Investigation and inquest
On 24 July 2017 I commenced an investigation into the death of Michael Vukovic, age 22. The investigation concluded at the end of the inquest on 22 January 2018. The conclusion of the inquest was:
Medical cause of death:
1a Hypoxic brain injury due to prolonged cardiac arrest
1b Prolonged cardiac arrest
1c Traumatic L1 vertebral fracture and lumbosacral soft tissue haemorrhage
The narrative conclusion was as follows:
Mr Vukovic jumped from a building while suffering psychosis.
Circumstances of the death
On 8 July 2017 Michael Vukovic, who was suffering psychosis, jumped from a 2nd or 3rd floor balcony and suffered a fracture to the L1 vertebra. He was admitted to Queen Elizabeth Hospital where he suffered a cardiac arrest which caused hypoxic brain damage. He was transferred to Kings College Hospital where he died on 11 July 2017.
Coroner’s concerns
At the inquest evidence was given by ████████ who was at that time a consultant psychiatrist at Oxleas.
On 14 March 2017 Mr Vukovic had been admitted to Oxleas under s2 MHA. He was not previously known to services and this was his first psychiatric admission. He was expressing paranoid psychotic symptoms. He was discharged from section on 27 March 2017 and he returned home. Prior to discharge he had been assessed by the Early Intervention Service (EIS) but was considered to be ineligible for their service. He was then referred to the Home Treatment Team (HTT) and to Lifeline (a drug and alcohol service). The presumptive diagnosis was that the psychosis was drug/alcohol related, but the evidence was that this could only be confirmed after he had remained abstinent for a period of 4-6 weeks; there was still a possibility that this was a primary psychosis.
My specific concerns are as follows:
(1) ████████ evidence that Mr Vukovic was referred to the Home Treatment Team but was never in fact seen by that team.
(2) The referral to Lifeline required Mr Vukovic to make the initial contact himself. He did not do so, and Oxleas did not check whether or not he had done so. The evidence was that if he had been under the care of the HTT he would have been encouraged to engage with Lifeline.
(3) The result was that Mr Vukovic was discharged from hospital without follow up.