The site of the Media Sphera Publishers contains materials intended solely for healthcare professionals.
By closing this message, you confirm that you are a certified medical professional or a student of a medical educational institution.

Login
EN
+7 (495) 482-4118
+7 (495) 482-4329
+8 800 250-18-12
  • (toll-free number for subscriptions)
    Mon-Fri from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m.

  • © 1998-2026
+7 (495) 482-43-29
EN
All journals
Journal
Year
Year
Search result: 0

Makarov I.Yu.

Amur State Medical Academy, Ministry of Health of Russia, Blagoveshchensk, Russia

Fetisov V.A.

FGBU "Rossiĭskiĭ tsentr sudebno-meditsinskoĭ ékspertizy" Minzdravsotsrazvitiia Rossii, Moskva

Filimonov B.A.

I.M. Sechenov Moscow First State Medical University, Moscow, Russia, 119991

Gusarov A.A.

Federal state budgetary institution «Russian Centre for Forensic Medical Expertise», Russian Ministry of Health, Moscow, Russia, 125284

The coroner’s autopsies in the Great Britain: the problems related to the quality of the studies, standardization, auditing, financial support and the approaches to their solution

Authors:

Makarov I.Yu., Fetisov V.A., Filimonov B.A., Gusarov A.A.

More about the authors

Journal: Forensic Medical Expertise. 2017;60(3): 57‑63

DOI: 10.17116/sudmed201760357-63

Read: 2755 times

Contact the author
Table of contents

THE CORONER’S AUTOPSIES IN THE GREAT BRITAIN: THE PROBLEMS RELATED TO THE QUALITY OF THE STUDIES, STANDARDIZATION, AUDITING, FINANCIAL SUPPORT AND THE APPROACHES TO THEIR SOLUTION
THE CORONER’S AUTOPSIES IN THE GREAT BRITAIN: THE PROBLEMS RELATED TO THE QUALITY OF THE STUDIES, STANDARDIZATION, AUDITING, FINANCIAL SUPPORT AND THE APPROACHES TO THEIR SOLUTION

To cite this article:

Makarov IYu, Fetisov VA, Filimonov BA, Gusarov AA. The coroner’s autopsies in the Great Britain: the problems related to the quality of the studies, standardization, auditing, financial support and the approaches to their solution. Forensic Medical Expertise. 2017;60(3):57‑63. (In Russ.)
https://doi.org/10.17116/sudmed201760357-63

Подписка 2026 Судебно-медицинская экспертиза (Forensic Medical Expertise)
МСФ на ЯМ
Использование инфографики авторами научных работ
Close metadata
Abstract:

The objective of the present study was to analyze the experience of the coroners and pathologists in the Great Britain based on the results of the coroner’s autopsies and recommendations of the experts involved in the activities carried out in the framework of the National Confidential Enquiry into Patient Outcome and Death program (NCEPOD). The recommendations are designed to reform the country’s medical examiner system, improve the equipment of the mortuary facilities, and optimize funding for the autopsy studies. The authors consider in the chronological order the following issues of the coroners and pathologists’ activities: organization of their work and its procedural aspects, ordering coroner’s autopsies, preparation for their performance, analysis of the relevant documentation (autopsy reports) and medical case histories (discharge summaries). Also discussed are the recommendations of the NCEPOD experts for the improvement of the said studies with the detailed analysis of the causes underlying the aforementioned problems and concise comments of the authors.

Keywords:

coroner’s autopsies
coroners act (1988)
coroners rules (1984)
The Royal College of Pathologists (RCPath)
NCEPOD

Authors:

Makarov I.Yu.

Amur State Medical Academy, Ministry of Health of Russia, Blagoveshchensk, Russia

Fetisov V.A.

FGBU "Rossiĭskiĭ tsentr sudebno-meditsinskoĭ ékspertizy" Minzdravsotsrazvitiia Rossii, Moskva

Filimonov B.A.

I.M. Sechenov Moscow First State Medical University, Moscow, Russia, 119991

Gusarov A.A.

Federal state budgetary institution «Russian Centre for Forensic Medical Expertise», Russian Ministry of Health, Moscow, Russia, 125284

Close metadata

References:

  1. General Registrar's Office. 2005. Accessed on 01.06.2016. www.gro.gov.uk/medcert
  2. Coroners Act. London Her Majesty's stationery office. 1988.
  3. The Royal College of Pathologists. Guidelines on autopsy practice. Report of a working group of The Royal College of Pathologists 2002, Royal College of Pathologists, London.
  4. Clark MJ. Autopsy. The Lancet. 2005;366:1767.
  5. Bisset R. Magnetic resonance imaging may be alternative to necropsy. BMJ. 1998;317:1450.
  6. Rutty GN. Are autopsies necessary? The role of computed tomography as a possible alternative to invasive autopsies. Rechtsmedizin. 2007;17:21-28.
  7. Thali M, Dirnhofer R, Vock P. The Virtopsy approach. 3D optical and radiological scanning and reconstruction in forensic medicine. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Fl: CRC Press. London NW. 2009.
  8. Autopsy as an outcome and performance measure. Summary, Evidence Report. Technology Assessment; Number 58. 2002. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, MD. www.ahrq.gov/clinic/epcsums/autopsum.htm
  9. Rutty G. Can cross-sectional imaging as an adjunct and/or alternative to the invasive autopsy be implemented within the NHS? NHS Implementation Sub-group Leicester. England 2012 October.
  10. Roulson J, Benbow EW, Hasleton PS. Discrepancies between clinical and autopsy diagnosis and the value of post mortem histology; a metaanalysis and review. Histopathology. 2005;47:551-559.
  11. Clarke A, Gladwin J. Improving Health of the living? An investigation into death certification and coronial services and some suggestion for change. Final report from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine to The Fundamental Review of Death Certification and Coroner Services in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, January 2003.
  12. Perkins GD, McAuley DF, Davies S, Gao F. Discrepancies between clinical and post-mortem diagnoses in critically ill patients: an observational study. Critical Care 2003;7(6):R129-R132.
  13. Saracci R. Is necropsy a valid monitor of clinical diagnosis performance? British Medical Journal. 1991;303;898-899.
  14. Coroner Reform: The Government's Draft Bill. Improving death investigation in England and Wales. Cm 6849, June 2006.
  15. National Confidential Enquiry into Patient Outcome and Death. The Coroner’s Autopsy: Do we deserve better? NCEPOD. London. 2006.
  16. The Royal College of Pathologists guidelines for postmortem reports. London: The Royal College of Pathologists. 1993.
  17. Dorries C. Coroners' Courts. A guide to law and practice. 2nd ed. Oxford University Press. 2004.
  18. Coroners Rules. 1984.
  19. www.coronersofficer.org.uk.
  20. Hutchins GM, Berman JJ, Moore GW, Hanzlick R. The Autopsy Committee of the College of American Pathologists. Practice Guidelines for Autopsy Pathology. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1999;123:1085-1092.
Contact the author
Email
Message
The publishing house "Media Sphere" does not provide treatment services, does not give recommendations on contacting medical institutions and specific specialists, on the prescription of medicines and dietary supplements.

Email Confirmation

An email was sent to test@gmail.com with a confirmation link. Follow the link from the letter to complete the registration on the site.

Email Confirmation

Contact us
If you have any questions, complaints or suggestions, please use this feedback form.
Email
Message
The publishing house "Media Sphere" does not provide treatment services, does not give recommendations on contacting medical institutions and specific specialists, on the prescription of medicines and dietary supplements.
Submit Application

You can become an author of one of our magazines, send a request and we will consider it in during the day.

Name
Phone
E-mail
Message
Login
Registration
E-mail
Password
Forgot Password?

Log in to the site using your account in one of the services

Password recovery
E-mail
Login
Register

We use cооkies to improve the performance of the site. By staying on our site, you agree to the terms of use of cооkies. To view our Privacy and Cookie Policy, please. click here.