Recipient

NHS Lewisham Clinical Commissioning Group

First report 23 Aug 2013•Latest report 23 Aug 2013

Recipient record

Reports, concerns and published responses

Health and care · Clinical commissioning group. 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
100%

Found for named reports

Concerns addressed
1

Across all linked responses

Stated actions
5

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.

100%published responses found
5stated actions described

Topic comparisons are not available in the current evidence snapshot.

Concerns and recipient responses

Statements from NHS Lewisham Clinical Commissioning Group linked to the concerns in each report. Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

  1. Inner South London

    AI-generated summary

    Luna Lesko · 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

    Baby Luna Lesko died after being found collapsed with no respirations following an airway occlusion, inadequate required observations and a prolonged period of hypoxia, despite resuscitation and intensive care. The report raised concerns about delays in cardiotocograph monitoring and delivery by caesarean section, including insufficient out-of-hours theatre capacity and a potential risk to future babies.

    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 NHS Lewisham Clinical Commissioning Group; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Insufficient out-of-hours obstetric theatre capacity

    Wider context from the report

    “(2) LSCS was required for the baby, due to lack of progression despite augmentation, adverse position and prolonged rupture of membranes with meconium. The decision was taken at 20.00 hours, but delivery was not possible until 21.40 hours, as theatres were busy. This delay of 1 hour 40 minutes for a category 2 section was 40 minutes outside the Trust’s own guidelines. (3) The consultant obstetrician reported that this delay, which occurred out of hours, in a unit with over 4000 births per year was unacceptable. It worsens the potential impact, carrying a higher risk of brain damage or death of babies, if there were several emergencies at one time. Staff were reluctant to use the second out of hours (non obstetric) theatre as they cannot then respond to a category 1 emergency. My expert obstetric witness, ████████ of Kings College Hospital, gave an opinion that the out of hours theatre access created a real risk of preventable death, especially with the increasing rate of performing LSCS. He advised me that I should be concerned and bring the matter to the attention of the Trust. (4) Whilst the Head of Midwifery reported management changes and compliance with CNST assessment, she did not provide assurance that the theatre capacity had been increased out of hours. Furthermore it was reported that the Trust is shortly to be disbanded and a new Trust is being formed by merger with another. This may lead to service configuration changes. She reported that the future obstetric services were under review. (5) I concluded that a real risk existed that I should report to the Trust and the commissioning body, to ensure that it was fully appreciated and given appropriate priority in the service reconfiguration planning. ”
    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

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

How actions were described at the time

This respondent
40%60%
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