Recipient

HCA Healthcare UK The Portland Hospital

Pin Request correction

First report 8 Apr 2021•Latest report 8 Apr 2021

Recipient record

Reports, concerns and published responses

Health and care · Healthcare site. This page brings together reports naming this recipient and response statements clearly connected to concerns raised in those reports.

Reports
1

Naming this recipient

Published responses
0%

Found for named reports

Concerns addressed
0

Across all linked responses

Stated actions
0

Described in responses

Reports over time

Reports over time

Reports naming this recipient by issue year.

Evidence profile

Report topics

Share of this recipient’s reports compared with all other recipients.

0%published responses found
0stated actions described

Topic comparisons are not available in the current evidence snapshot.

Concerns and recipient responses

Statements from HCA Healthcare UK The Portland Hospital linked to the concerns in each report. Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

  1. West London

    AI-generated summary

    Raphael Maximilian Kolbe · Prevention of Future Deaths report

    This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

    Report summary

    Raphael Maximilian Kolbe was delivered at term after an uneventful pregnancy, but a cord prolapse during delivery was not recognised until fetal compromise had occurred. He died six weeks later in Kingston Hospital after transfer for palliative care. The concerns identified included inadequate monitoring during induction labour and epidural re-siting, unclear staff roles, and differences between hospital policy and practice.

    Read the report on judiciary.uk

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to HCA Healthcare UK The Portland Hospital; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to ensure fetal monitoring requirements during epidural siting are highlighted and followed

    Wider context from the report

    “It became apparent during the inquest that although a great deal of positive work, reflection and retraining has taken place and amendments to the Hospital policies and guidelines, the policy does still not reflect practise. This is particularly so in respect of the roles of the primary midwife, the second midwife in support and the anaesthetist when an epidural is being sited. In order for greater clarification and protection of the fetal well being, further consideration should be given to ensure all attending personnel are aware of their role. The requirements for fetal monitoring during this particular procedure should be highlighted and practise should reflect hospital policy. The requirement for “fresh eyes” remains under ongoing consideration to encourage and support regular review from another midwife or obstetrician and the hospital are continuing to work on an Action plan to implement best practise. While this is always an area that remains under review, clear guidance from the hospital would best support the staff and facilitate better outcomes. ”
    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to HCA Healthcare UK The Portland Hospital; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure of hospital policy and practice to clarify attending personnel roles during epidural siting

    Wider context from the report

    “It became apparent during the inquest that although a great deal of positive work, reflection and retraining has taken place and amendments to the Hospital policies and guidelines, the policy does still not reflect practise. This is particularly so in respect of the roles of the primary midwife, the second midwife in support and the anaesthetist when an epidural is being sited. In order for greater clarification and protection of the fetal well being, further consideration should be given to ensure all attending personnel are aware of their role. The requirements for fetal monitoring during this particular procedure should be highlighted and practise should reflect hospital policy. The requirement for “fresh eyes” remains under ongoing consideration to encourage and support regular review from another midwife or obstetrician and the hospital are continuing to work on an Action plan to implement best practise. While this is always an area that remains under review, clear guidance from the hospital would best support the staff and facilitate better outcomes. ”
    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to HCA Healthcare UK The Portland Hospital; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Lack of clear hospital guidance for regular review by another midwife or obstetrician

    Wider context from the report

    “It became apparent during the inquest that although a great deal of positive work, reflection and retraining has taken place and amendments to the Hospital policies and guidelines, the policy does still not reflect practise. This is particularly so in respect of the roles of the primary midwife, the second midwife in support and the anaesthetist when an epidural is being sited. In order for greater clarification and protection of the fetal well being, further consideration should be given to ensure all attending personnel are aware of their role. The requirements for fetal monitoring during this particular procedure should be highlighted and practise should reflect hospital policy. The requirement for “fresh eyes” remains under ongoing consideration to encourage and support regular review from another midwife or obstetrician and the hospital are continuing to work on an Action plan to implement best practise. While this is always an area that remains under review, clear guidance from the hospital would best support the staff and facilitate better outcomes. ”
    Open source report
Back to top

Published response patterns

Compared with other recipients in reports included in PFD Monitor

Describes published response evidence, not performance.

Published responses found

0%
0%All other recipients 58%
0%100%

How actions were described at the time

This respondent
All other recipients
47%25%27%<1%<1%
  • Completed
  • In progress
  • Planned
  • Unclear
  • Partially completed

Statuses reflect what recipients said at the time. PFD Monitor does not verify whether actions happened.

Types of action described in responses

Percentages use all actions described by each group. An action may have more than one type, so percentages do not total 100%.

Information checked against published PFD reports and official responses · Data reviewed 7 Sep 2026 · About data quality and limitations

Data last updated 7 September 2026