Stephen Walker
PFD Report
All Responded
Ref: 2021-0254
All 1 response received
· Deadline: 28 Sep 2021
Coroner's Concerns (AI summary)
No record indicated an abdominal examination was conducted, a medical review fixed, or a nasogastric tube passed; a registrar said the patient declined a nasogastric tube, but there was no record of this; nurses bleeped twice for a medical review, but there was no record of a review being undertaken or chased; and online medical records were confusing.
View full coroner's concerns
1. Dr Walker’s condition had deteriorated by the time of the morning ward round on Easter Monday, 5 April 2021. He said that he felt awful and had begun vomiting. Dr Walker wondered if this was secondary to opiate analgesia, and this was recorded as the clinical impression.
However, no record was put before me at inquest indicating that the clinical fellow undertaking the ward round conducted an abdominal examination, no subsequent early medical review was fixed and no nasogastric tube was passed.
2. At the morbidity and mortality meeting on 24 June, the registrar said that Dr Walker was offered a nasogastric tube but declined. However, I was told at inquest that there was no record of this.
3. I was told at inquest that, at lunch time on 5 April, nurses twice bleeped for a medical review, but there was no record that a medical review was undertaken, or that this was chased.
4. At inquest, I asked the colorectal surgeon with care of Dr Walker to check matters in the online medical records before him. However, he said that he was in difficulty because they were so confusing in the way that they were laid out and completed.
If the records are so confusing that a consultant cannot read them easily, then that is obviously sub optimal in terms of care.
I am aware that the chair of the panel that has already considered the circumstances in which Dr Walker died, the consultant surgeon
, intends to conduct a more in depth review of the medical records.
However, no record was put before me at inquest indicating that the clinical fellow undertaking the ward round conducted an abdominal examination, no subsequent early medical review was fixed and no nasogastric tube was passed.
2. At the morbidity and mortality meeting on 24 June, the registrar said that Dr Walker was offered a nasogastric tube but declined. However, I was told at inquest that there was no record of this.
3. I was told at inquest that, at lunch time on 5 April, nurses twice bleeped for a medical review, but there was no record that a medical review was undertaken, or that this was chased.
4. At inquest, I asked the colorectal surgeon with care of Dr Walker to check matters in the online medical records before him. However, he said that he was in difficulty because they were so confusing in the way that they were laid out and completed.
If the records are so confusing that a consultant cannot read them easily, then that is obviously sub optimal in terms of care.
I am aware that the chair of the panel that has already considered the circumstances in which Dr Walker died, the consultant surgeon
, intends to conduct a more in depth review of the medical records.
Responses
Action Taken
The case was declared a serious incident and investigated; the report has been submitted to commissioners with an action plan. The hospital has launched a new electronic patient information system (EPR) and is reviewing processes for recording outcomes of Mortality and Morbidity meetings. (AI summary)
The case was declared a serious incident and investigated; the report has been submitted to commissioners with an action plan. The hospital has launched a new electronic patient information system (EPR) and is reviewing processes for recording outcomes of Mortality and Morbidity meetings. (AI summary)
View full response
Dear Coroner Hassell Re: Prevention of Future Deaths Report following inquest into the death of Stephen Walker (Date of death: 06/04/2021) I am writing to you following my letter of 26 August 2021, in response to the matters of concern raised in your Regulation 28 Report: Prevention of Future Deaths, following the Inquest in to the death of Dr Stephen Walker. In my letter of 26 August 2021, we confirmed that this case was presented to our Safety Incident Review Panel, and it was agreed to declare it as an externally reportable serious. incident yvith our commissioners. The investigation has now concluded and the report has. been submitted to our commissioners. I attach a copy of the completed investigation for you, in Appendix 1 , including the action plan and identified learning. The investigation was led by a senior clinician, not associated with the service, or Dr Walker's care and treatment, and the investigating panel comprised a multidisciplinary team who were also not involved in the incident, and included staff experienced in root cause analysis investigation, human factor analysis and effective solution development. · We appreciate having the opportunity to review Dr Walker's care and treatment, which has allowed us to identify a number of learning points for our organisation around documentation, escalation, incident reporting and recording outcomes of Mortality and Morbidity meetings. I would like to inform you that the Royal Free Hospital has recently launched a new electronic patient information system called EPR, which allows our clinical teams to have access to contemporaneous clinical records. We are confident that this will support improvements in both documentation and communication. Doctors working in the service have also been asked to ensure that they always escalate the refusal of an NG tube to the Consultant on call. 1
In addition, we are currently reviewing our processes for recording outcomes of Mortality and Morbidity meetings, by actively exploring existing systems within the organisation. In addition to commissioning the serious incident investigation, a learning from death review was also commissioned, and approved at our hospital Mortality Review Group on 8 October 2021, which we also include, in Appendix 2, for your information. Following finalisation of the investigation, Dr Walker's.wife will now be offered a copy of the final investigation report and will also be invited to attend a meeting with representatives of the Trust, to discuss the investigation findings and any learning for the Trust. The final report, including the shared learning will also be shared with all staff involved in the incident, to facilitate learning and reflective practice. The learning from the incident will also be shared widely at the Service Line meeting, the Divisional Quality & Safety Board meeting, the Clinical Performance and Patient Safety meeting, as well as other relevant forums and newsletters. I would again like to reassure you that we take any untoward death of a patient extremely seriously and would like to thank you for providing me with the opportunity to respond to this Regulation 28 F3,eport. Please let us know if you require any further information at this point.
In addition, we are currently reviewing our processes for recording outcomes of Mortality and Morbidity meetings, by actively exploring existing systems within the organisation. In addition to commissioning the serious incident investigation, a learning from death review was also commissioned, and approved at our hospital Mortality Review Group on 8 October 2021, which we also include, in Appendix 2, for your information. Following finalisation of the investigation, Dr Walker's.wife will now be offered a copy of the final investigation report and will also be invited to attend a meeting with representatives of the Trust, to discuss the investigation findings and any learning for the Trust. The final report, including the shared learning will also be shared with all staff involved in the incident, to facilitate learning and reflective practice. The learning from the incident will also be shared widely at the Service Line meeting, the Divisional Quality & Safety Board meeting, the Clinical Performance and Patient Safety meeting, as well as other relevant forums and newsletters. I would again like to reassure you that we take any untoward death of a patient extremely seriously and would like to thank you for providing me with the opportunity to respond to this Regulation 28 F3,eport. Please let us know if you require any further information at this point.
Sent To
- Royal Free Hospital
Response Status
Linked responses
1 of 1
56-Day Deadline
28 Sep 2021
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 21 April 2021, I commenced an investigation into the death of Stephen Walker, aged 79 years. The investigation concluded at the end of the inquest earlier today.
Dr Walker’s medical cause of death was: 1a aspiration pneumonia and acute pulmonary oedema 1b small bowel ileus and ischaemic small bowel 1c ileostomy reversal 2 aortic incompetence
I made a determination at inquest that Stephen Walker died from the complications of medical treatment, being an ileus following an ileostomy reversal. Earlier placement of a nasogastric tube would have improved his chance of survival, because it would have reduced the risk of vomiting and so of aspiration.
Dr Walker’s medical cause of death was: 1a aspiration pneumonia and acute pulmonary oedema 1b small bowel ileus and ischaemic small bowel 1c ileostomy reversal 2 aortic incompetence
I made a determination at inquest that Stephen Walker died from the complications of medical treatment, being an ileus following an ileostomy reversal. Earlier placement of a nasogastric tube would have improved his chance of survival, because it would have reduced the risk of vomiting and so of aspiration.
Circumstances of the Death
Dr Walker was admitted to the Royal Free Hospital for an ileostomy reversal on 1 April 2021. He began vomiting on the morning of 5 April and felt extremely unwell, but a nasogastric tube was not placed until that evening, at which point 2 litres was aspirated. He was then admitted to the intensive care unit, but died the following day.
Similar PFD Reports
Reports sharing organisations, categories, or themes
Related Inquiry Recommendations
Public inquiry recommendations addressing similar themes
Healthcare trust risk information visibility
Southport Inquiry
Inaccurate and inaccessible patient records
Improve perinatal mortality recording
Morecambe Bay Investigation
Inaccurate and inaccessible patient records
Detainee Capture and Condition Records
Al-Sweady Inquiry
Inaccurate and inaccessible patient records
Data sourced from Courts and Tribunals Judiciary under the Open Government Licence.