Ashana Charles
PFD Report
Partially Responded
Ref: 2025-0620
Coroner's Concerns (AI summary)
Critical medical equipment was not retained for forensic investigation, and there is inconsistent national guidance on parenteral nutrition filters, alongside fragmented risk management between manufacturers and health providers.
View full coroner's concerns
1. That no source of contamination could be identified due to the infusion set, filter, feeding bag and lines not being retained for forensic investigation. The pathologist Professor gave an opinion that deaths that might be associated with IV feeding were probably underreported due to inadequate investigation.
2. , expert pharmacist and pharmaceutical regulator drew attention to a) The inconsistency at the time between US and European and UK guidance about use of filters in parenteral feeding (PN). b) Reference to filters for Omega Special by the drug manufacturer at the time indicating an appropriate filter “if one was used”, but not its need or desirability or context of use, and the value of manufacturers and health providers integrating their approach to risk management. c) The use of 1.2 micron filter at the time was not standard practice, perhaps because of cost or operational reasons as the filter often led to blockages and delays in IV feeding. Now both that BNPG guidance and BBraun recommend the use of 1.2 micron filters on Omega Special label, but that does not give assurance that all PN and filter manufacturers issue the same guidance nor that their products are operationally consistent with guidance. d) Lewisham & Greenwich NHS Trust have begun to re-evaluate the use of 1.2 micron filters in PN feeding but the matter had not yet gone to its governance department but should do so next year. There was a need for those responsible for decision implementation in hospitals nationally to cross work with manufacturers and specialist bodies. e) Uncertainty whether the reported visual checks of PN products by batch rather than individually provided adequate safety assurance.
2. , expert pharmacist and pharmaceutical regulator drew attention to a) The inconsistency at the time between US and European and UK guidance about use of filters in parenteral feeding (PN). b) Reference to filters for Omega Special by the drug manufacturer at the time indicating an appropriate filter “if one was used”, but not its need or desirability or context of use, and the value of manufacturers and health providers integrating their approach to risk management. c) The use of 1.2 micron filter at the time was not standard practice, perhaps because of cost or operational reasons as the filter often led to blockages and delays in IV feeding. Now both that BNPG guidance and BBraun recommend the use of 1.2 micron filters on Omega Special label, but that does not give assurance that all PN and filter manufacturers issue the same guidance nor that their products are operationally consistent with guidance. d) Lewisham & Greenwich NHS Trust have begun to re-evaluate the use of 1.2 micron filters in PN feeding but the matter had not yet gone to its governance department but should do so next year. There was a need for those responsible for decision implementation in hospitals nationally to cross work with manufacturers and specialist bodies. e) Uncertainty whether the reported visual checks of PN products by batch rather than individually provided adequate safety assurance.
Responses
Action Taken
NHS England reports that the British Pharmaceutical Nutrition Group (BPNG) issued a position statement in August 2025 recommending that all PN admixtures should be administered via a filter with a pore size of 1.2 μm and that this has been passed to stakeholders, including the BAPEN and the RCN for incorporation into relevant guidance. Lewisham & Greenwich NHS Trust has evaluated the use of 1.2 micron filters in PN feeding and is in the process of setting up the ordering process. (AI summary)
NHS England reports that the British Pharmaceutical Nutrition Group (BPNG) issued a position statement in August 2025 recommending that all PN admixtures should be administered via a filter with a pore size of 1.2 μm and that this has been passed to stakeholders, including the BAPEN and the RCN for incorporation into relevant guidance. Lewisham & Greenwich NHS Trust has evaluated the use of 1.2 micron filters in PN feeding and is in the process of setting up the ordering process. (AI summary)
View full response
Dear Coroner, Re: Regulation 28 Report to Prevent Future Deaths – Ashana Charles who died on 20th November 2018.
Thank you for your Report to Prevent Future Deaths (hereafter “Report”) dated 11th December 2025 concerning the death of Ashana Charles on 20th November 2018. In advance of responding to the specific concerns raised in your Report, I would like to express my deep condolences to Ashana’s family and loved ones. NHS England is keen to assure the family and yourself that the concerns raised about Ashana’s care have been listened to and reflected upon.
Your Report raises concerns with the inconsistent guidance on the use of filters in parenteral (PN) feeding. You highlighted that the regulatory systems for the production and administration of PN feeding need to be better integrated, with sharing of risk assessment data and consistent guidance.
The British Pharmaceutical Nutrition Group (BPNG) issued a position statement in August 2025 recommending that all PN admixtures should be administered via a filter with a pore size of 1.2 μm. This position statement includes:
“The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines for PN for adults and neonates provide no guidance on the use of filters for PN administration. The Royal College of Nursing (RCN) in their Standards for infusion therapy, which are currently under review, state that for lipid infusions or total nutrient preparations that require filtration, a 1.2 μm filter should be used. The UK Injectable Medicines Guide (Medusa) in their PN monographs advise the use of 1.2 μm filters, and in their paediatric guide, 1.2μm filters for lipid-containing bags and syringes and 0.2μm filters for aqueous (lipid-free) admixtures. To our knowledge there is currently no other UK- based national guidance on filtering PN admixtures….
… The guidance in the 2001 BPNG position statement remains valid and our guidance is unchanged. Detailed advice on filtering PN needs to be included in national UK PN guidance such as that proposed by NICE, BAPEN or similar. For clarity, we also suggest manufacturers of PN and PN amino acid/lipid emulsions revise their SPCs to National Medical Director NHS England Wellington House 133-155 Waterloo Road London SE1 8UG
26th January 2026
include appropriate advice on filtering, including details on recommended filter pore size for the administration of their products.”
This information suggests that there are potential gaps in:
1. current national resources regarding the recommendation to use a filter when administering parenteral nutrition;
2. the Marketing Authorisation Holders Summaries of Product Characteristics (SmPC) information regarding the requirement to use appropriate filters.
We note that your Report is also addressed to the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) and are of the opinion that, given the recommendations within the BPNG position statement and your concerns, the MHRA, as the regulator of medical devices and medication, is the appropriate responsible authority to respond to the question of regulation. It is within their remit to ensure that relevant information is included in the designated SmPCs. The MHRA is also expertly placed to liaise with NICE, the British Association for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (BAPEN) and the RCN for incorporation of the recommendations they consider necessary into relevant guidance around administration of parenteral nutrition.
We have taken the opportunity to consider whether to anticipate any availability issues, should there be an increased demand for 1.2 μm filters across healthcare upon greater awareness of recommended practice. However, given these devices have other uses within intravenous administration, we do not consider this to be a risk.
Local Action The NHS England London Region Team have liaised with the South East London Integrated Care System (ICS) on the action taken by Lewisham & Greenwich NHS Trust in relation to this case. They have informed us that the Trust has evaluated the use of 1.2 micron filters in PN feeding and is in the process of setting up the ordering process for the 1.2-micron inline filters. This will ensure the correct products are ordered and that there is central stock control by the pharmacy service. Once this has been completed, training will commence for relevant staff. This action is being monitored through the relevant committees within the Trust.
I would also like to provide further assurances on the national NHS England work taking place around the Reports to Prevent Future Deaths. All reports received are discussed by the Regulation 28 Working Group, comprising Regional Medical Directors, and other clinical and quality colleagues from across the regions. This ensures that key learnings and insights around events, such as the sad death of Ashana, are shared across the NHS at both a national and regional level and helps us to pay close attention to any emerging trends that may require further review and action.
Thank you for bringing these important patient safety issues to my attention and please do not hesitate to contact me should you need any further information.
Thank you for your Report to Prevent Future Deaths (hereafter “Report”) dated 11th December 2025 concerning the death of Ashana Charles on 20th November 2018. In advance of responding to the specific concerns raised in your Report, I would like to express my deep condolences to Ashana’s family and loved ones. NHS England is keen to assure the family and yourself that the concerns raised about Ashana’s care have been listened to and reflected upon.
Your Report raises concerns with the inconsistent guidance on the use of filters in parenteral (PN) feeding. You highlighted that the regulatory systems for the production and administration of PN feeding need to be better integrated, with sharing of risk assessment data and consistent guidance.
The British Pharmaceutical Nutrition Group (BPNG) issued a position statement in August 2025 recommending that all PN admixtures should be administered via a filter with a pore size of 1.2 μm. This position statement includes:
“The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines for PN for adults and neonates provide no guidance on the use of filters for PN administration. The Royal College of Nursing (RCN) in their Standards for infusion therapy, which are currently under review, state that for lipid infusions or total nutrient preparations that require filtration, a 1.2 μm filter should be used. The UK Injectable Medicines Guide (Medusa) in their PN monographs advise the use of 1.2 μm filters, and in their paediatric guide, 1.2μm filters for lipid-containing bags and syringes and 0.2μm filters for aqueous (lipid-free) admixtures. To our knowledge there is currently no other UK- based national guidance on filtering PN admixtures….
… The guidance in the 2001 BPNG position statement remains valid and our guidance is unchanged. Detailed advice on filtering PN needs to be included in national UK PN guidance such as that proposed by NICE, BAPEN or similar. For clarity, we also suggest manufacturers of PN and PN amino acid/lipid emulsions revise their SPCs to National Medical Director NHS England Wellington House 133-155 Waterloo Road London SE1 8UG
26th January 2026
include appropriate advice on filtering, including details on recommended filter pore size for the administration of their products.”
This information suggests that there are potential gaps in:
1. current national resources regarding the recommendation to use a filter when administering parenteral nutrition;
2. the Marketing Authorisation Holders Summaries of Product Characteristics (SmPC) information regarding the requirement to use appropriate filters.
We note that your Report is also addressed to the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) and are of the opinion that, given the recommendations within the BPNG position statement and your concerns, the MHRA, as the regulator of medical devices and medication, is the appropriate responsible authority to respond to the question of regulation. It is within their remit to ensure that relevant information is included in the designated SmPCs. The MHRA is also expertly placed to liaise with NICE, the British Association for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (BAPEN) and the RCN for incorporation of the recommendations they consider necessary into relevant guidance around administration of parenteral nutrition.
We have taken the opportunity to consider whether to anticipate any availability issues, should there be an increased demand for 1.2 μm filters across healthcare upon greater awareness of recommended practice. However, given these devices have other uses within intravenous administration, we do not consider this to be a risk.
Local Action The NHS England London Region Team have liaised with the South East London Integrated Care System (ICS) on the action taken by Lewisham & Greenwich NHS Trust in relation to this case. They have informed us that the Trust has evaluated the use of 1.2 micron filters in PN feeding and is in the process of setting up the ordering process for the 1.2-micron inline filters. This will ensure the correct products are ordered and that there is central stock control by the pharmacy service. Once this has been completed, training will commence for relevant staff. This action is being monitored through the relevant committees within the Trust.
I would also like to provide further assurances on the national NHS England work taking place around the Reports to Prevent Future Deaths. All reports received are discussed by the Regulation 28 Working Group, comprising Regional Medical Directors, and other clinical and quality colleagues from across the regions. This ensures that key learnings and insights around events, such as the sad death of Ashana, are shared across the NHS at both a national and regional level and helps us to pay close attention to any emerging trends that may require further review and action.
Thank you for bringing these important patient safety issues to my attention and please do not hesitate to contact me should you need any further information.
Sent To
- NHSE
- NHS England
Response Status
Linked responses
1 of 4
56-Day Deadline
6 Feb 2026
About PFD responses
Organisations named in PFD reports must respond within 56 days explaining what actions they are taking.
Source: Courts and Tribunals Judiciary
Report Sections
Investigation and Inquest
An investigation was opened on 28th November 2018 into the death of Mrs Ashana Charles on 20th November 2018 in Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Woolwich. The inquest was part heard in London Inner South by me as senior coroner on 13th February 2020. Following alarming evidence first heard in court, the pathologist recommended investigations and expert evidence that required international searching, which was not completed before I fell ill and retired from London Inner South. In December 2024 the case was transferred to South London. The resumed inquest concluded on 9th December 2025. The conclusion of the inquest was that she died from acute obstruction of small pulmonary arteries by cellulose fibres, which had embolised from inadvertently contaminated intravenous infusions at some stage of product preparation or administration. The source of fibres could not be identified, but the sudden death from embolism would have been prevented had a 1.2 micron filter been used in IV infusion, which was not standard practice at the time.
Circumstances of the Death
Mrs Charles was admitted to hospital in September 2018 with weight loss and anaemia from severe immunosuppressed advanced stage AIDS. She improved on retroviral therapy and treatment of complications, including CMV colitis, but she had persistent diarrhoea and hypalbuminaemia requiring parenteral feeding. A Hickman line was inserted on 14/11, Ganciclovir was begun and IV antibiotics continued. At 22.30 on 19/11 IV feeding was begun with Nutriflex Omega Special, to which vitamins had been added by the manufacturer. The standard giving set normally used on the ward would have had an integrated 15-micron filter. There was no record of deviation from routine aseptic technique in administration. On the morning of 20/11, she was clinically improved on review; a hot feeling was sensed when medication was infused, but she had no temperature. At 13.55 her unexpected cardiac arrest was witnessed and CPR begun immediately. She was declared dead at 14.36.
Action Should Be Taken
Concern1: The Chief Medical Examiner’s attention is drawn to the opinion that medical examiners should be advised of the need to retain IV feed equipment for pathological investigation where there is an unexplained death within 24 hours of parenteral feeding.
Concern 2: The MHRA and NHSE (National Patient Safety Service) are asked to consider whether the regulatory systems for production and administration of parenteral feeding need to be better integrated, with sharing of risk assessment data and consistent guidance.
Concern 2: The MHRA and NHSE (National Patient Safety Service) are asked to consider whether the regulatory systems for production and administration of parenteral feeding need to be better integrated, with sharing of risk assessment data and consistent guidance.
Similar PFD Reports
Reports sharing organisations, categories, or themes
Related Inquiry Recommendations
Public inquiry recommendations addressing similar themes
Single consultant data repository
Paterson Inquiry
Patient safety governance
Inconsistent Healthcare Data Infrastructure
Synchronise Patient Safety Systems
Hyponatraemia Inquiry
Patient safety governance
Inconsistent Healthcare Data Infrastructure
Enhancing the use analysis and dissemination of healthcare information
Mid Staffs Inquiry
Patient safety governance
Inconsistent Healthcare Data Infrastructure
Enhancing the use analysis and dissemination of healthcare information
Mid Staffs Inquiry
Patient safety governance
Inconsistent Healthcare Data Infrastructure
Enhancing the use analysis and dissemination of healthcare information
Mid Staffs Inquiry
Patient safety governance
Inconsistent Healthcare Data Infrastructure
Enhancing the use analysis and dissemination of healthcare information
Mid Staffs Inquiry
Patient safety governance
Inconsistent Healthcare Data Infrastructure
Use of information for effective regulation
Mid Staffs Inquiry
Patient safety governance
Inconsistent Healthcare Data Infrastructure
Create single, unified system for reporting and analysing sentinel events
Bristol Heart Inquiry
Patient safety governance
Inconsistent Healthcare Data Infrastructure
Close HSS Dispute Resolution Procedure when HSSA opens
Post Office Horizon Inquiry
Inconsistent Healthcare Data Infrastructure
Data sourced from Courts and Tribunals Judiciary under the Open Government Licence.