combined effects of ischaemic heart disease and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, on a background of chemical burns and dementia
AI-generated summary
Epenesa Pahiva, 87-year-old resident with dementia at an aged care facility, suffered severe chemical burns from inappropriate bleach treatment prescribed by dermatologist Dr B.. The coroner found the treatment itself (half cup bleach to half bathtub water) was appropriate for her MRSA infection, but critical failures in communication and documentation led to improper administration. Dr B. failed to clearly document that treatment should not commence until further clarification was provided. Nursing staff, without written instructions and despite concerns about bleach's caustic nature, administered the treatment using a 50:50 bleach-to-water concentration starting 11 July 2014. The nurses did not seek written clarification, contact the referring doctor, or obtain family consent. Dr S., reviewing the patient on 15 July 2014, suspected chemical burns but did not arrange hospital transfer immediately or document his concerns. The patient's pre-existing cardiovascular disease was the primary cause of death; the healing burns contributed minimally. Multiple system failures in documentation, communication, supervision, and clinical decision-making were identified as preventable with proper protocols.
AI-generated summary and tagging — may contain inaccuracies; refer to original finding for legal purposes. Report an inaccuracy.
Specialties
dermatologygeneral practicegeriatric medicineplastic and reconstructive surgery
failure by specialist dermatologist to document treatment plan clearly
failure to write instructions in nursing home medical records
nursing staff failure to obtain written treatment orders before commencing treatment
absence of documented clarification from treating doctor regarding application method when bathtub unavailable
misunderstanding by nursing staff of bleach concentration (heard 'half and half' instead of 'half cup to half tub')
failure to seek family consent for novel treatment
failure to contact doctor or referring GP for clarification despite concerns
inadequate supervision and documentation of bleach treatment administration
chemical burns from concentrated bleach solution (50% bleach to 50% water) inadvertently applied
delay in recognition of chemical burns and transfer to hospital
failure of general practitioner to arrange hospital transfer when chemical burns suspected
patient left unsupervised during treatment while restrained
lack of written wound care assessment after treatment commenced
Coroner's recommendations
That consideration be given to how clinical staff training can be delivered effectively, including methods of evaluating participants' competency in the knowledge and skills being taught
That consideration be given to identifying an effective method of reminding clinicians of their obligations when a resident is prescribed a new medication (such as, for example, placing a checklist on the resident's file or placing a sign somewhere prominent) including any need to seek family consent
That consideration be given to the current medication management policy as to whether it appropriately provides (i) for all medications to be written by the doctor on the resident's medication chart and (ii) for written instructions to be provided by the doctor when necessary, including for novel treatments, and (iii) to ensure that treatment is not commenced without that documentation being provided
That consideration be given to providing assertiveness training for Registered Nurses and Assistants in Nursing, particularly in relation to dealing with medical professionals, and raising issues of concern at an internal level
This page reproduces or summarises information from publicly available findings published by Australian coroners' courts. Coronial is an independent educational resource and is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or acting on behalf of any coronial court or government body.
Content may be incomplete, reformatted, or summarised. Some material may have been redacted or restricted by court order or privacy requirements. Always refer to the original court publication for the authoritative record.
Copyright in original materials remains with the relevant government jurisdiction. AI-generated summaries and tagging are for educational purposes only, may contain inaccuracies, and must not be treated as legal documents. We welcome feedback for correction — report an inaccuracy here.