John Matthews

PFD Report All Responded Ref: 2015-0034
Date of Report 29 January 2015
Coroner John Pollard
Response Deadline ✓ from report 26 March 2015
All 1 response received · Deadline: 26 Mar 2015
Coroner's Concerns (AI summary)
Emergency department care was compromised by a nurse triaging without the PRF, a locum doctor's inability to access patient records, omitted neurological observations, and an unnecessary CT scan delay.
View full coroner's concerns
Whilst in the Emergency Department at Stepping Hill Hospital; he was triaged without the nurse having seen the ambulance Patient Report Form. The doctor having care of him in the E.D: was a locum doctor working his first (and only) shift at the hospital: That doctor told me that he could not find the PRF nor could he access the complete computerised system. It was agreed by the ED consultant giving evidence that neurological observations ought to have been instituted, but they were not: There was an unnecessary and to some extent unexplained in sending him for a CT scan of his head; Trust: The triage delay
Responses
Stockport NHS Trust NHS / Health Body
24 Mar 2015
Action Taken
The Trust has formally discussed neurological observation needs in sisters' meetings and safety huddles, shared within the ED Quality Newsletter to all ED staff. To avoid a reoccurrence the Trust has instituted a system of checklists whereby a patient cannot leave the ED without all the investigations and treatments being completed. (AI summary)
View full response
Dear Mr Pollard Re: John Michael Matthews (Deceased) Thank you for your letter, of 29 January 2015, concerning the inquest of the above named patient. As always, am grateful to you for highlighting your concerns on the Regulation 28 'Report to prevent future deaths' and for providing me with an opportunity to respond. shall respond to each of your concerns as you have detailed them: Whilst in the Emergency Department (ED) at Stepping Hill Hospital, he was triaged without the triage nurse having seen the ambulance Patient Report Form: The following system is in place for all patients arriving by ambulance to Stockport NHS Foundation Trust: the ambulance personnel will deliver & verbal handover to the triage nurse whilst a hard copy of the ambulance Patient Report Form (PRF) is left with the reception staff. This is then scanned by reception staff into the ED electronic system (therefore accessible to all) and the hard copy is taken to the main base in the ED clinical area_ The ED electronic system is known as Advantis ED and instructions for obtaining access as well as training is part of induction training, this is for all staff including locums. This training includes instruction on how to access scanned documents. In his statement to you, states that "Paramedic notes were not available to me. What is clear on review of the events is ihat the triage nurse received a verbal handover as per usual practice. A review of the electronic system has been undertaken which shows that the ambulance document (PRF) was scanned and was added to the system within 13 minutes of arrival and ten minutes prior to the doctor seeing the patient so it is apparent that the system in place to link the paper document with the electronic document worked. am unable to explain why the locum doctor did not review this information but am assured that he was given the training to enable him to do so. To prevent a future occurrence of a similar situation , we have reviewed the induction training pack and amended the written information given to staff; this was launched in November 2014. We also

work closely with locum agencies to this information to the locum doctor as quickly as possible to their shifts sO have time to review and digest it before commencing their shift, This document clearly states: The ambulance sheet is scanned on arrival please access it electronically whilst assessing your patient: The hardcopy can also be found in the tray at main base. The document also clearly states: There is & Registrar in the department 24 hours a day and a consultant for 8-13 hours per day, therefore if there is any doubt about the clinical management of a patient within the Emergency Department; staff should seek this senior help at all times: At the start of a shift; the locum is asked if they have read and understood the induction document; they are asked to sign page 2 of the document which confirms this and are asked if have any questions: hope this clarifies for you the Emergency department's recognition of the importance of robust induction for all locum staff, The doctor having care of him in the ED was a locum doctor working his first (and only) shift at the hospital. That doctor told me that he could not find the PRF nor could he access completed computerised system_ As in the response to your first concern, can confirm that the locum doctor completed the local induction which includes access to Advantis ED (our paperless IT system in ED). This eLearning includes all the aspects of our paperless system and takes up to 1 hour to complete. Once completed the doctor has to confirm that they have understand the system before a username and password are issued: AIl junior staff, including locums, are aware to request support or advice if necessary from the 'ED floor lead' . Unfortunately, cannot explain why this doctor did not ask for assistance when he found he was unable to see the ambulance information given the wealth of advice he was given regarding asking for assistance_ It was agreed by the ED consultant giving evidence that neurological observations ought to have been instituted, but were not: The ED record for this attendance state that at triage, neurological observations were not immediately required as the patient's issues had resolved. Following review by the clinicians in the department the ED Clinical Director agrees that as the patient had suffered collapse and had been unresponsive for approximately 20 minutes, that a minimum of one set of neurological observations should have been done (and then followed up as per protocol if appropriate): The ED Matron has re-iterated to all nursing staff that vital information must be passed on to the doctors This formally been discussed in the sisters' meeting and at safety huddles. Safety Huddles are times when nurses and doctors meet for handover at the beginning or end of each shift, At these times information is shared about current patients along with any specific department information or to highlight any learning identified following investigations into incidents or complaints_ Neurological observation needs have been discussed during these safety huddles, at Sisters' meetings and shared within the ED Quality Newsletter which is to all ED staff, get prior they very they they the they has sent

There was an unnecessary and to some extent unexplained delay in sending him for a CT of his head: Unfortunately when reviewing the case we have seen that although a scan was booked for this patient it was done incorrectly by a permanent FY2 doctor on behalf of the locum. 'Out of hours'_ all scans should be booked electronically but then also verbally communicated to radiology. On review it would appear that this did not happen. This process is clearly stated within the locum induction pack CT requests should also be communicated to the co-ordinating nurse again on review it appears that this also did not happen so the senior nurse wasn't aware of need, For the future to avoid a reoccurrence of this incident; we have instituted system of checklists whereby a patient cannot leave the ED without all the investigations and treatments being completed. The investigations requested are clearly shown on Advantis ED therefore the nurse caring for the patient and the shift co-ordinator will be aware of investigations requested. hope that this response answers your concerns and provides you with the assurance that the Trust is committed to improving the quality of care we give to all our patients_ Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any further questions regarding this matter
Sent To
  • Stockport NHS Foundation Trust
Response Status
Linked responses 1 of 1
56-Day Deadline 26 Mar 2015
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 11th September 2014 commenced an investigation into the death of John Michael Matthews dob 1st March 1934.The investigation concluded on the 8"h January 2015 and the conclusion was one of Natural Causes. The medical cause of death was Ia Aspiration Pneumonia 1b Haemorrhagic Hydrocephalus 1c Spontaneous Subarachnoid Haemorrhage
1. Diabetes, Hypertension:
Action Should Be Taken
In my opinion action should be taken to prevent future deaths and believe you have the power to take such action:
Related Inquiry Recommendations

Public inquiry recommendations addressing similar themes

Standardised Advance Care Planning
COVID-19 Inquiry
Care plan failures
Thalassaemia Society Support
Infected Blood Inquiry
Care plan failures
Community Support Events
Infected Blood Inquiry
Care plan failures
Hepatologist Oversight and Fibroscan Access
Infected Blood Inquiry
Delayed Recognition of Deterioration
Specialist Hepatology Centre Access
Infected Blood Inquiry
Delayed Recognition of Deterioration
Uncertainty About Fibrosis
Infected Blood Inquiry
Delayed Recognition of Deterioration
Fibroscan for Liver Imaging
Infected Blood Inquiry
Delayed Recognition of Deterioration
Consultant Hepatologist Access
Infected Blood Inquiry
Delayed Recognition of Deterioration
Commissioning Hepatology Services
Infected Blood Inquiry
Delayed Recognition of Deterioration
Haemophilia Centre Resources
Infected Blood Inquiry
Care plan failures

Data sourced from Courts and Tribunals Judiciary under the Open Government Licence.