Kelvin Davidson, a 75-year-old man with complex psychiatric history including prior self-harm and attempted hanging, was admitted to Baringa Aged Psychiatric Unit on 27 September 2007. He engaged in wrist-cutting self-harm 48 hours after admission and was transferred to Alfred Hospital then returned with one-to-one nursing. On 2 October, his one-to-one overnight observations were discontinued by Dr T. as he had not expressed further self-harm ideation. He died by hanging on 4 October while on 15-minute observations. The coroner found the risk assessment, handrails, and audit procedures reasonable, and that the observation downgrade was clinically justified based on available evidence. However, recommendations were made requiring consultant medical officer in-person review and documentation prior to observation downgrades, with IT-timestamped approval systems when unavailable.
AI-generated summary and tagging — may contain inaccuracies; refer to original finding for legal purposes.
Downgrade of observation level from one-to-one nursing to 15-minute observations
Absence of in-person consultant review prior to observation downgrade
Accessibility of handrails in toilet area
Coroner's recommendations
Alfred Health should require that in all cases of observation downgrade from special nursing level, a consultant medical officer review the patient in person and record details of the clinical reasons for this decision
Where a consultant medical officer is unavailable to see a patient receiving special nursing recommended for downgrade, approval should only be given through an IT approval system which includes a time-stamped document review and a further clinical review setting out the consultant medical officer's reasons for the decision
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 —