing the process for clinical record audit in line with recent organisational changes that have occurred_ This is completed by the Records Management team and reported to the Chief Nurse and Executive Chief Executive: Mr. Simon J. Barber Chairman: Mr. Bernard Pilkington Trust Headquarters , Hollins Park House Hollins Lane Winwick Warrington. WAZ 8WA Switchboard : 01925 664000 Better View_. of mind & body have being
Director for Operations This process will audit policy compliance over paper and electronic records and following the review, recommendations for change are to be considered in the amended final policy. v: Review of the provision of physiotherapy and Occupational Therapy: The Trust has carried out a review to identify need in this area and to identify the clinical pathway and demand Discussions at a senior level are taking place between 5 Boroughs Partnership NHS Foundation Trust and Bridgewater NHS Foundation Trust to clarify arrangements for the provision of physiotherapy and occupational therapy: For the interim period, requests for physiotherapy and occupational therapy from the in-patient wards at Leigh Infirmary are being flagged urgently to our Professional Lead for Allied Health Professionals who will source the appropriate professional from our wider Trust resource She will also complete the required specification for submission to Wigan Clinical Commissioning Group to maintain the service either from Bridgewater NHS Foundation Trust or the Trust will identify an alternative supplier.
We have developed a standardised proforma for use_on transfer between the Trust and Wrightington, Wigan and Leigh NHS Foundation Trust to be kept within the care record: These proforma have been created by the clinicians who will be using them and have been discussed at the Wigan Medial Staff Committee (minutes available) We have shared this work with our colleagues in Wrightington, Wigan and Leigh NHS Foundation Trust who are looking at a pilot to test the clinical appropriateness of the proforma. A directive has been given to all clinicians within the Trust relating to the recording of clinical advice by specialist services. In Mr Pryal's case; this was with the medical registrar for medicine. There is requirement that all clinical advice we receive is fully recorded, with emphasis on the recording of the name; grade and contact details of clinical colleagues we speak to. This been sent out for immediate action via an internal email: Although this incident occurred in Wigan, it is important to share the wider learning across the Trust To facilitate the learning this incident will be discussed at the next Lessons Learned Forum on 24 November 2015 chaired by our Medical Directors_ Further dissemination of the lessons learned from this incident will be developed at the forum and will be communicated Trust wide_
ii. A review of the Iiaison, understanding and interpretation of the service level agreement in relation to radiology: A joint review of all SLAs held between Wrightington, Wigan and Leigh NHS Foundation Trust and 5 Boroughs Partnership NHS Foundation Trust is underway: This includes, and has started with the service level agreement for the provision of radiology services The review process will incorporate the following steps: a) A thorough review of service specification by 5 Boroughs Partnership NHS Foundation Trust clinicians to assure themselves that the service specification is sufficiently robust and specific to support the provision of clinically safe services_ b) A review of the service specification by Wrightington, Wigan and Leigh NHS Foundation Trust to ensure that the agreed service specification is deliverable. c) A review of the wording in the service level agreement to remove any ambiguity and to ensure a consistent interpretation by both parties_ d) The identification of performance indicators management information to be provided to allow for appropriate monitoring of the service provided. e) Identification of a 5 Boroughs Partnership NHS Foundation Trust clinical and operational lead for each service level agreement: Scheduling of routine service review meetings between 5 Boroughs Partnership NHS Foundation Trust and Wrightington, Wigan and Leigh NHS Foundation Trust_ Chief Executive: Mr: Simon J. Barber Chairman: Mr: Bernard Pilkington Trust Headquarters , Hollins Park House Hollins Lane, Winwick Warrington, WAZ 8WA Switchboard 01925 664000 Better View_. of mind & body has the key
Feedback from 5 Boroughs Partnership NHS Foundation Trust clinicians on service specifications is being sought and an initial meeting with Wrightington , Wigan and Leigh NHS Foundation Trust has taken place.
iii. Review of electronic systems At present each organisation is responsible for the creation, safe storage and maintenance of its own clinical records. As we move to an ever increasing paper-light NHS, we are now doing more and more on computers_ In Mr Pryal's case_ there was a failure between the Trust and Wrightington , Wigan and Leigh NHS Foundation Trust to appropriately locate or share information critical to Mr Pryal's care: As an immediate but interim step, we have received agreement from Wrightington, Wigan and Leigh NHS Foundation Trust to secure web- based viewing to all diagnostic reports via system that can only be accessed from an NHS computer via a secure log in. The provision of the log-in accounts is in progress but early signs are that all substantive medical staff will receive one, and we are reviewing how we manage out of hour's access with the medical rotation of doctors. This challenge will form part of our on going action plan_ Wigan Borough Clinical Commissioning Group has set out commissioning intentions for the 2016/17 contract with the focus on delivery of the borough's major transformation programme_ In November 2015 the urgent care service who deliver out of hours care and assessment were granted access to the Medical Interoperability Gateway This allows real time access to all primary care records that the service has permission to see_ Whilst this doesn't directly Iink to Mr Pryal's case_ this is a further step taken to align health information in the Wigan Borough: All clinical letters and information routinely sent to a GP_ in this case information from Wrightington, Wigan and Leigh NHS Foundation Trust to GPs will be accessible with patient consent to Trust staff. As the Trust is moving to a purpose built bespoke mental health hospital in 2016/17 an IT work stream has been initiated to review all future IT connectivity needs to ensure that all these systems are fully compatible in the new hospital once we move off Wrightington, Wigan and Leigh NHS Foundation Trusts site_ This project has recently incorporated North West Ambulance Service.
iv. Review of notes The Trust's records manager is reviewing the process for clinical record audit in line with recent organisational changes that have occurred_ This is completed by the Records Management team and reported to the Chief Nurse and Executive Chief Executive: Mr. Simon J. Barber Chairman: Mr. Bernard Pilkington Trust Headquarters , Hollins Park House Hollins Lane Winwick Warrington. WAZ 8WA Switchboard : 01925 664000 Better View_. of mind & body have being
Director for Operations This process will audit policy compliance over paper and electronic records and following the review, recommendations for change are to be considered in the amended final policy. v: Review of the provision of physiotherapy and Occupational Therapy: The Trust has carried out a review to identify need in this area and to identify the clinical pathway and demand Discussions at a senior level are taking place between 5 Boroughs Partnership NHS Foundation Trust and Bridgewater NHS Foundation Trust to clarify arrangements for the provision of physiotherapy and occupational therapy: For the interim period, requests for physiotherapy and occupational therapy from the in-patient wards at Leigh Infirmary are being flagged urgently to our Professional Lead for Allied Health Professionals who will source the appropriate professional from our wider Trust resource She will also complete the required specification for submission to Wigan Clinical Commissioning Group to maintain the service either from Bridgewater NHS Foundation Trust or the Trust will identify an alternative supplier.
Action Should Be Taken
Ieliny opinion urgent action should be taken to prevent future deaths ad I believe you andjor your organisation have the power to take sucha actianc
Report Sections
Circumstances of the Death
1. Pryal died at Salford Royal Hospital, Eccles Old Road, Salford on the &th January 2015. Mr Pryalthad been admitted to the Lakeside Unit; Leigh Infirmary, on 5" November 2014 compiainingeof ongoing lagh Hofrnarth Leigh reduced energy_levels__poor motivation_hopelessness_and decreased Lane, the the Harry 1a) Harry days - X-Ray days Harry the pppettehimhe -Irakeside Unit i$ under the Governance of the 5 Boroughs Partnership NHS Foundation Trust (hereafter referred to as 'SBPOranaris Oitheisame site as Leigh Infirmary Which is under the Governance of' Wrightington Wigan and Leigh NHS Foundation Trust (hereveternefered to as 'WL)
3. There was a Service Agreement for provision of Radiology between the 1st April 2014 and the 31** March 2015 between 58P and which included the provision of Radiology ateteige Inrmnand, Weigh copy of the Service Agreement is attached hereto. Leigh and a 4, On the 30th December 2014 Mr Pryal had a fall in his bedroom at the Lakeside Unit and on the same Doctor from the Lakeside Unit requestedan x-ray examination by completing and submitting appropriate form to WWL. The form requested x-ray examinations of chest; cervical spine and a shoulder; The Kerays Were conducted at the Leigh Infirmary, Leigh by WWL on December 2014 under the terms of the Service Agreement forOhe provision of The X-rays were not reported in writing until the January 2015, when report referred to a separation of the spinous processes of C5 and C6 and disruption of the alignment of indet ioints below C5, The report also referred to furthergimagingo indicated, The written report was only received on 14th January 2015 after Mr Pryals death, which occurred on the 8" January 2015 During the evidence there was a conflict between SBP and WWL with regardrto the interpretation of the Service Agreement in relation to the repeeting of XFay examinations under paragraph 2.1 on page 15of the Agreement; SBP interpreted the reporting of the examination to be within 72 hrs of examination whereas WWL interpreted as web of X-ray within 72 of the examination provision and the reporting of the examination at some time in the without any time indication. The evidence at the Inquest from SBP was that were unable to view X-rays by use of web viewing because software used by SBP was not compatible ad SBP did not have a network connection to WWL for web of the X-rays Furthermore SBP gave evidence that the Doctors and Psychiatrists at the Lakeside Unit would not have the expertise to identifv or interpret X-rays by web viewing without a formal report by a Radiologist;
5. The clinicat lead Radiologist for WWL gave evidence at the Inquest that he was not aware of terms of the Service Agreement and that Mr Pryal was treated as an outpatient for X-ray examination by WWZ at Leigh Infirmary Whereas the agreement provides that Mr Pryal should been treated as an in-patient which would have affected the tionue lines for reporting X-ray examinations: 6_ Theevidence at the Inquest indicated that Doctors in Psychiatry at the Lakeside_Unit would be dependent upon referral to and advice the the day the the Radiology; 14th the the the the the viewing the hrs future they the viewing the the have from medical team at WWL based at the Royal Albert Edward Infirmary, Wigan (hereafter referred to as 'RAEI) for treatment and care of patients in the Lakeside Unit with regard to any physical health needs; On 1s January 2015 at 03.35 hrs a Doctor from Lakeside Unit made a note that he discussed Mr Pryal with the on call medical registrar at the RAEI and he made a note with regard to a plan in relation to medication and follow up of chest X-ray: The note did not refer to the name of the medical registrar at RAEI The evidence given by witnesses WWL showed that any referrals bv health professionals outside WWL would not be noted and there would be no reference on any system or notes held by WWL with regard to the name of the Doctor giving advice nor with regard to the details of the advice. Furthermore evidence was given that the absence of notes in relation of such matters was not limited to WWL ad the same procedure existed in many, if not all, Hospitals nationwide_ On the 2nd January 2015 Mr Pryal was reviewed by a Doctor at the Lakeside Unit and was ongoing deterioration in his presentation and he was drooling his mouth with increased pain; There was a note that his neck was slightly deviated to the right side and he reported difficulty in raising his left hand. A CT scan was requested and Doctor liaised with the medical team at WWL requesting an urgene transfer, a complete physical examination and an urgent CT scgn in view of him having had a Stroke: Mr Pryal was transferred to the RAEI on the 2nd January 2015 and the notes accompanying Mr Pryal to the RAEI referred to the history of falls x 3 and other conditions but did not refer to X-rays On the 31st December 2014, nor a report in SBP notes that "= self reported that his neck was sore ad that he cannot straighten his neck posture" The notes accompanying Mr Pryal to the RAEI also mentioned 'need for a CT scan to rule out a stroke"
8. When Mr Pryal arrived at the RAEI he had a CT scan of the head and brain which reported moderate cerebral atrophy with no evidence Of an acute stroke in the form of a bleed or an infarct: On the 3rd January 2015 Mr Pryal was seen by the Consultant Stroke Physician, who suspected that Mr may have had a minor stroke and he advised to continue further care on stroke pathway. The Consultant gave evidenceat the Inquest that he was not aware of the x-rays conducted on the 31* December 2014 and he was not aware of information to the fall nor neck pain, particularly report that Mr Pryals neck was sore and he could straighten his neck posture, as recorded in 5 BP notes on the 1s January 2015. The Consultant also gave evidence that if he had been aware of the above information hetwould have looked at the X-rays and taken further action with regard to the symptomsz_in addition _to advising_care on_the stroke pathway_ the the the from there from the the the 'Harry Pryal the the relating the the the On 5th January 2015 at 10.30 FY1 Doctor on the Stroke Unit at RAEI recorded that Mr Pryal was complaining of neck pain and had weakness in both the upper limbs. The Doctor arranged either an urgent MRI scan of the brain and spine or an urgent CT scan of cervical spine:
10. The scans were discussed at a Neuro-Radiology MDT 6th January 2015 when the X-ray of cervical spine conducted on the December 2015, which was not reported in on the 31= considered writing at that time; was by a verbal report for the time and it was noted from the X-ray that there were abnormalities in the region of CSjC6 with subluxation and the meeting noted the possibility of possible cervical spine fracture.
11.On the 6h January 2015 a MRI Scan of the whole spine Was done and Mr Pryal was referred to the Spinal Neurosurgical Unit at the Salford Hospital (hereafter referred to as 'SRH). 9i1C Pryait aasheansferedoyal SRH on the 7th January 2015 when it was obvious that Mr chest infection, which was treated Pryal had a with antibiotics In fact there was evidence that Mr Pryal was suffering with a Suspected chest infection on the 30" December 2014 at the Lakeside Unit whees treatment with antibiotics was commenced. The Consultant Spinal Surgeon gave evidence that if he had been aware of the findings on the X-rays conducted on the 31* December Z01aher would have requested an immediate CT scan with a view to transfer to theeSRH to conduct surgery to stabilise the cervical spine of the fracturec When Mr Pryal was transferred to the SRH on 7th January 2015 he refusedi surgery in relation to the spinal fracture but he did accept antibiotics in relation to the chest infection. The Consultant was satisfied that Mr hadesapacttioo make Cre seCisro Sbtced also obtained advice a Consultant Psychiatrist to confirm that Mr Pryal had sufficient capacity to refuse surgery
12. Mr was treated with antibiotics for the chest infection but deteriorated and died on the &* January 2015.
3. There was a Service Agreement for provision of Radiology between the 1st April 2014 and the 31** March 2015 between 58P and which included the provision of Radiology ateteige Inrmnand, Weigh copy of the Service Agreement is attached hereto. Leigh and a 4, On the 30th December 2014 Mr Pryal had a fall in his bedroom at the Lakeside Unit and on the same Doctor from the Lakeside Unit requestedan x-ray examination by completing and submitting appropriate form to WWL. The form requested x-ray examinations of chest; cervical spine and a shoulder; The Kerays Were conducted at the Leigh Infirmary, Leigh by WWL on December 2014 under the terms of the Service Agreement forOhe provision of The X-rays were not reported in writing until the January 2015, when report referred to a separation of the spinous processes of C5 and C6 and disruption of the alignment of indet ioints below C5, The report also referred to furthergimagingo indicated, The written report was only received on 14th January 2015 after Mr Pryals death, which occurred on the 8" January 2015 During the evidence there was a conflict between SBP and WWL with regardrto the interpretation of the Service Agreement in relation to the repeeting of XFay examinations under paragraph 2.1 on page 15of the Agreement; SBP interpreted the reporting of the examination to be within 72 hrs of examination whereas WWL interpreted as web of X-ray within 72 of the examination provision and the reporting of the examination at some time in the without any time indication. The evidence at the Inquest from SBP was that were unable to view X-rays by use of web viewing because software used by SBP was not compatible ad SBP did not have a network connection to WWL for web of the X-rays Furthermore SBP gave evidence that the Doctors and Psychiatrists at the Lakeside Unit would not have the expertise to identifv or interpret X-rays by web viewing without a formal report by a Radiologist;
5. The clinicat lead Radiologist for WWL gave evidence at the Inquest that he was not aware of terms of the Service Agreement and that Mr Pryal was treated as an outpatient for X-ray examination by WWZ at Leigh Infirmary Whereas the agreement provides that Mr Pryal should been treated as an in-patient which would have affected the tionue lines for reporting X-ray examinations: 6_ Theevidence at the Inquest indicated that Doctors in Psychiatry at the Lakeside_Unit would be dependent upon referral to and advice the the day the the Radiology; 14th the the the the the viewing the hrs future they the viewing the the have from medical team at WWL based at the Royal Albert Edward Infirmary, Wigan (hereafter referred to as 'RAEI) for treatment and care of patients in the Lakeside Unit with regard to any physical health needs; On 1s January 2015 at 03.35 hrs a Doctor from Lakeside Unit made a note that he discussed Mr Pryal with the on call medical registrar at the RAEI and he made a note with regard to a plan in relation to medication and follow up of chest X-ray: The note did not refer to the name of the medical registrar at RAEI The evidence given by witnesses WWL showed that any referrals bv health professionals outside WWL would not be noted and there would be no reference on any system or notes held by WWL with regard to the name of the Doctor giving advice nor with regard to the details of the advice. Furthermore evidence was given that the absence of notes in relation of such matters was not limited to WWL ad the same procedure existed in many, if not all, Hospitals nationwide_ On the 2nd January 2015 Mr Pryal was reviewed by a Doctor at the Lakeside Unit and was ongoing deterioration in his presentation and he was drooling his mouth with increased pain; There was a note that his neck was slightly deviated to the right side and he reported difficulty in raising his left hand. A CT scan was requested and Doctor liaised with the medical team at WWL requesting an urgene transfer, a complete physical examination and an urgent CT scgn in view of him having had a Stroke: Mr Pryal was transferred to the RAEI on the 2nd January 2015 and the notes accompanying Mr Pryal to the RAEI referred to the history of falls x 3 and other conditions but did not refer to X-rays On the 31st December 2014, nor a report in SBP notes that "= self reported that his neck was sore ad that he cannot straighten his neck posture" The notes accompanying Mr Pryal to the RAEI also mentioned 'need for a CT scan to rule out a stroke"
8. When Mr Pryal arrived at the RAEI he had a CT scan of the head and brain which reported moderate cerebral atrophy with no evidence Of an acute stroke in the form of a bleed or an infarct: On the 3rd January 2015 Mr Pryal was seen by the Consultant Stroke Physician, who suspected that Mr may have had a minor stroke and he advised to continue further care on stroke pathway. The Consultant gave evidenceat the Inquest that he was not aware of the x-rays conducted on the 31* December 2014 and he was not aware of information to the fall nor neck pain, particularly report that Mr Pryals neck was sore and he could straighten his neck posture, as recorded in 5 BP notes on the 1s January 2015. The Consultant also gave evidence that if he had been aware of the above information hetwould have looked at the X-rays and taken further action with regard to the symptomsz_in addition _to advising_care on_the stroke pathway_ the the the from there from the the the 'Harry Pryal the the relating the the the On 5th January 2015 at 10.30 FY1 Doctor on the Stroke Unit at RAEI recorded that Mr Pryal was complaining of neck pain and had weakness in both the upper limbs. The Doctor arranged either an urgent MRI scan of the brain and spine or an urgent CT scan of cervical spine:
10. The scans were discussed at a Neuro-Radiology MDT 6th January 2015 when the X-ray of cervical spine conducted on the December 2015, which was not reported in on the 31= considered writing at that time; was by a verbal report for the time and it was noted from the X-ray that there were abnormalities in the region of CSjC6 with subluxation and the meeting noted the possibility of possible cervical spine fracture.
11.On the 6h January 2015 a MRI Scan of the whole spine Was done and Mr Pryal was referred to the Spinal Neurosurgical Unit at the Salford Hospital (hereafter referred to as 'SRH). 9i1C Pryait aasheansferedoyal SRH on the 7th January 2015 when it was obvious that Mr chest infection, which was treated Pryal had a with antibiotics In fact there was evidence that Mr Pryal was suffering with a Suspected chest infection on the 30" December 2014 at the Lakeside Unit whees treatment with antibiotics was commenced. The Consultant Spinal Surgeon gave evidence that if he had been aware of the findings on the X-rays conducted on the 31* December Z01aher would have requested an immediate CT scan with a view to transfer to theeSRH to conduct surgery to stabilise the cervical spine of the fracturec When Mr Pryal was transferred to the SRH on 7th January 2015 he refusedi surgery in relation to the spinal fracture but he did accept antibiotics in relation to the chest infection. The Consultant was satisfied that Mr hadesapacttioo make Cre seCisro Sbtced also obtained advice a Consultant Psychiatrist to confirm that Mr Pryal had sufficient capacity to refuse surgery
12. Mr was treated with antibiotics for the chest infection but deteriorated and died on the &* January 2015.
Similar PFD Reports
Reports sharing organisations, categories, or themes with this PFD
Related Inquiry Recommendations
Public inquiry recommendations addressing similar themes
Close HSS Dispute Resolution Procedure when HSSA opens
Post Office Horizon Inquiry
Inconsistent Healthcare Data Infrastructure
Transfusion Performance Benchmarking
Infected Blood Inquiry
Inconsistent Healthcare Data Infrastructure
NHSBT Transfusion Outcome Funding
Infected Blood Inquiry
Inconsistent Healthcare Data Infrastructure
National Haemophilia Database Support
Infected Blood Inquiry
Inconsistent Healthcare Data Infrastructure
Data sourced from Courts and Tribunals Judiciary under the Open Government Licence.