Alan Nippard
PFD Report
All Responded
Ref: 2023-0276
All 1 response received
· Deadline: 18 Sep 2023
Coroner's Concerns (AI summary)
Grossly inadequate basic nursing care led to preventable pressure sores, marked by incorrect risk assessments, delayed preventative equipment, poor adherence to care bundles, and insufficient patient repositioning.
View full coroner's concerns
I heard from the Trust’s Lead Tissue Viability Nurse, had reviewed the notes and provided opinion on what did happen, and what should have happened, in relation to the nursing care he was provided with. There were many concerns that she raised, she said in summary the pressure sore was preventable, that it’s basic nursing care and this wasn’t achieved. That once it had developed, if he’d had good skin care and the SSKIN bundle had been followed the damage would have been minimized. When asked how bad the care was said - it was shocking.
It was accepted that Mr Nippard did not have a sacral pressure sore when he was admitted to the RUH and that it was deemed hospital acquired. That the first time that the sacral pressure sore was mentioned in the notes was on 2nd June 2022 when a Tissue Viability Nurse (TVN) referral was sent, stating - for suspected deep tissue injuries to buttocks with blistering, stating the area appeared overnight.
I was told that there were a number of areas of concern with regard to the risk assessment, management and care and treatment that Mr Nippard received including:
• That the screening tool completed on 31st May scored Mr Nippard as, not at risk of a pressure sore – this was wrong; he was at risk due to his immobility and diabetes which increased the risk of a pressure sore developing, in addition to his age and his medical history. He should have been scored high risk. Because of this - nothing happened and it should have. Mr Nippard should have been on an air mattress and he should have been re-positioned regularly.
• On the MAU he did not have his risk assessment done within 6 hrs as it should have been.
• It is recorded that he was on an air mattress on Pierce ward on 1st June but the time of this is unknown. This meant he probably went up to 2 days after his admission without an air mattress.
• Mr Nippard’s risk assessment was not carried out until 2 days post admission, (1st June) it did record his risk as high, this is a significant delay.
• Once recorded as high risk Mr Nippard should have been reassessed every week – this was not achieved.
• The SSKIN bundle, a nationally recognised tool with care plan was rarely completed and when it was it was poorly completed.
• Skin assessments should have been carried out daily, when they were carried out were ad hoc and inaccurate, sometimes skin was recorded as normal when it clearly wasn’t.
• On one occasion a body map was circled indicating the areas of concerns – sacrum and left heel but lacked information and categorisation
• Of significant concern is the fact that Mr Nippard spent long periods of time on his back with little or no evidence of offloading of the sacrum or heels at all. He should have been repositioned every 2-3 hours during the day and between 2-4 hours at night. There was no structured re-positioning at all.
• It was estimated that every day he was in hospital he was on his back for 22 ½ hours and there was no sustained time off his sacrum and there should have been.
• When he was sat in his chair there is no evidence that he had an air cushion to sit on and when sat, he should have been stood hourly.
• It was raised that there was a query of his own compliance but there is only 2 occasions on 6th and 20th June when he declined to be moved
• There was no evidence of the use of 2 sliding sheets to assist with moving him.
• On 11th June it was a podiatrist who raised the new pressure sore on the right heel and completed an incident report – this should have been managed and picked up by the nurses in their daily checks. In addition he should have had repose boots to prevent this and there is no evidence they were used at all.
• Mr Nippard had a catheter and incontinence – he should have been checked regularly, offered the toilet, the commode, bed pans should have been a last resort. She could not see this was achieved at all. The fact Mr Nippard was left to soil the bed was not acceptable care and that the limited personal care described by the family was not acceptable.
• Fluid balance charts were poorly completed.
• He wasn’t weighed which would have assisted with managing his oedema.
• Appropriate nursing care was not achieved and pressure care was a fundamental part of nursing care.
I have been advised that The Trust have taken significant steps since Mr Nippard’s admission, however, I have not been reassured by those involved with Pierce Ward that this will not happen again. Specifically, I have been advised by The Lead Tissue Viability Nurse that she has ongoing concerns and indeed The Interim Deputy Divisional Director of Nursing for Surgery and The Divisional Director of Surgery have confirmed that there have been two pressure sore incidents on Pierce Ward this month (July 2023). I have been told that the reason for this could be the need for training of staff on Pierce Ward on : risk assessment, prevention care and treatment of pressure sores by the tissue viability team.
It was accepted that Mr Nippard did not have a sacral pressure sore when he was admitted to the RUH and that it was deemed hospital acquired. That the first time that the sacral pressure sore was mentioned in the notes was on 2nd June 2022 when a Tissue Viability Nurse (TVN) referral was sent, stating - for suspected deep tissue injuries to buttocks with blistering, stating the area appeared overnight.
I was told that there were a number of areas of concern with regard to the risk assessment, management and care and treatment that Mr Nippard received including:
• That the screening tool completed on 31st May scored Mr Nippard as, not at risk of a pressure sore – this was wrong; he was at risk due to his immobility and diabetes which increased the risk of a pressure sore developing, in addition to his age and his medical history. He should have been scored high risk. Because of this - nothing happened and it should have. Mr Nippard should have been on an air mattress and he should have been re-positioned regularly.
• On the MAU he did not have his risk assessment done within 6 hrs as it should have been.
• It is recorded that he was on an air mattress on Pierce ward on 1st June but the time of this is unknown. This meant he probably went up to 2 days after his admission without an air mattress.
• Mr Nippard’s risk assessment was not carried out until 2 days post admission, (1st June) it did record his risk as high, this is a significant delay.
• Once recorded as high risk Mr Nippard should have been reassessed every week – this was not achieved.
• The SSKIN bundle, a nationally recognised tool with care plan was rarely completed and when it was it was poorly completed.
• Skin assessments should have been carried out daily, when they were carried out were ad hoc and inaccurate, sometimes skin was recorded as normal when it clearly wasn’t.
• On one occasion a body map was circled indicating the areas of concerns – sacrum and left heel but lacked information and categorisation
• Of significant concern is the fact that Mr Nippard spent long periods of time on his back with little or no evidence of offloading of the sacrum or heels at all. He should have been repositioned every 2-3 hours during the day and between 2-4 hours at night. There was no structured re-positioning at all.
• It was estimated that every day he was in hospital he was on his back for 22 ½ hours and there was no sustained time off his sacrum and there should have been.
• When he was sat in his chair there is no evidence that he had an air cushion to sit on and when sat, he should have been stood hourly.
• It was raised that there was a query of his own compliance but there is only 2 occasions on 6th and 20th June when he declined to be moved
• There was no evidence of the use of 2 sliding sheets to assist with moving him.
• On 11th June it was a podiatrist who raised the new pressure sore on the right heel and completed an incident report – this should have been managed and picked up by the nurses in their daily checks. In addition he should have had repose boots to prevent this and there is no evidence they were used at all.
• Mr Nippard had a catheter and incontinence – he should have been checked regularly, offered the toilet, the commode, bed pans should have been a last resort. She could not see this was achieved at all. The fact Mr Nippard was left to soil the bed was not acceptable care and that the limited personal care described by the family was not acceptable.
• Fluid balance charts were poorly completed.
• He wasn’t weighed which would have assisted with managing his oedema.
• Appropriate nursing care was not achieved and pressure care was a fundamental part of nursing care.
I have been advised that The Trust have taken significant steps since Mr Nippard’s admission, however, I have not been reassured by those involved with Pierce Ward that this will not happen again. Specifically, I have been advised by The Lead Tissue Viability Nurse that she has ongoing concerns and indeed The Interim Deputy Divisional Director of Nursing for Surgery and The Divisional Director of Surgery have confirmed that there have been two pressure sore incidents on Pierce Ward this month (July 2023). I have been told that the reason for this could be the need for training of staff on Pierce Ward on : risk assessment, prevention care and treatment of pressure sores by the tissue viability team.
Responses
Action Taken
The Tissue Viability Nursing Team has conducted face-to-face training for all substantive nursing staff, physiotherapists, and occupational therapists on Pierce Ward. Other actions include increasing staffing levels, introducing bedside patient care handovers, and piloting a bespoke Tissue Viability monitoring tool. (AI summary)
The Tissue Viability Nursing Team has conducted face-to-face training for all substantive nursing staff, physiotherapists, and occupational therapists on Pierce Ward. Other actions include increasing staffing levels, introducing bedside patient care handovers, and piloting a bespoke Tissue Viability monitoring tool. (AI summary)
View full response
Dear Madam
Response to Regulation 28 Report Regarding Mr Alan Nippard
On the 24th July 2023 a Regulation 28 Report was received, raising the following concern:
I have been advised that The Trust have taken significant steps since Mr Nippard’s admission, however, I have not been reassured by those involved with Pierce Ward that this will not happen again. Specifically, I have been advised by The Lead Tissue Viability Nurse that she has ongoing concerns and indeed The Interim Deputy Divisional Director of Nursing for Surgery and The Divisional Director of Surgery have confirmed that there have been two pressure sore incidents on Pierce Ward this month (July 2023). I have been told that the reason for this could be the need for training of staff on Pierce Ward on: risk assessment, prevention care and treatment of pressure sores by the tissue viability team.
Since the inquest into Mr Nippard’s death, the Tissue Viability Nursing (TVN) Team have led a programme of face to face training for all substantive members of nursing staff on Pierce Ward. In addition, all Physiotherapists and Occupational Therapists have also received training.
The training has focussed on addressing the learning from incidents which includes; consistently undertaking appropriate skin assessments, repositioning and the correct use of equipment. The training also incorporated training on the nationally recognised SSKIN bundle which stands for ‘skin, surface, keep moving, incontinence, nutrition and hydration’ in addition to risk assessments, care planning, reporting and escalation. Staff knowledge and skills has been assessed using a workbook which has been distributed to and completed by each staff member. At the time of responding, 5 have not yet completed their work book which is being monitored and full compliance is expected.
A number of other actions have been implemented which include: increasing staffing levels 24 hours per day, the introduction of bedside patient care handovers, the monitoring of comfort- rounds, Senior Sister and Matron ward rounds, checking on patient safety, patient experience, patient care and nursing documentation.
A bespoke Tissue Viability monitoring tool has been adapted from another Trust. The tool is being piloted which aims to capture patient experience and outcomes in addition to compliance with documentation. The documentation audits are demonstrating compliance of greater than 88% and action actions are in place to achieve 95%. Directors’ Office Royal United Hospitals Bath NHS Foundation Trust Combe Park Bath BA1 3NG
I have met with Mr Nippard’s family a number of times and I have shared with them my sincere apologies for the failings in his care. We are committed to ensuring our care does not fall below the standards we expect and these actions will continue to prevent similar lapses of care occurring in the future.
Response to Regulation 28 Report Regarding Mr Alan Nippard
On the 24th July 2023 a Regulation 28 Report was received, raising the following concern:
I have been advised that The Trust have taken significant steps since Mr Nippard’s admission, however, I have not been reassured by those involved with Pierce Ward that this will not happen again. Specifically, I have been advised by The Lead Tissue Viability Nurse that she has ongoing concerns and indeed The Interim Deputy Divisional Director of Nursing for Surgery and The Divisional Director of Surgery have confirmed that there have been two pressure sore incidents on Pierce Ward this month (July 2023). I have been told that the reason for this could be the need for training of staff on Pierce Ward on: risk assessment, prevention care and treatment of pressure sores by the tissue viability team.
Since the inquest into Mr Nippard’s death, the Tissue Viability Nursing (TVN) Team have led a programme of face to face training for all substantive members of nursing staff on Pierce Ward. In addition, all Physiotherapists and Occupational Therapists have also received training.
The training has focussed on addressing the learning from incidents which includes; consistently undertaking appropriate skin assessments, repositioning and the correct use of equipment. The training also incorporated training on the nationally recognised SSKIN bundle which stands for ‘skin, surface, keep moving, incontinence, nutrition and hydration’ in addition to risk assessments, care planning, reporting and escalation. Staff knowledge and skills has been assessed using a workbook which has been distributed to and completed by each staff member. At the time of responding, 5 have not yet completed their work book which is being monitored and full compliance is expected.
A number of other actions have been implemented which include: increasing staffing levels 24 hours per day, the introduction of bedside patient care handovers, the monitoring of comfort- rounds, Senior Sister and Matron ward rounds, checking on patient safety, patient experience, patient care and nursing documentation.
A bespoke Tissue Viability monitoring tool has been adapted from another Trust. The tool is being piloted which aims to capture patient experience and outcomes in addition to compliance with documentation. The documentation audits are demonstrating compliance of greater than 88% and action actions are in place to achieve 95%. Directors’ Office Royal United Hospitals Bath NHS Foundation Trust Combe Park Bath BA1 3NG
I have met with Mr Nippard’s family a number of times and I have shared with them my sincere apologies for the failings in his care. We are committed to ensuring our care does not fall below the standards we expect and these actions will continue to prevent similar lapses of care occurring in the future.
Sent To
- Royal United Hospitals ›Royal United Hospital
Response Status
Linked responses
1 of 1
56-Day Deadline
18 Sep 2023
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 7 July 2022 I commenced an investigation into the death of Alan Christopher NIPPARD. The investigation concluded at the end of the inquest. The conclusion of the inquest was a narrative including a finding of neglect. Mr Nippard's death was caused by a pressure sore. The pressure sore was preventable with the provision of basic nursing care, this was not provided. There was a gross failure to provide basic nursing care. Once he had the pressure sore his death could have been prevented with the provision of basic nursing care, such as, skin care, regular re-positioning and personal care, this was not achieved at all. He was not managed in line with recognised nursing practice and as a consequence his death was contributed to by neglect. The medical cause of death was recorded as: 1a Sepsis 1b Necrotising fasciitis/Fournier s gangrene 1c Pressure sore sacrum II Septic arthritis, Type 2 diabetes mellitus, chronic kidney disease, left ventricular systolic dysfunction 4 CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE DEATH
According to Mr Nippard’s GP, Mr Nippard had a medical history which included poorly controlled type 2 diabetes, peripheral vascular disease, ischemic heart disease and chronic kidney disease stage 4. He had also undergone amputations of his toes due to non-healing diabetic ulcers.
His daughter, said in evidence that he was admitted to hospital on 30th May 2022 following a fall at home. He said that he’d fallen forward and onto his knee. He was lifted from the floor and onto his bed by his family where he remained until an ambulance was called, when the decision was taken to admit him to the Royal United Hosptial (the RUH) in Bath.
He was admitted via the Emergency department, then to the medical assessment unit (MAU), and then onto the Orthopaedic ward – Pierce Ward on 1st June 2022 in the early hours.
According to the Consultant Orthopaedic Surgeon, Mr Nippard was initially admitted, with the diagnosis of right knee septic arthritis and an acute kidney injury on top of his chronic kidney disease. Mr Nippard was on antibiotics and on 2nd June 2022 underwent a washout of his knee. On 8th June he had a second washout. By 17th June he was deteriorating, on 20th June his CRP was increasing. He said in his evidence that the pressure sore was first documented by the orthopaedic team on 21st June, the surgeon described this now as - the bigger source of infection.
An MRI was requested but did not take place for 4 days; it was undertaken on 25th June and reported as showing no obvious sacral osteomyelitis it did show that it had locally spread in the soft tissue.
By 28th June Mr Nippard was getting worse, his inflammatory markers were going up and now his testicles were swollen, and there was a suspicion was that this was Fournier’s Gangrene and there was a referral made to the Urology team.
The orthopaedic surgeon said that as far as the treatment for Mr Nippard’s knee went, he felt they were winning that it was improving that if he hadn’t developed the pressure sore his expectation was that he would have been discharged. He agreed with the medical cause of death proposed.
A Consultant Urologist examined Mr Nippard on 28th June, he said that he had evidence of a significant infection, that the only treatment was surgery, and all agreed that surgery was not likely to help, and it would cause Mr Nippard immense suffering in his last days. He explained that the other medical conditions Mr Nippard suffered with caused him to be compromised, if he’d had a stronger heart and kidneys then they would have operated
Sadly, after discussions with Urologists, Surgeons, Anesthetists and the Critical care team it was decided that Mr Nippard was not fit for surgery, and he was placed on priorities of care and died on 6th July 2022.
It was the view of the doctors who attended the inquest and gave evidence that the pressure sore significantly contributed to Mr Nippard’s death.
According to Mr Nippard’s GP, Mr Nippard had a medical history which included poorly controlled type 2 diabetes, peripheral vascular disease, ischemic heart disease and chronic kidney disease stage 4. He had also undergone amputations of his toes due to non-healing diabetic ulcers.
His daughter, said in evidence that he was admitted to hospital on 30th May 2022 following a fall at home. He said that he’d fallen forward and onto his knee. He was lifted from the floor and onto his bed by his family where he remained until an ambulance was called, when the decision was taken to admit him to the Royal United Hosptial (the RUH) in Bath.
He was admitted via the Emergency department, then to the medical assessment unit (MAU), and then onto the Orthopaedic ward – Pierce Ward on 1st June 2022 in the early hours.
According to the Consultant Orthopaedic Surgeon, Mr Nippard was initially admitted, with the diagnosis of right knee septic arthritis and an acute kidney injury on top of his chronic kidney disease. Mr Nippard was on antibiotics and on 2nd June 2022 underwent a washout of his knee. On 8th June he had a second washout. By 17th June he was deteriorating, on 20th June his CRP was increasing. He said in his evidence that the pressure sore was first documented by the orthopaedic team on 21st June, the surgeon described this now as - the bigger source of infection.
An MRI was requested but did not take place for 4 days; it was undertaken on 25th June and reported as showing no obvious sacral osteomyelitis it did show that it had locally spread in the soft tissue.
By 28th June Mr Nippard was getting worse, his inflammatory markers were going up and now his testicles were swollen, and there was a suspicion was that this was Fournier’s Gangrene and there was a referral made to the Urology team.
The orthopaedic surgeon said that as far as the treatment for Mr Nippard’s knee went, he felt they were winning that it was improving that if he hadn’t developed the pressure sore his expectation was that he would have been discharged. He agreed with the medical cause of death proposed.
A Consultant Urologist examined Mr Nippard on 28th June, he said that he had evidence of a significant infection, that the only treatment was surgery, and all agreed that surgery was not likely to help, and it would cause Mr Nippard immense suffering in his last days. He explained that the other medical conditions Mr Nippard suffered with caused him to be compromised, if he’d had a stronger heart and kidneys then they would have operated
Sadly, after discussions with Urologists, Surgeons, Anesthetists and the Critical care team it was decided that Mr Nippard was not fit for surgery, and he was placed on priorities of care and died on 6th July 2022.
It was the view of the doctors who attended the inquest and gave evidence that the pressure sore significantly contributed to Mr Nippard’s death.
Similar PFD Reports
Reports sharing organisations, categories, or themes
Related Inquiry Recommendations
Public inquiry recommendations addressing similar themes
Prevent discharge of hospitalised children with concerns until home is safe
Laming Inquiry
Care and discharge planning
Require consultant or paediatrician permission for discharging children with protection concerns.
Laming Inquiry
Care and discharge planning
Require documented future care plan for discharging children with protection concerns.
Laming Inquiry
Care and discharge planning
Ensure identified GP for children with deliberate harm concerns discharged from hospital.
Laming Inquiry
Care and discharge planning
Establish comprehensive counselling and support services as integral to patient care
Bristol Heart Inquiry
Care and discharge planning
Data sourced from Courts and Tribunals Judiciary under the Open Government Licence.