Finding into death of Stuart Hill
Deceased
Stuart Andrew Hill
Demographics
40y, male
Date of death
2008-01-22
Finding date
2011-10-05
Cause of death
Drug overdose (propofol)
AI-generated summary
Mr Hill was a 40-year-old anaesthetic nurse with a history of depression and anxiety. Following an argument with his de facto partner, he left stating he intended to kill himself. The following morning, he accessed propofol and rocuronium from his personal locker at the Alfred Hospital where he was employed, then self-administered a fatal propofol overdose in his vehicle. Clinical lessons include: (1) improved recognition and support of mental health in healthcare workers, (2) monitoring staff experiencing suicidal ideation or depressive episodes, (3) secure storage and strict auditing of controlled anaesthetic substances. The coroner found Mr Hill deliberately ended his life while suffering from depressive illness. The coroner recommended the Alfred Hospital review management of unused anaesthetics, emphasizing ongoing careful auditing of supplies to prevent unauthorised access.
AI-generated summary and tagging — may contain inaccuracies; refer to original finding for legal purposes.
Error types
Drugs involved
Clinical conditions
Contributing factors
- depression
- anxiety
- depressed state after relationship conflict
- access to controlled substances at workplace
- inadequate security and auditing of anaesthetic supplies at hospital
Coroner's recommendations
- Details of this case be provided to those responsible for the management of unused anaesthetics at the Hospital with a view to emphasising the need for ongoing careful auditing of unused supplies
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 —