Strangulated small bowel due to adhesions from previous abdominal surgery
AI-generated summary
An 87-year-old man with diabetes, hypertension and dementia was admitted with presumed UTI and dehydration. Within 24 hours, nursing staff observed a distended abdomen and bile-stained vomiting—clinical signs of bowel obstruction. Despite these findings being documented and communicated verbally at handover, the information failed to reach the treating physician at ward round due to system failures: the Team Leader became unwell and was not replaced, no nurse accompanied the physician, and he did not read nursing notes. The physician did not perform abdominal examination and ordered a CT head instead of abdominal imaging. The patient subsequently aspirated and died from strangulated small bowel due to adhesions. Even if diagnosed, surgery was likely non-viable; the critical failure was that the patient and family were denied opportunity to discuss palliative care options.
AI-generated summary and tagging — may contain inaccuracies; refer to original finding for legal purposes. Report an inaccuracy.
Specialties
general medicinenephrologyemergency medicinecolorectal surgery
Error types
diagnosticcommunicationsystem
Drugs involved
ondansetroniv fluids
Clinical conditions
bowel obstructionstrangulated small boweladhesionsaspiration pneumoniadehydrationurinary tract infection (presumed)dementiadiabetes mellitushypertension
Contributing factors
failure to communicate findings of abdominal distension to treating physician
Team Leader absence without replacement during critical ward round
no nurse accompanying physician on ward round
physician did not read nursing progress notes documenting distended abdomen
physician did not perform abdominal examination on 30 December
physician did not perform abdominal imaging despite vomiting and abdominal distension
inadequate response to family concerns raised by daughter in afternoon
failure to obtain ordered urine sample, delaying alternative diagnosis consideration
absence of formal escalation process for patient and family concerns
lack of documentation of clinical decisions on handover sheets
atypical presentation without significant pain, complicating diagnosis
Coroner's recommendations
Wesley Hospital should review current practices to ensure matters raised during flagging handover are documented on handover sheets
Senior Registered Nurse should review the process for updating information on handover sheets to ensure distension and other critical findings are recorded
Wesley Hospital should clarify handover process when patients are transferred between rooms to ensure allocated nurse formally hands over care
Hospital has implemented Q-ADDS (Queensland Adult Deterioration Detection System) as escalation mapping tool
Hospital has introduced Team Leader Resource Guide with minimum rostering requirements and sick leave replacement protocols
Hospital has adopted 'Let us Know' tool (similar to 'Ryan's Rule') for patients and families to escalate concerns directly
Hospital has developed protocol ensuring MSU samples are collected and tested promptly
Hospital has provided education on SHARED (Situation, History, Assessment, Risk, Expectation, Documentation) handover framework
Hospital has implemented graded assertiveness and communication training for nursing staff
Hospital has introduced Medical Care Coordinator role to assist complex and cognitively impaired patients
Hospital has engaged specialist education teams to promote higher standards of individualised elderly care
Hospital is developing process for proactive discussion and documentation of clinical treatment goals and limits to treatment escalation
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.