Etheline De-Gale
PFD Report
All Responded
Ref: 2017-0058
All 1 response received
· Deadline: 1 May 2017
Sent To
Response Status
Responses
1 of 1
56-Day Deadline
1 May 2017
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
Coroner's Concerns
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 unless action is taken. In the circumstances it is my statutory duty to report to (1) The care plan was too vague to be of assistance to the carers. The carer understood that the deceased required carers to assist her to the commode, but interpreted that as being limited to walking across the floor; but not sitting up in bed with the sides removed or on the side of the bed, (2) The Deputy Manager indicated that the carer should undertaken risk assessment but could offer no guidance on how that was to be achieved.
(3) There were only members of staff on duty, which compromised the safety of other residents when a resident required 2 members of staff to assist_ There were only members of staff on duty , which potentially could compromise decisions made in the best interests of a resident. One carer accompanying a resident to hospital would clearly create problem and that could potentially be seen as basis for not admitting a resident to hospital: (5) The recommendation of the paramedics appears to have been ignored. ACTION SHOULD BE TAKEN In my opinion action should be taken to prevent future deaths and believe Ambassador House Care Home have the power to take such action. YOUR RESPONSE Senior Coroner The Court Hlouse; Woburn Street; ^ MPTHILL, Bedfordshire; MK45 ZHX Tel 0300-300-6559 Fax 0300-300-8267 During you: sitting have
You are under a duty to respond to this report within 56 of the date of this report; namely by 20th April 2017 . |, the coroner; may extend the period. Your response must contain details of action taken or proposed to be taken, out the timetable for action. Otherwise you must explain why no action is proposed_ COPIES and PUBLICATION have sent copy of my report to the Chief Coroner and to the following Interested Persons: Thave also sent it to the Care Quality Commission who may find it useful or of interest_ am also under duty to send the Chief Coroner a copy of your response. The Chief Coroner may publish either or both in complete or redacted or summary form. He may send a copy of this report to any person who he believes may find it useful or of interest You may make representations to me the coroner; at the time of your response about the release or the publication of your response by the Chief Coroner. Dated 16th February 2017 IAN PEARS Acting Senior Coroner Bedfordshire & Luton Senior Coroner; The Court Woburn Street; AMPTHILL_ Bedfordshire; MK45 2HX Tel 0300-300-6559 Fax 0300-300-8267 days setting House.
(3) There were only members of staff on duty, which compromised the safety of other residents when a resident required 2 members of staff to assist_ There were only members of staff on duty , which potentially could compromise decisions made in the best interests of a resident. One carer accompanying a resident to hospital would clearly create problem and that could potentially be seen as basis for not admitting a resident to hospital: (5) The recommendation of the paramedics appears to have been ignored. ACTION SHOULD BE TAKEN In my opinion action should be taken to prevent future deaths and believe Ambassador House Care Home have the power to take such action. YOUR RESPONSE Senior Coroner The Court Hlouse; Woburn Street; ^ MPTHILL, Bedfordshire; MK45 ZHX Tel 0300-300-6559 Fax 0300-300-8267 During you: sitting have
You are under a duty to respond to this report within 56 of the date of this report; namely by 20th April 2017 . |, the coroner; may extend the period. Your response must contain details of action taken or proposed to be taken, out the timetable for action. Otherwise you must explain why no action is proposed_ COPIES and PUBLICATION have sent copy of my report to the Chief Coroner and to the following Interested Persons: Thave also sent it to the Care Quality Commission who may find it useful or of interest_ am also under duty to send the Chief Coroner a copy of your response. The Chief Coroner may publish either or both in complete or redacted or summary form. He may send a copy of this report to any person who he believes may find it useful or of interest You may make representations to me the coroner; at the time of your response about the release or the publication of your response by the Chief Coroner. Dated 16th February 2017 IAN PEARS Acting Senior Coroner Bedfordshire & Luton Senior Coroner; The Court Woburn Street; AMPTHILL_ Bedfordshire; MK45 2HX Tel 0300-300-6559 Fax 0300-300-8267 days setting House.
Responses
Response received
View full response
Ambassador House Home-Internal investigation Service user; Etheline De ~Gale Date of allegation made; 7th March 2016 Summary of our internal investigation Introduction Background reason for this report is a request from the coroner for an action plan to prevent future deaths_ Our Investigation into coroner'$ concerns: Concern was raised when the deceased fell out of bed following the response by LR to EDG call bell rung for the EDG to go to the toilet during the night: LR entered the room, lowered the bedside rails and then proceeded to leave the room to get some gloves, leaving EDG unattended. There appears to be no recall as to why a carer would think that lowering bedside rails and the leaving the resident was acceptable. LR was a senior care assistant and has worked at Ambassador house for two years. She has completed all the relevant training and in this instance common sense and experience should have prevailed in that if a resident has bedside rails there is clearly a risk of falling out of bed: LR had read and signed the care plan to state that she understood the care required by Mrs EDG_ Concern 1: The care plan had a mobility assessment stating clearly that two people were required to support EDG to transfer. There is also a bedrail assessment document The carer was a senior who has been employed for last two years and irrespective of the care plan, should have known that this was not limited to walking across the floor. The resident clearly needed assistance for all movements and was at risk of otherwise the bedside rails would not have been on the bed. LR chose to lower the rails and then leave the room, thereby exposing EDG to a higher level of risk of falling: LR had completed Falls Safety Awareness training on 12th October 2015,Safeguarding Vulnerable Adults training 18th May 2015, Theory of moving and handling people on 9"h October 2015 and General Principles of Health and Safety training on October 2014 (which is valid for three years ) All of these less than 6 months prior to the incident: Concern 2: The Deputy Manager indicated that LR should have undertaken a risk assessment_ As a senior carer her initial reaction should have been to assess the likelihood of the resident being a risk of falling out of bed if she lowered the bedside rails and left the room, leaving the resident unattended. This resident was at risk of falling, that two carers were required to support her to mobilise and this was clearly documented in the care plan, which LR had signed to say she had read. The risk assessment that the Deputy referred to was a common-sense assessment of the situation at the time, which would be taken by any carer assisting a resident "/8th The being fully the falling;
Concern 3: The numbers of staff on at the time of the incident were in with regulation and are allocated based on need of our residents. At night time the residents are in bed and mostly sleep. There is a requirement of staff to regularly check those residents who require care and to attend residents when they call for assistance: It would be rare for two residents to callat the same time, however, should this be the case, a staff member would attend each resident independently, assess the need for the call, ensure the resident was safe and then prioritise the tasks with their colleague in order to assist the residents. The duty of the care staff attending a resident is to acknowledge the individual risk: In this case LR willingly left EDG on the side of the bed, without thought of her falling: She should have used the call bed to call for the assistance of the other care staff who was also on duty, thereby avoiding the risk of EDG falling: Concern 4: There is an unwritten policy with in the home known to staff, that should a resident be required to go to hospital, the staff will call either the Manager or Deputy Manager for assistance. This is clearly known as LR did call the Deputy and asked her to attend the home in case EDG needed to be transported to hospital. resident was assessed by the paramedics and along with a request by the granddaughter, who spoke to the paramedics, decided not to admit EDG to hospital. The advice as per the paramedic report was to give paracetamol and contact EDG own GP in the morning: On arriving at work the following morning the Deputy went to see EDG and discovered that her knee was swollen and EDG told the Deputy that she was in pain. The Deputy decided that EDG did not need a GP but needed an ambulance to take her to hospital as a matter of urgency. The paramedics eventually arrived at 17.30 having called throughout the day stating that as EDG was comfortable had other emergencies to attend to first_ At no point in the scenario was it deemed inappropriate to admit EDG to hospital because there were two care staff on night duty: Concern 5: The advice of the paramedics to call her GP was ignored on the basis that EDG'$ right knee was swollen and painful and therefore the need for a GP to come to the home and instruct Us to call an ambulance was negated It was clear to the Deputy that more specialist treatment was required. Action to be taken: As far a5 Ambassador House is concerned whilst we acknowledge that details of bedside rails and their use could have been more clearly documented, in this case there was a senor care assistant, LR, who blatantly ignored the instructions for two care assistants to attend EDG, she without thought lowered the bedside rail, compromising the safety of EDG and then left the room, leaving EDG unattended. duty line The they
If the actions of LR had been in accordance with the care plan, her training and common sense, this could have prevented the need for EDG from falling out of bed and consequently requiring an operation. Had this been the case EDG would still be residing at Ambassador House. Our Response: Based on the information from statements, staff interview, care plans, risk assessments and LR's personnel file, we have concluded that in this case we have acted in accordance with our policies and procedures. The incident occurred, we believe, because of the negligence ofa senior staff member (LR): We have taken some learnings from this incident and these are as follows: The care plan should stipulate that when bedrails are used for any resident and they are lowered for assistance to the resident, the resident must not be left unattended. This will be in place by 3r March 2017 Staff will be instructed to carry gloves in their pockets at all times, negating the need to leave a resident whilst are requiring care This has happened with immediate effect_ Paramedics who spoke to the Granddaughter, did not ask whether she held a lasting power of attorney for Health and Welfare, in order to make the decision of whether EDG went to hospital during the night or not_ We are unsure of whether the paramedic made the decision not to take to EDG to hospital on the back of the granddaughters wish or the medical need of EDG. Our learning is to ensure that all residents relatives understand their ability to make decisions on behalf of their relatives, if they do not hold a LPA for health and welfare. We going to invite our relatives to a presentation from a local solicitor to explain the importance of LPA's This will happen by the end of May 2017, they
Concern 3: The numbers of staff on at the time of the incident were in with regulation and are allocated based on need of our residents. At night time the residents are in bed and mostly sleep. There is a requirement of staff to regularly check those residents who require care and to attend residents when they call for assistance: It would be rare for two residents to callat the same time, however, should this be the case, a staff member would attend each resident independently, assess the need for the call, ensure the resident was safe and then prioritise the tasks with their colleague in order to assist the residents. The duty of the care staff attending a resident is to acknowledge the individual risk: In this case LR willingly left EDG on the side of the bed, without thought of her falling: She should have used the call bed to call for the assistance of the other care staff who was also on duty, thereby avoiding the risk of EDG falling: Concern 4: There is an unwritten policy with in the home known to staff, that should a resident be required to go to hospital, the staff will call either the Manager or Deputy Manager for assistance. This is clearly known as LR did call the Deputy and asked her to attend the home in case EDG needed to be transported to hospital. resident was assessed by the paramedics and along with a request by the granddaughter, who spoke to the paramedics, decided not to admit EDG to hospital. The advice as per the paramedic report was to give paracetamol and contact EDG own GP in the morning: On arriving at work the following morning the Deputy went to see EDG and discovered that her knee was swollen and EDG told the Deputy that she was in pain. The Deputy decided that EDG did not need a GP but needed an ambulance to take her to hospital as a matter of urgency. The paramedics eventually arrived at 17.30 having called throughout the day stating that as EDG was comfortable had other emergencies to attend to first_ At no point in the scenario was it deemed inappropriate to admit EDG to hospital because there were two care staff on night duty: Concern 5: The advice of the paramedics to call her GP was ignored on the basis that EDG'$ right knee was swollen and painful and therefore the need for a GP to come to the home and instruct Us to call an ambulance was negated It was clear to the Deputy that more specialist treatment was required. Action to be taken: As far a5 Ambassador House is concerned whilst we acknowledge that details of bedside rails and their use could have been more clearly documented, in this case there was a senor care assistant, LR, who blatantly ignored the instructions for two care assistants to attend EDG, she without thought lowered the bedside rail, compromising the safety of EDG and then left the room, leaving EDG unattended. duty line The they
If the actions of LR had been in accordance with the care plan, her training and common sense, this could have prevented the need for EDG from falling out of bed and consequently requiring an operation. Had this been the case EDG would still be residing at Ambassador House. Our Response: Based on the information from statements, staff interview, care plans, risk assessments and LR's personnel file, we have concluded that in this case we have acted in accordance with our policies and procedures. The incident occurred, we believe, because of the negligence ofa senior staff member (LR): We have taken some learnings from this incident and these are as follows: The care plan should stipulate that when bedrails are used for any resident and they are lowered for assistance to the resident, the resident must not be left unattended. This will be in place by 3r March 2017 Staff will be instructed to carry gloves in their pockets at all times, negating the need to leave a resident whilst are requiring care This has happened with immediate effect_ Paramedics who spoke to the Granddaughter, did not ask whether she held a lasting power of attorney for Health and Welfare, in order to make the decision of whether EDG went to hospital during the night or not_ We are unsure of whether the paramedic made the decision not to take to EDG to hospital on the back of the granddaughters wish or the medical need of EDG. Our learning is to ensure that all residents relatives understand their ability to make decisions on behalf of their relatives, if they do not hold a LPA for health and welfare. We going to invite our relatives to a presentation from a local solicitor to explain the importance of LPA's This will happen by the end of May 2017, they
Report Sections
Investigation and Inquest
On 17th March 2016 commenced an investigation into the death of ETHELINE DE-GALE 87 years_ The Investigation concluded at the end of the Inquest on gth February 2017 . The Conclusion of the Inquest was 'ACCIDENTAL DEATH' . The medical cause of death was: (a) Pulmonary Embolism b) Bronchopneumonia c) Femoral fracture II Dementia and Diabetes Mellitus CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE DEATH On the night of the 7thi8th March 2016 the deceased fell whilst mobilising from bed_ She had rung the alarm and was being attended to by one carer who had left the room to change her gloves, leaving the deceased sat on the side of the bed unattended_ Paramedics attended and recommended admission to hospital, which was declined. also recommended that the Out of Senior Coroner_ The Court House Woburn Street; AMPTHILL, Bedfordshire; MK45 ZHX Tel 0300-300-6559 Fax 0300-300-8267 aged They
Hours Doctor or the deceased's General Practitioner be contacted first thing in the morning; this did not happen. Instead , the deceased was found the next morning with swelling and bruising on her right leg: An ambulance was eventually called, but did not attend until late afternoon.` On 10th March 2016 the Deceased was operated upon, but unfortunately she then contracted bronchopneumonia That resulted in pulmonary embolism from which she died on 16th March 2016.
Hours Doctor or the deceased's General Practitioner be contacted first thing in the morning; this did not happen. Instead , the deceased was found the next morning with swelling and bruising on her right leg: An ambulance was eventually called, but did not attend until late afternoon.` On 10th March 2016 the Deceased was operated upon, but unfortunately she then contracted bronchopneumonia That resulted in pulmonary embolism from which she died on 16th March 2016.
Similar PFD Reports
Reports sharing organisations, categories, or themes with this PFD
Related Inquiry Recommendations
Public inquiry recommendations addressing similar themes
Draw up maternity risk assessment protocol
Morecambe Bay Investigation
Care plan failures
Care risk assessment failures
Audit maternity and paediatric services
Morecambe Bay Investigation
Care plan failures
Care risk assessment failures
Require comprehensive child needs assessment before admission to care
Waterhouse Inquiry
Care plan failures
Care risk assessment failures
Follow emergency child admissions with comprehensive assessment within prescribed period
Waterhouse Inquiry
Care plan failures
Care risk assessment failures
Base care plans on comprehensive assessment, prepared with child consultation
Waterhouse Inquiry
Care plan failures
Care risk assessment failures
Require social worker assessment and inter-departmental consultation before residential school placement
Waterhouse Inquiry
Care plan failures
Care risk assessment failures
Amend GLOS to allow claimants oral submissions at panel hearings
Post Office Horizon Inquiry
Care risk assessment failures
Post Office to engage in negotiations during HSSA appeal period
Post Office Horizon Inquiry
Care risk assessment failures
Data sourced from Courts and Tribunals Judiciary under the Open Government Licence.