Skip to main content
InquestIQ

John Higgs

17 May 2017Coroner: Sarah SlaterArea: South Yorkshire (Western)
Systemic investigation and learning failures in healthcare governance

Response Status

Report Content

Coroner

In March 2011, Mr Higgs attended Barnsley General Hospital and underwent a CT scan which identified the presence of a 6cm abdominal aortic aneurysm. This finding was not communicated to Mr Higgs despite him attending at the hospital on a number of occasions following the scan. In addition, the general practitioner was not informed therefore Mr Higgs was not referred to specialist vascular surgeons and he did not have the opportunity to consider any further treatment options prior to his sudden collapse in 2015. 4 CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE DEATH Mr Higgs attended Barnsley General Hospital on the 18th November 2015 following a fall and vacant episode. It was initially though that Mr Higgs had suffered a further stroke but an ultrasound scan revealed a 6.6cm abdominal aortic aneurysm which was leaking. He Higgs died later that same day. After Mr Higgs death, his wife received the death certificate and sent a letter to the hospital asking why she had not been informed that he husband had an aneurysm. This was investigated by the Trust and it was found that Mr Higgs had undergone a CT scan in March 2011 and the scan had identified the presence of a 6cm abdominal aortic aneurysm but the results had been overlooked at the time and therefore not communicated to Mr Higgs, other clinicians or his general practitioner. The evidence at the inquest was that presence of the abdominal aortic aneurysm was an unexpected finding on the CT scan. The report had been seen by the Consultant Surgeon in charge of the care, but he did not act upon these results because Mr Higgs was attending clinic 5 days later and therefore the Consultant would discuss them with the patient. At this time, the trust relied on paper records. Mr Higgs attended clinic and was seen by a junior doctor who either did not review the CT report or it was unavailable because it was still with the consultant awaiting filing on the patient records. There was no evidence in court of a safe system of communication at the time (2011). Mr Higgs attended at the hospital on a number of occasions after the scan results were available in 2011 and was seen by several different doctors but the CT scan results from 2011 were not looked at. In addition, the general practitioner was not informed therefore Mr Higgs was not referred to specialist vascular surgeons and he did not have the opportunity to consider any further treatment options prior to his sudden collapse in 2015. 5 CORONER’S CONCERNS During the course of the inquest the evidence revealed matters giving raise to concern. In my opinion there is a risk that future deaths will occur unless action is taken. In the circumstances it is my statutory duty to report to you. The MATTER OF CONCERN for the Secretary of State to consider is as follows: The inquest heard that the Trust now relies on an electronic system rather than the paper system as it did in 2011. However, any unexpected significant/serious radiological finding are still included in a report that is only sent to the Consultant in charge of the care and it is a matter for that doctor to notice that part of the report and to input this information on the system as a message. In essence, the procedures appear to be the same, it the mode of recording the information that had changed from paper to computer. No other measures have been put in place and the system is still reliant on

Legal Powers

Show details

one doctor noticing and recording the information. In addition, the Court heard there was no facility to place a “red flag” on the system to increase the likelihood of other clinicians being made aware of these unexpected and significant findings. The Trust has a radiology protocol for “unexpected cancer pathology” where the results are sent to the treating Consultant but also sent to the MDT Cancer Co-ordinator for action but no such protocol exists for non- cancerous but significant and potentially life threatening findings. The Secretary of State for Health is asked to consider whether it is appropriate for Trust to review its systems and procedures in place in relation to “unexpected (non- cancerous) radiological findings because HMAC is concerned that this situation could occur again. 6 ACTION SHOULD BE TAKEN In my opinion action should be taken to prevent future deaths and I believe you have the power to take such action. 7 YOUR RESPONSE You are under a duty to respond to this report within 56 days of the date of this report, namely by 27th June 2017. I, the coroner, may extend the period. Your response must contain details of action taken or proposed to be taken, setting out the timetable for action. Otherwise you must explain why no action is proposed. 8 COPIES and PUBLICATION I have sent a copy of my report to the Chief Coroner and to the following Interested Persons: The family of Mr Higgs Chief Executive, Barnsley District General Hospital I am also under a duty to send the Chief Coroner a copy of your response. The Chief Coroner may publish either or both in a complete or redacted or summary form. He may send a copy of this report to any person who he believes may find it useful or of interest. You may make representations to me, the coroner, at the time of your response, about the release or the publication of your response by the Chief Coroner. 9 10th April 2017 Louise Slater Assistant Coroner South Yorkshire (West)

If you need support right now:

Samaritans — 116 123, free, 24 hours

SOBS (Survivors of Bereavement by Suicide) — 0300 111 5065, 9am–9pm

Cruse Bereavement — 0808 808 1677, weekdays 9am–5pm