Wayne Millett
PFD Report
All Responded
Ref: 2020-0031
Alcohol, drug and medication related deaths
Hospital Death (Clinical Procedures and medical management) related deaths
Mental Health related deaths
All 1 response received
· Deadline: 14 Apr 2020
Coroner's Concerns (AI summary)
The care provider's investigation lacked critical analysis, revealing an inability to learn from serious incidents, inconsistent staff adherence to care plans, and failure to review medication side-effect monitoring protocols.
View full coroner's concerns
_
1) The Priory'$ own investigation into the circumstances of Mr Millett's death was notably lacking in meaningful critical analysis of the care and treatment he received, and in particular was fundamentally flawed in that it failed to consider the care given a5 against the Care Plan despite its obvious central relevance to his death
2) The above concern, when taken in conjunction with the facts that: a) the evidence before the court confirmed the organisation's Director of Risk Management; had input into the investigation; and b) the Peripatetic Director of Clinical Services who gave evidence before the court was unable to describe any overarching quality assurance process operating within the organisation in respect of serious incident investigations; This raises significant concerns as to the Priory Group's ability to learn from serious clinical incidents and to take action accordingly, thus creating a risk of future deaths
3) The court heard differing evidence from staff working at The Priory Hospital, Cheadle and from the Peripatetic Director of Clinical Services as to what the organisation's expectations were in respect of care plans, and specifically the degree of adherence which were required to them. In the light of this significant divergence of opinion;, it is a matter of concern that the Priory Group has not undertaken any audit of compliance with care plans (either at The Priory Hospital, Cheadle or more generally within the organisation) as a result of Mr Millett's death:
4) It is a matter of concern that, notwithstanding the cause of death identified on Post Mortem Examination and despite nearly a year having passed since Mr Millett's death, the organisation has yet to formally review the care plans ofall patients prescribed Clozapine, with a view to ensuring each relevant patient has in place a clear plan for monitoring of potential side-effects of the medication, which gives clear and authoritative direction to staff as to how to act if serious complications are suspected. It is a particular matter of concern that this step not been taken, given the evidence heard from the Peripatetic Director of Clinical Services which suggested this would be a straightforward measure to accomplish, and one which could be completed within 28
1) The Priory'$ own investigation into the circumstances of Mr Millett's death was notably lacking in meaningful critical analysis of the care and treatment he received, and in particular was fundamentally flawed in that it failed to consider the care given a5 against the Care Plan despite its obvious central relevance to his death
2) The above concern, when taken in conjunction with the facts that: a) the evidence before the court confirmed the organisation's Director of Risk Management; had input into the investigation; and b) the Peripatetic Director of Clinical Services who gave evidence before the court was unable to describe any overarching quality assurance process operating within the organisation in respect of serious incident investigations; This raises significant concerns as to the Priory Group's ability to learn from serious clinical incidents and to take action accordingly, thus creating a risk of future deaths
3) The court heard differing evidence from staff working at The Priory Hospital, Cheadle and from the Peripatetic Director of Clinical Services as to what the organisation's expectations were in respect of care plans, and specifically the degree of adherence which were required to them. In the light of this significant divergence of opinion;, it is a matter of concern that the Priory Group has not undertaken any audit of compliance with care plans (either at The Priory Hospital, Cheadle or more generally within the organisation) as a result of Mr Millett's death:
4) It is a matter of concern that, notwithstanding the cause of death identified on Post Mortem Examination and despite nearly a year having passed since Mr Millett's death, the organisation has yet to formally review the care plans ofall patients prescribed Clozapine, with a view to ensuring each relevant patient has in place a clear plan for monitoring of potential side-effects of the medication, which gives clear and authoritative direction to staff as to how to act if serious complications are suspected. It is a particular matter of concern that this step not been taken, given the evidence heard from the Peripatetic Director of Clinical Services which suggested this would be a straightforward measure to accomplish, and one which could be completed within 28
Responses
Action Taken
The Priory Group acknowledges the need to improve staff understanding and adherence to care plans and has allocated a Clozapine learning and development module to all doctors and qualified nurses. They have also issued Clozapine guidelines and a care plan template with details on potential side effects and management strategies, and systems are in place for regular auditing of patient care plans. (AI summary)
The Priory Group acknowledges the need to improve staff understanding and adherence to care plans and has allocated a Clozapine learning and development module to all doctors and qualified nurses. They have also issued Clozapine guidelines and a care plan template with details on potential side effects and management strategies, and systems are in place for regular auditing of patient care plans. (AI summary)
View full response
Dear Mr Morris P :::,yo :::,•y OROUP OF "-1. ' COMPANIES Trevor Torrington CEO, Priory Group 80 Hammersmith Road London, W14 BUD '(jlj)~~ 11• JUN 2020 HM CORONER MANCHESTER SOUTH Re. Wayne Lee Millett I am writing in response to the Regulation 28 Report dated 18 February 2020 issued following the Inquest touching the death of Mr Wayne Lee Millett. Thank you for permitting an extension in respect of providing a reply in light of the very challenging circumstances presented by Covid-19. We have now had time to give due consideration to the concerns raised and our response is provided as per the below. Our investigation We acknowledge that greater emphasis should have been given to analysing the care plan in place for Mr Millett to include the staff's knowledge and understanding of it and that there was a gap between the prescriptive nature of the care plan and staff's adherence to it. We would ask you to please note that:
• The SUI report and report convey that overall, the care and treatment provided by staff to Mr Millett, a long-term patient who had been at the hospital since November 2013 was of an acceptable standard.
• The care plans themselves were of an acceptable standard and were regularly reviewed.
• As you rightly point out, Mr Millett often had bouts of abdominal discomfort and prior to the incident, these episodes were managed successfully including through the administration ofMovicol. As such, from a practical perspective, staff were managing the risk on a day-to-day basis in accordance with good clinical practice.
• At the time the investigation was carried out and the report completed, the investigators were not aware of the cause ofdeath as they had not seen the PME report. You will also appreciate that given the nature and timing of an incident investigation and a coronial inquiry, there is sometimes a "mis-match" between the findings of a SUI report and an inquest and even experienced investigators often consider post-inquest - with the benefit ofhindsight- that they could have looked at certain matters in more detail or with greater emphasis. A learning organisation In relation to your concern that we are not a learning organisation, please note we continue to invest significant time and resource in making continuous improvements to the services we provide to some of the most clinically challenging mental health patients in the UK. This includes in relation to incident investigations: in March this year, we recruited a highly-experienced serious incidents investigation officer (SIO) with a clear mandate to make improvements to our processes for the benefit of patients and staff including: 1
..
• Ensuring that all SUI reports are completed within 60 days with the full involvement of all stakeholders including relatives and family members;
• Delivering training to senior staff who are commissioned to complete investigations and prepare reports to ensure they have the necessary skills to identify key issues and convey those concisely and clearly in their written outputs;
• Strengthening the review process so that all draft serious incident investigation reports are reviewed by a team of senior staff which in all cases includes the Group Medical Director and the Director of Quality.
• Ensuring that action plans are drawn up based on the recommendations in the SUI report and these are monitored regularly by senior staff at site to ensure learnings are being embedded in clinical practice. More generally in relation to incidents, we have systems and processes in place to ensure we learn from all incidents and near misses as expeditiously as possible. In July 2019, we invested in a new incident reporting tool (Datix) which has assisted us to report incidents more quickly and better analyse them both locally i.e. at each hospital and across the Healthcare Division as a whole. In the event of a very serious incident, we always undertake a rapid review of the case with the aim of taking swift action, where it is deemed necessary, to help reduce the possibility of a re-currence of such incidents and until such time as the completion of the more detailed investigation. We circulate frequent bulletins and messages to our staff about the lessons learnt from incidents and near misses with policies and training courses amended and updated accordingly. The implementation and embedding of any improvement actions is monitored by our Healthcare Division Quality Team who scrutinise incidents themes and trends and where necessary undertake more individualised reviews of patient care. Auditing compliance with patient care plans Please note there are systems in place which ensure that patient care plans are regularly audited. These systems include Ward Managers and the Director of Compliance at each hospital having a responsibility for undertaking regular "spot-checks" by way of completing the monthly Quality Walk Rounds during which the care records of patients are reviewed and evaluated. Our Healthcare Division Quality Team also undertakes a formal annual audit of care plans. The 2020 audit was unfortunately delayed due to the Covid-19 pandemic but was completed last month with the audit results currently being analysed. Patient Clozapine care plans As above, we are very much a learning organisation and we saw the matters raised at the Inquest concerning Mr Millett as an opportunity to review the way in which we manage the prescription and management of Clozapine. We have now allocated a Clozapine learning and development module to all doctors and qualified nurses. We have also issued Clozapine guidelines and an associated care plan "template" which gives clear details on the potential side-effects of the medication and how best to manage those. I trust that the actions outlined above will provide the assurances you seek in respect of this matter.
• The SUI report and report convey that overall, the care and treatment provided by staff to Mr Millett, a long-term patient who had been at the hospital since November 2013 was of an acceptable standard.
• The care plans themselves were of an acceptable standard and were regularly reviewed.
• As you rightly point out, Mr Millett often had bouts of abdominal discomfort and prior to the incident, these episodes were managed successfully including through the administration ofMovicol. As such, from a practical perspective, staff were managing the risk on a day-to-day basis in accordance with good clinical practice.
• At the time the investigation was carried out and the report completed, the investigators were not aware of the cause ofdeath as they had not seen the PME report. You will also appreciate that given the nature and timing of an incident investigation and a coronial inquiry, there is sometimes a "mis-match" between the findings of a SUI report and an inquest and even experienced investigators often consider post-inquest - with the benefit ofhindsight- that they could have looked at certain matters in more detail or with greater emphasis. A learning organisation In relation to your concern that we are not a learning organisation, please note we continue to invest significant time and resource in making continuous improvements to the services we provide to some of the most clinically challenging mental health patients in the UK. This includes in relation to incident investigations: in March this year, we recruited a highly-experienced serious incidents investigation officer (SIO) with a clear mandate to make improvements to our processes for the benefit of patients and staff including: 1
..
• Ensuring that all SUI reports are completed within 60 days with the full involvement of all stakeholders including relatives and family members;
• Delivering training to senior staff who are commissioned to complete investigations and prepare reports to ensure they have the necessary skills to identify key issues and convey those concisely and clearly in their written outputs;
• Strengthening the review process so that all draft serious incident investigation reports are reviewed by a team of senior staff which in all cases includes the Group Medical Director and the Director of Quality.
• Ensuring that action plans are drawn up based on the recommendations in the SUI report and these are monitored regularly by senior staff at site to ensure learnings are being embedded in clinical practice. More generally in relation to incidents, we have systems and processes in place to ensure we learn from all incidents and near misses as expeditiously as possible. In July 2019, we invested in a new incident reporting tool (Datix) which has assisted us to report incidents more quickly and better analyse them both locally i.e. at each hospital and across the Healthcare Division as a whole. In the event of a very serious incident, we always undertake a rapid review of the case with the aim of taking swift action, where it is deemed necessary, to help reduce the possibility of a re-currence of such incidents and until such time as the completion of the more detailed investigation. We circulate frequent bulletins and messages to our staff about the lessons learnt from incidents and near misses with policies and training courses amended and updated accordingly. The implementation and embedding of any improvement actions is monitored by our Healthcare Division Quality Team who scrutinise incidents themes and trends and where necessary undertake more individualised reviews of patient care. Auditing compliance with patient care plans Please note there are systems in place which ensure that patient care plans are regularly audited. These systems include Ward Managers and the Director of Compliance at each hospital having a responsibility for undertaking regular "spot-checks" by way of completing the monthly Quality Walk Rounds during which the care records of patients are reviewed and evaluated. Our Healthcare Division Quality Team also undertakes a formal annual audit of care plans. The 2020 audit was unfortunately delayed due to the Covid-19 pandemic but was completed last month with the audit results currently being analysed. Patient Clozapine care plans As above, we are very much a learning organisation and we saw the matters raised at the Inquest concerning Mr Millett as an opportunity to review the way in which we manage the prescription and management of Clozapine. We have now allocated a Clozapine learning and development module to all doctors and qualified nurses. We have also issued Clozapine guidelines and an associated care plan "template" which gives clear details on the potential side-effects of the medication and how best to manage those. I trust that the actions outlined above will provide the assurances you seek in respect of this matter.
Sent To
- Priory Group
Response Status
Linked responses
1 of 1
56-Day Deadline
14 Apr 2020
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 5th June 2019, | opened an inquest into the death of Wayne Lee Millett; who died at The Priory Hospital, Cheadle on 13th February 2019,aged 46 vears. The investigation concluded at the end of the inquest, which was heard from 3rd to 10th February 2020, before a jury: A post mortem examination determined Mr Millett died as a consequence of: 1Ja) Acute Lung injury b) Aspiration c) Pseudo obstruction of Small bowel most Iikely due to Clozapine Toxicity: The jury concluded Mr Millett's death was drug-related, on the basis that complications of therapeutic use of the prescribed medication Clozapine set in motion a chain of events leading to his death:
Circumstances of the Death
Mr Millett had a long history of mental health problems and was a detained patient at The Priory Hospital, Cheadle pursuant to a 537 Mental Health Act 1983 hospital order made by the court Mr Millett had been diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia, which proved refractory to treatment As such, in conjunction with support and non-medical therapies, the mainstay of Mr Millett' $ treatment was the anti-psychotic medication Clozapine: The court heard evidence that Clozapine is reserved for treatment-resistant schizophrenia in the main, asa result of the nature and extent of side effects which can be associated with its use. In Mr Millett' $ case, the administration of Clozapine was endorsed by an independent second-opinion doctor: Amongst other things, Clozapine has been associated with a range of gastro-intestinal side effects, ranging from constipation through to more serious problems leading to paralysis of the gut, bowel obstruction, and necrosis of part of the bowel: Priory
In 2015 having become acutely unwell, Mr Millett was admitted to an NHS hospital where he was diagnosed with a paralytic ileus pseudo-obstruction which was thought may have resulted from Clozapine use. As a consequence of this, upon his return to the Priory, a care plan was developed to seek to promote bowel motility, facilitate early identification of serious gastro-intestinal side effects of Clozapine, and to enable Mr Millett to receive prompt emergency treatment if clinical suspicion of bowel obstruction arose ("the Care Plan"). Whilst Mr Millett often complained of abdominal symptoms, there was an escalation in these from 11" February 2019. Notwithstanding this, the Care Plan was not followed,and Mr Millett became increasingly unwell leading to his collapse and death on 13" February 2019
In 2015 having become acutely unwell, Mr Millett was admitted to an NHS hospital where he was diagnosed with a paralytic ileus pseudo-obstruction which was thought may have resulted from Clozapine use. As a consequence of this, upon his return to the Priory, a care plan was developed to seek to promote bowel motility, facilitate early identification of serious gastro-intestinal side effects of Clozapine, and to enable Mr Millett to receive prompt emergency treatment if clinical suspicion of bowel obstruction arose ("the Care Plan"). Whilst Mr Millett often complained of abdominal symptoms, there was an escalation in these from 11" February 2019. Notwithstanding this, the Care Plan was not followed,and Mr Millett became increasingly unwell leading to his collapse and death on 13" February 2019
Action Should Be Taken
In my opinion action should be taken to prevent future deaths and believe you and your organisation have the power to take such action.
Similar PFD Reports
Reports sharing organisations, categories, or themes
Related Inquiry Recommendations
Public inquiry recommendations addressing similar themes
London Fire Brigade to establish lessons learned process
Grenfell Tower Inquiry
No open learning culture
Ensure Home Office staff presence and visibility in IRCs
Brook House Inquiry
No open learning culture
Data sourced from Courts and Tribunals Judiciary under the Open Government Licence.