Ian George Stanton SIMPSON · Prevention of Future Deaths report

On 24 December 2024, an investigation was commenced into the death of Ian George Stanton SIMPSON, aged 81 years at the time of his death on 16 December 2024.

The investigation concluded at the end of an inquest heard by me on 29 and 30 April 2025.

The conclusion of the inquest was ‘accident’.

The medical cause of death was:

1a urosepsis
1b long-term catheter following traumatic spinal injury (August 2024)

Mr Ian Simpson fell in August 2024 sustaining a traumatic spinal injury as a result. He required a long-term catheter which increases the risk of urine infections.

Due to his complex care needs, Mr Simpson was admitted to Magnolia Court Care Home, Hampstead (Barchester Healthcare). At about 09:30 on 16 December 2024, Mr Simpson was found unresponsive by care staff and there was a delay in calling an ambulance. He was conveyed to the Royal Free Hospital and found to be suffering from sepsis, secondary to urine infection. Despite treatment, Mr Simpson continued to deteriorate, and he died in the hospital that evening.

The delay in calling an ambulance did not cause or more than minimally contribute to Mr Simpson’s death.

1. Mr Simpson was found unresponsive by care home staff at about 09:30 on 16 December 2024, and an emergency ambulance was not called until 10:19. On the evidence in this particular case, that delay did not more than minimally contribute to death; however, it would or should have been obvious to staff that the resident was very unwell and required an ambulance as soon as possible.

This raises the concern that such a delay, if repeated, places others at serious risk. My concern was compounded by the evidence from the manager (which I did not wholly accept) that it would be reasonable to take this period of time for a nurse to be alerted, assess the resident, and decide whether an ambulance was required.

2. The notes from the care home were considered in great detail during the inquest, particularly the care notes from the morning of 16 December 2024. These raised significant concern about their adequacy and accuracy. While the deficiencies in record-keeping did not cause or contribute to death in the specific circumstances of this case, I am mindful of the importance of clear and accurate record-keeping to the delivery of safe and effective care more widely.

The issues included:
• an entry that was plainly not correct and therefore gave a misleading impression of interactions that staff had with Mr Simpson at or about the time of his being found unresponsive;
• an entry suggesting that Mr Simpson was ‘awake and lying in bed’, when he had already been found unresponsive some time earlier, suggesting that the entry was either retrospective (and not labelled as such) or simply incorrect;
• a series of notes, likely to have been retrospective but not labelled as such, giving a misleading impression of the course of events that morning.

While I was provided with some evidence that action had been taken in relation to this matter (such as an audit of records), I found that the evidence provided insufficient reassurance that the risk was sufficiently reduced.