Coronial
SAother

Coroner's Finding: GIBSON Ian Keith

Deceased

Ian Keith Gibson

Demographics

46y, male

Date of death

2017-08-22

Finding date

2021-05-28

Cause of death

congestive cardiac failure due to cardiomyopathy and coronary artery atherosclerosis

AI-generated summary

A 46-year-old man with significant cardiac and medical comorbidities died of congestive cardiac failure due to cardiomyopathy and coronary artery atherosclerosis while in police custody. He was correctly categorized as High Needs due to diabetes, seizure history, and alcohol dependency, and appropriate nursing assessment was conducted on arrival. However, critical deficiencies in observational practice emerged: cell guards conducted 15-minute checks inconsistently from a distance rather than in close proximity; records were unclear about who actually conducted checks; observations from the cell guard office rather than at the cell door compromised ability to detect clinical deterioration; and staff appeared unaware of or failed to apply General Order requirements to check for regular breathing patterns and recognize that sleeping detainees may be unconscious. The coroner found the death was not necessarily preventable, but highlighted systemic issues in custody observation practices that require remediation.

AI-generated summary and tagging — may contain inaccuracies; refer to original finding for legal purposes. Report an inaccuracy.

Specialties

cardiologygeneral practiceemergency medicine

Error types

proceduralcommunicationsystem

Clinical conditions

congestive cardiac failuredilated cardiomyopathycoronary artery atherosclerosisleft ventricular dysfunctioncardiac arrhythmiatype 2 diabetes mellitusalcoholic liver diseasebronchiectasis

Contributing factors

  • sudden ventricular arrhythmia secondary to severe cardiomyopathy with scarring
  • inability to detect cardiac deterioration due to distance observation
  • inconsistent and inadequately documented observation checks
  • failure of observers to approach cell at required proximity
  • uncertainty regarding who conducted specific observation checks
  • officers not aware of or failing to apply General Order requirements for regular breathing pattern assessment
  • use of remote observation from cell guard office instead of close proximity checks
  • inadequate understanding of difference between sleep and unconsciousness in clinical context

Coroner's recommendations

  1. Remind staff working within SAPOL cell complexes that an apparently sleeping prisoner may be in a state of unconsciousness and that wellness cannot simply be assumed by the fact that the prisoner appears to be asleep.
  2. Checks on High Need prisoners should be conducted by officers who are in close proximity to the prisoner, especially in relation to prisoners whose health may be compromised and especially when they are apparently sleeping. Checks should not be made remotely from another room across a corridor or purely by way of CCTV. The checks should also be made from a location at which CCTV coverage will demonstrate that the checks have been made by the officer conducting them.
  3. Cell guards and other SAPOL personnel operating in cell complexes should demonstrate knowledge of and a proficiency in the requirements set out in SAPOL General Order Custody Management.
  4. SAPOL personnel working in cell complexes should be instructed and/or reminded that the officer who conducts an observation check on a prisoner must be the officer under whose name the record of that check is made, and the details of what is actually observed must be entered into the check record. Simple records such as 'breathing aac' should not be regarded as appropriate and sufficient.
Full text

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. 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.