perforated gastric ulcer; morphine toxicity also made a significant contribution
AI-generated summary
Mrs Lillian Shaw, a 67-year-old obese woman with a history of NSAID use, presented with vomiting and abdominal pain over 36 hours. A GP visited three times without performing adequate physical examination, failed to inspect concerning dark vomitus, and did not firmly insist on hospitalisation despite clear warning signs. On the final visit, 30mg of intramuscular morphine was administered at home—a large dose inappropriate for undiagnosed abdominal pain and potentially masking symptoms of perforation. The patient died 2.5 hours later from a perforated gastric ulcer, with morphine toxicity significantly contributing. Key failures: inadequate examination and diagnosis; failure to inspect vomitus for blood; inappropriate use of opioids at home; weak hospitalisation advice; and poor documentation of the final visit and morphine administration.
AI-generated summary and tagging — may contain inaccuracies; refer to original finding for legal purposes. Report an inaccuracy.
inadequate physical examination on all three visits
failure to inspect or inquire about appearance of dark vomitus despite NSAID use
failure to consider or diagnose perforated gastric ulcer
inappropriate administration of 30mg intramuscular morphine at home without firm diagnosis
morphine masking symptoms and signs of peritonitis and perforation
weak advice regarding hospitalisation; did not firmly insist patient be hospitalised
failure to arrange hospital admission despite recognising need
failure to inform patient or relatives of morphine administration
no follow-up arrangements or monitoring after final visit
incomplete medical records; final visit and morphine injection not documented
lack of adequate supervision of doctor with conditional registration
long-term NSAID use without gastroprotection for known risk factors
Coroner's recommendations
Implement a register for controlled drugs (pethidine and morphine) that records not only removal from storage but also the actual amount administered to the patient and what became of any unused portion.
Establish detailed protocols specifying the level of supervision required for medical practitioners registered under Section 135 of the Medical Practitioners Registration Act 2001 (those with qualifications from non-accredited institutions), with systems to monitor and verify that supervision is actually being provided, including periodic performance reviews.
Implement a protocol to ensure subsequent medical practitioners and hospitals are aware of recent treatment and drugs administered by previous practitioners, particularly where the initial practitioner recognises the patient is unwell and likely to be admitted to hospital soon. This should include verbal information to the patient and/or written documentation provided to the patient to hand to the hospital.
Require medical practitioners registered under Section 135 to inform patients of their conditional registration status so patients can make an informed choice about their care.
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.