Paul Bradley
PFD Report
All Responded
Ref: 2024-0301
All 1 response received
· Deadline: 22 Mar 2024
Coroner's Concerns (AI summary)
Despite the patient being documented as hard of hearing, the urological appointment was offered by telephone; there was no clear system in place to follow up on a patient who missed an important urology appointment, and there was no clear system in place to ensure that the teams involved communicated with each other.
View full coroner's concerns
In the course of the inquest, I found the following facts to have been established:
1) Although Mr. Bradley had already been documented to have been hard of hearing, the urological appointment he was offered in March 2021 was by telephone, and he had not confirmed prior to that appointment that he would be willing and able to attend it. It is quite possible that he did not hear the telephone when attempts were made to contact him. It was conceded at inquest by , who conducted a serious incident investigation on behalf of the Trust, that it was a mistake to have tried to arrange this appointment by telephone, and that it should have been conducted in person;
2) After the urology appointment in March 2021 was missed, there is no evidence that letters seeking to rearrange it were sent either to Mr. Bradley or to his GP. In his evidence at the inquest, stated: “[ the Trust’s ] tracking system should have picked up on the fact that Mr. Bradley’s treatment targets had not been met”; and “the urology team’s system for tracking cancer patients needs to be improved...” but that “[ there is ] still some disagreement as to how this should be done”.
3) Between March 2021 and December 2022, despite receiving no follow up from the urology team, Mr. Bradley continued to have appointments with Prof. Downing’s vascular team, to whom he had been referred because of a potential weakness in his aorta, which may have affected the decision to proceed with a nephrectomy. He did not, however, attend for PET scan appointments in the summer of 2021 which the vascular team had organised. There is no evidence that the vascular team wrote to Mr. Bradley or to his GP about those missed scan appointments;
4) Despite contact with the vascular team relating directly to his urological issues, there is no evidence that either team contacted the other about Mr. Bradley’s missed appointments; nor did the vascular team update the urology team about the appointments which Mr. Bradley did attend. In his evidence at the inquest, stated: “I think the vascular team should have been keeping the urology team abreast of their contacts with Mr. Bradley. I think maybe they lost focus of the bigger picture, i.e. that these vascular investigations were being done because of the potential renal surgery.”
I was therefore satisfied that: (a) The Trust’s urology team had no clear system in place to try to ensure that a patient who missed an important urology appointment could be followed up, and his treatment targets met. That still appears to be the case; (b) Where, as here, more than one team was involved in a patient’s care, there was no clear system in place to ensure that the teams involved communicated with each other about the progress they were making with the patient, and about any appointments missed by the patient.
1) Although Mr. Bradley had already been documented to have been hard of hearing, the urological appointment he was offered in March 2021 was by telephone, and he had not confirmed prior to that appointment that he would be willing and able to attend it. It is quite possible that he did not hear the telephone when attempts were made to contact him. It was conceded at inquest by , who conducted a serious incident investigation on behalf of the Trust, that it was a mistake to have tried to arrange this appointment by telephone, and that it should have been conducted in person;
2) After the urology appointment in March 2021 was missed, there is no evidence that letters seeking to rearrange it were sent either to Mr. Bradley or to his GP. In his evidence at the inquest, stated: “[ the Trust’s ] tracking system should have picked up on the fact that Mr. Bradley’s treatment targets had not been met”; and “the urology team’s system for tracking cancer patients needs to be improved...” but that “[ there is ] still some disagreement as to how this should be done”.
3) Between March 2021 and December 2022, despite receiving no follow up from the urology team, Mr. Bradley continued to have appointments with Prof. Downing’s vascular team, to whom he had been referred because of a potential weakness in his aorta, which may have affected the decision to proceed with a nephrectomy. He did not, however, attend for PET scan appointments in the summer of 2021 which the vascular team had organised. There is no evidence that the vascular team wrote to Mr. Bradley or to his GP about those missed scan appointments;
4) Despite contact with the vascular team relating directly to his urological issues, there is no evidence that either team contacted the other about Mr. Bradley’s missed appointments; nor did the vascular team update the urology team about the appointments which Mr. Bradley did attend. In his evidence at the inquest, stated: “I think the vascular team should have been keeping the urology team abreast of their contacts with Mr. Bradley. I think maybe they lost focus of the bigger picture, i.e. that these vascular investigations were being done because of the potential renal surgery.”
I was therefore satisfied that: (a) The Trust’s urology team had no clear system in place to try to ensure that a patient who missed an important urology appointment could be followed up, and his treatment targets met. That still appears to be the case; (b) Where, as here, more than one team was involved in a patient’s care, there was no clear system in place to ensure that the teams involved communicated with each other about the progress they were making with the patient, and about any appointments missed by the patient.
Responses
Action Planned
Worcestershire Acute Hospitals NHS Trust is developing multiple new strategies and operating procedures to address the concerns, including streamlining MDT processes, developing a SOP for monitoring cancerous lesions, a risk stratification process for patients who cancel appointments, and improving communication between teams. These actions have varying timelines, with first review in mid-April 2024. (AI summary)
Worcestershire Acute Hospitals NHS Trust is developing multiple new strategies and operating procedures to address the concerns, including streamlining MDT processes, developing a SOP for monitoring cancerous lesions, a risk stratification process for patients who cancel appointments, and improving communication between teams. These actions have varying timelines, with first review in mid-April 2024. (AI summary)
View full response
Dear Mr Reid
Re: Paul William Bradley deceased Regulation 28 Report to Prevent Future Deaths
Please accept this letter in response to your Regulation 28 Report to Prevent Future Deaths sent on 29th January 2024, following the Inquest touching on the death of Mr Paul Bradley.
In your Regulation 28 report you identified the following matters of concern relating to the Worcestershire Acute Hospitals NHS Trust (WAHT)
1) It was a mistake to have tried to arrange this appointment by telephone, and that it should have been conducted in person.
2) After the Urology appointment in March 2021 was missed, there is no evidence that letters seeking to rearrange it were sent to either Mr Bradley or to his GP
3) There is no evidence that the vascular team wrote to Mr Bradley or to his GP about those missed scan appointments.
4) There is no evidence that either team contacted the other about Mr Bradley’s missed appointments; nor did the vascular team update the urology team about the appointments which Mr Bradley did not attend. I was therefore satisfied that: a) The Trust’s Urology team had no clear system in place to try to ensure that a patient who missed an important urology appointment could be followed up, and his treatment targets met. b) Where, as here, more than one team was involved in a patient’s care, there was no clear system in place to ensure that the teams involved communicated with each other about the progress they were making with the patient, and about any appointments missed by the patient
Worcestershire Acute Hospitals NHS Trust | Executive Suite, Sky Level 3 | Worcestershire Royal Hospital Charles Hastings Way | Worcester | WR5 1DD Office of the Managing Director
Responding to the concerns raised: A significant amount of work has been undertaken by the Trust Patient Experience team over the past 12 months, to raise awareness of how better to support patients with a hearing impairment (appendix 1). This should enable patients to access support that they require more easily and also raised awareness in staff of the most appropriate methods of providing care for patients with hearing impairments. Both patient facing and staff facing British Sign Language flyers have been developed to raise awareness (appendix 2,3). To address points 2 to 4 and concerns a and b, the Trust held a Round Table review of Mr Bradley’s case on 1st March 2024. The meeting was attended by members of the Urology Team, Cancer Services Team and Patient Safety Team and was multidisciplinary. The purpose of the review was to turn themes identified in to actions and assign them to the appropriate people to make the necessary changes and improvements. The following actions were agreed with named individuals responsible for their delivery: -
• Streamline and standardise Urology MDT processes to facilitate appropriate time to discuss cases fully.
• Develop a Standard Operating Procedure for the monitoring of potentially cancerous lesions, including transfer of information between teams.
• Develop clear process for the handover of patients from Cancer services to Departmental teams if moved off an active cancer tracking process.
• Cancer Alert on the Patient Administration System to remain active for the lifetime of the patient
• Develop Risk Stratification process within clinical teams for patients who cancel appointments/do not attend. The above actions have varied timelines due to the complexity of some of the issues but will be monitored through the newly developed Improving Safety Action Group, held monthly and chaired by the Chief Nursing Officer/Chief Medical Officer, with first review date scheduled for mid-April 2024. Appendix 1 Appendix 1 Our Approach.docx Appendix 2 BSL Flyer- patient facing.png
Appendix 3 BSL Flyer- staff facing.png
Worcestershire Acute Hospitals NHS Trust | Executive Suite, Sky Level 3 | Worcestershire Royal Hospital Charles Hastings Way | Worcester | WR5 1DD Office of the Managing Director
I trust that the foregoing has adequately addressed the Regulation 28 report issued subsequent to the inquest into the death of Paul Bradley.
Should you require any further information in relation to this matter, please do not hesitate to ask.
I confirm that I have not forwarded a copy of this response to any other Interested Person and would therefore be grateful if you could do so, as appropriate.
I also confirm that the Trust is content for both the regulation 28 report and the response to be released or published should the Chief Coroner wish.
Re: Paul William Bradley deceased Regulation 28 Report to Prevent Future Deaths
Please accept this letter in response to your Regulation 28 Report to Prevent Future Deaths sent on 29th January 2024, following the Inquest touching on the death of Mr Paul Bradley.
In your Regulation 28 report you identified the following matters of concern relating to the Worcestershire Acute Hospitals NHS Trust (WAHT)
1) It was a mistake to have tried to arrange this appointment by telephone, and that it should have been conducted in person.
2) After the Urology appointment in March 2021 was missed, there is no evidence that letters seeking to rearrange it were sent to either Mr Bradley or to his GP
3) There is no evidence that the vascular team wrote to Mr Bradley or to his GP about those missed scan appointments.
4) There is no evidence that either team contacted the other about Mr Bradley’s missed appointments; nor did the vascular team update the urology team about the appointments which Mr Bradley did not attend. I was therefore satisfied that: a) The Trust’s Urology team had no clear system in place to try to ensure that a patient who missed an important urology appointment could be followed up, and his treatment targets met. b) Where, as here, more than one team was involved in a patient’s care, there was no clear system in place to ensure that the teams involved communicated with each other about the progress they were making with the patient, and about any appointments missed by the patient
Worcestershire Acute Hospitals NHS Trust | Executive Suite, Sky Level 3 | Worcestershire Royal Hospital Charles Hastings Way | Worcester | WR5 1DD Office of the Managing Director
Responding to the concerns raised: A significant amount of work has been undertaken by the Trust Patient Experience team over the past 12 months, to raise awareness of how better to support patients with a hearing impairment (appendix 1). This should enable patients to access support that they require more easily and also raised awareness in staff of the most appropriate methods of providing care for patients with hearing impairments. Both patient facing and staff facing British Sign Language flyers have been developed to raise awareness (appendix 2,3). To address points 2 to 4 and concerns a and b, the Trust held a Round Table review of Mr Bradley’s case on 1st March 2024. The meeting was attended by members of the Urology Team, Cancer Services Team and Patient Safety Team and was multidisciplinary. The purpose of the review was to turn themes identified in to actions and assign them to the appropriate people to make the necessary changes and improvements. The following actions were agreed with named individuals responsible for their delivery: -
• Streamline and standardise Urology MDT processes to facilitate appropriate time to discuss cases fully.
• Develop a Standard Operating Procedure for the monitoring of potentially cancerous lesions, including transfer of information between teams.
• Develop clear process for the handover of patients from Cancer services to Departmental teams if moved off an active cancer tracking process.
• Cancer Alert on the Patient Administration System to remain active for the lifetime of the patient
• Develop Risk Stratification process within clinical teams for patients who cancel appointments/do not attend. The above actions have varied timelines due to the complexity of some of the issues but will be monitored through the newly developed Improving Safety Action Group, held monthly and chaired by the Chief Nursing Officer/Chief Medical Officer, with first review date scheduled for mid-April 2024. Appendix 1 Appendix 1 Our Approach.docx Appendix 2 BSL Flyer- patient facing.png
Appendix 3 BSL Flyer- staff facing.png
Worcestershire Acute Hospitals NHS Trust | Executive Suite, Sky Level 3 | Worcestershire Royal Hospital Charles Hastings Way | Worcester | WR5 1DD Office of the Managing Director
I trust that the foregoing has adequately addressed the Regulation 28 report issued subsequent to the inquest into the death of Paul Bradley.
Should you require any further information in relation to this matter, please do not hesitate to ask.
I confirm that I have not forwarded a copy of this response to any other Interested Person and would therefore be grateful if you could do so, as appropriate.
I also confirm that the Trust is content for both the regulation 28 report and the response to be released or published should the Chief Coroner wish.
Sent To
- Worcestershire Acute Hospitals NHS Trust
Response Status
Linked responses
1 of 1
56-Day Deadline
22 Mar 2024
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
Report Sections
Investigation and Inquest
On 18 May 2023 I commenced an investigation and opened an inquest into the death of Paul William BRADLEY. The investigation concluded at the end of the inquest on 18 January 2024
The conclusion of the inquest was that Mr. Bradley “died from natural causes.”
The conclusion of the inquest was that Mr. Bradley “died from natural causes.”
Circumstances of the Death
In answer to the questions “when, where and how did Mr. Bradley come by his death?”, I recorded as follows:
“In July 2019 Paul Bradley was diagnosed with renal cancer. Over the next two years his renal tumour was monitored, and by February 2021 it was felt that he should now be considered for a nephrectomy. When he failed to attend a urological appointment in March 2021, this was not followed up by the urology team and no further appointment was arranged until he was referred again by his general practitioner in May 2023, after a CT scan had shown a metastatic renal tumour. He was admitted to the Alexandra Hospital, Redditch for palliative treatment and declined and died there on 17.5.23. The failure to try to arrange a further urological appointment after March 2021 represents a missed opportunity to provide Mr. Bradley with treatment which may have prolonged his life.”
“In July 2019 Paul Bradley was diagnosed with renal cancer. Over the next two years his renal tumour was monitored, and by February 2021 it was felt that he should now be considered for a nephrectomy. When he failed to attend a urological appointment in March 2021, this was not followed up by the urology team and no further appointment was arranged until he was referred again by his general practitioner in May 2023, after a CT scan had shown a metastatic renal tumour. He was admitted to the Alexandra Hospital, Redditch for palliative treatment and declined and died there on 17.5.23. The failure to try to arrange a further urological appointment after March 2021 represents a missed opportunity to provide Mr. Bradley with treatment which may have prolonged his life.”
Similar PFD Reports
Reports sharing organisations, categories, or themes
Related Inquiry Recommendations
Public inquiry recommendations addressing similar themes
Increase driver briefing frequency with safety as primary agenda item
Ladbroke Grove Inquiry
Staff rota communication
Establish and apply criteria for signallers exceeding maximum 72-hour work week
Ladbroke Grove Inquiry
Staff rota communication
Data sourced from Courts and Tribunals Judiciary under the Open Government Licence.