Non-inquest findings into the death of Charlotte Paluszak
Deceased
Charlotte Paluszak
Demographics
84y, female
Date of death
2017-11-11
Finding date
2024-08-15
Cause of death
Complications associated with Diabetes Mellitus (likely hyperosmolar hyperglycaemic state)
AI-generated summary
Mrs Charlotte Paluszak, 84, died at a residential aged care facility after rapid deterioration from complex dementia and diabetes. On 10 November 2017, she developed acute semiconsciousness and agitation. The clinical nurse consultant (CNC) and GP initiated end-of-life palliative care after family consultation. The CNC administered 10mg subcutaneous morphine (the highest prescribed dose) and 5mg midazolam to Mrs Paluszak. Expert evidence indicates this dose was inappropriate for an opioid-naïve patient; best practice recommends starting at 2.5-5mg with titration. The GP prescribed overly broad anticipatory end-of-life medication ranges without specific guidance on starting doses. Key clinical lessons: (1) opioid-naïve patients require cautious low-dose initiation with titration; (2) explicit prescribing guidance is essential in aged care; (3) no assessment documented that Mrs Paluszak was in severe pain; (4) better communication between GP and nursing staff on starting doses is crucial. The GP did not physically assess Mrs Paluszak or contact staff again after authorizing end-of-life care.
AI-generated summary and tagging — may contain inaccuracies; refer to original finding for legal purposes.
Error types
Drugs involved
Clinical conditions
Contributing factors
- Lack of medical assessment when patient acutely deteriorated
- No physical examination by GP before commencing end-of-life care
- Inadequate pain assessment prior to high-dose opioid administration
- Overly broad anticipatory prescribing of end-of-life medications without starting dose guidance
- Administration of highest dose opioid range without clinical justification
- Inadequate documentation of clinical reasoning for medication dosing
- Cessation of diabetes monitoring without proper oversight
- Lack of follow-up contact by GP after authorizing end-of-life medications
Coroner's recommendations
- Residential aged care facilities should strengthen safeguards when considering prescription and administration of end-of-life treatment
- GPs should not prescribe overly broad ranges for anticipatory end-of-life medications; specific starting doses should be provided with clear titration guidance
- GPs should communicate directly with nursing staff about the appropriate starting dose for end-of-life medications
- GPs should arrange follow-up contact (by phone or in-person visit) to review patient comfort and medication efficacy when end-of-life care is commenced
- Nursing staff should commence opioids at the lowest prescribed dose in opioid-naïve patients with careful titration upwards
- Formal pain assessments should be documented prior to administering opioid medications
- Best practice requires GP review of resident and case conference with family before commencing end-of-life care pathways (when practicable)
- Renal impairment should be considered when prescribing opioids; morphine metabolites accumulate in patients with renal failure
- Two-hourly monitoring of patient comfort and medication efficacy should occur for patients on end-of-life medications
- Clear documentation of clinical reasoning must accompany decisions to administer higher doses of PRN medications
Full text
Related cases
Source and disclaimer
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. All court orders for redaction and non-publication are respected; documents with technically defective redaction have been excluded from the database entirely. 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 —