Vinod Kumar
PFD Report
Historic (No Identified Response)
Ref: 2016-0369
Coroner's Concerns (AI summary)
Initial triage over-relied on the patient's fall, leading to delayed recognition of potential infection symptoms, missed observations, and inadequate prolonged assessment before priority categorization.
View full coroner's concerns
1. Evidence emerged during the inquest that when he was seen initially by the Triage nurse that too much emphasis and reliance was placed on the significance of the fall/trauma Evidence of potential infection (swelling to his arms) resulted in no further observations or blood tests done until some three hours later Evidence from the A and E Consultant emerged from the inquest which suggested that it would have been good practice to keep the patient under further observation before determining his level of priority in terms of categorisation
Sent To
- New Cross Hospital
Response Status
Linked responses
0 of 1
56-Day Deadline
12 Dec 2016
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 the 22 August 2016 I commenced an investigation into the death of the late Mr Vinod Kumar. The investigation concluded at the end of the inquest on 12 October 2016. The conclusion of the inquest was a short narrative conclusion of accidental death. The cause of death was la Multi Organ Failure b Group A Streptococcus Septic Shock c Necrotising Fasciitis secondary to laceration sustained from fall + RCUMSTANCES OF THE DEATH I) Mr Kumar was a very active and healthy family man who attended the gym and kept fit. O r aro rd the / gust 2016 he was orplai g of fecli ig urwe with flu ike sy pt ‘ns Urusua I for t r this esulted tak og time of work The following day he had a fail at home and sustaned a graze to his rght arm elbow. Hs codton ccntimjec m dece and e attended Ne Cross H al Cv g 9 A t 2 afre Viu see n o a o a r r ed v a d e in t’e Accdent ann Emergency Department he was ntiallv seen b a Triage nurse who categorsed him a eve 4 (ieast urgent and to K h s ha o y n d g f and a o len/p irful a v He ae arar at rig , a I to a ar 9 c”i t a a se c was extremely l and in muftorqanfaure vii) His condition declined further and sepsis secondary to necrotising fasciitis was dag nosed vni) Despite surgical intervention to remove the infected tissue he died shortly after the surgery on the 10 August 2016 ix On the balance of probability the likely source of necrotisi g fasciitis was the graze on the arm injury
Action Should Be Taken
1. You may wish to consider reviewing your polcy!guideIines in respect of the current sepsis policy, particularly in light of what happened to Mr Kumar. Evidence of swelling to his arms and the history given may have triggered an earlie blood tcst and observations YOUR RESPONSE You are under a duty o respono to th s rport within e days of the date of tf is eport na e by c b o c o ay
x. d e r r5pr9c must nar deta 0’ actn akr or proposed o ak settn a oO rsco ue a v racon no cc COPIES and PUBLICATION l have sent a cony of m report to the Chef Corone and to the fciowng lnteresred Person rvirs Kmar [iL
x. d e r r5pr9c must nar deta 0’ actn akr or proposed o ak settn a oO rsco ue a v racon no cc COPIES and PUBLICATION l have sent a cony of m report to the Chef Corone and to the fciowng lnteresred Person rvirs Kmar [iL
Similar PFD Reports
Reports sharing organisations, categories, or themes
Related Inquiry Recommendations
Public inquiry recommendations addressing similar themes
Data sourced from Courts and Tribunals Judiciary under the Open Government Licence.