A Human Tissue Authority (HTA) inspection has revealed that a deceased person at Worthing Hospital was visible from a public footpath during a summer heatwave. The report uncovered systemic failures in privacy and security across several sites managed by the University Hospitals Sussex NHS Foundation Trust.
The public footpath view into Worthing Hospital's mortuary
During a period of extreme heat, staff at Worthing Hospital repeatedly left a mortuary fire exit door open, creating a direct line of sight from a nearby public walkway into the body-storage area . According to the report, inspectors were able to see a body being prepared for release from the footpath, a failure that represents a severe breach of privacy and dignity for the deceased and their grieving families.
This lapse was compounded by a failure in surveillance technology. While the Human Tissue Authority found that CCTV footage of viewing tables at Worthing Hospital was being displayed on monitors in the security office,a critical camera intended to monitor the mortuary office fire exit door was non-functional at the time of the inspection.
Security monitors displaying St Richard's fridge interiors
The inspection identified a disturbing lack of privacy boundaries within the security infrastructure of the University Hospitals Sussex NHS Foundation Trust. In addition to the viewing table footage at Worthing, the report says that monitors in the security office were displaying the interiors of body-storage refrigerators at St Richard's in Chichester.
These surveillance failures were part of a wider pattern of negligence. The Human Tissue Authority flagged a total of 10 major and 6 minor deficiencies across the trust's facilities,indicating that the mismanagement of deceased patients was not isolated to a single location but was a systemic issue across the network.
The three missing identification checks for bereaved families
Beyond the physical security breaches, the report highlights a dangerous disregard for standard operating procedures regarding patient identification. Inspectors found that staff were not routinely cross-checking three key identifying factors against the details provided by families, creating a tangible risk that grieving relatives could be shown the wrong body.
Further operational failures were noted regarding the storage and preservation of remains. The Human Tissue Authority discovered that seven bodies had been stored in refrigerated units for more than 30 days.. Additionally, refrigerators and freezers at the Princess Royal and the Royal Sussex County Hospital lacked backup power systems, leaving remains vulnerable during power outages.
Lessons from the David Fuller scandal and the 16 HTA deficiencies
The discovery of 16 total deficiencies comes at a time of heightened sensitivity regarding mortuary security in the UK. The report explicitly links the need for stricter access controls—such as swipe-card security and robust CCTV—to the broader context of the David Fuller scandal, where a lack of oversight allowed for horrific abuses of deceased patients.
The University Hospitals Sussex NHS Foundation Trust has stated that it has already addressed most of the findings from the July inspection and has implemented immediate physical enhancements to improve security.. Despite the severity of the findings,the Human Tissue Authority has chosen not to suspend or revoke the trust's license at this time.
Who was trained to manage the University Hospitals Sussex viewing rooms?
Significant gaps remain regarding the professional qualifications of the staff handling the deceased. The inspection report noted that records did not confirm whether the personnel providing viewings had been properly trained or assessed, leaving it unclear who was actually qualified to manage these sensitive interactions.
Furthermore, the trust struggled to prove legal compliance regarding tissue storage. The report found that some tissue was stored with incomplete consent records, meaning the University Hospitals Sussex NHS Foundation Trust could not definitively prove that consent was obtained from the correct person under the requirements of the Human Tissue Act.
Comments 0