Recipient

NHS Shropshire, Telford and Wrekin Integrated Care Board

Pin Request correction

First report 16 Sep 2025•Latest report 16 Sep 2025

Recipient record

Reports, concerns and published responses

Health and care · Integrated care board. 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
2

Across all linked responses

Stated actions
7

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
7stated actions described

Topic comparisons are not available in the current evidence snapshot.

Concerns and recipient responses

Statements from NHS Shropshire, Telford and Wrekin Integrated Care Board linked to the concerns in each report. Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

  1. Birmingham and Solihull

    AI-generated summary

    Mohammed Ismail KHAN · 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

    Mohammed Ismail Khan sustained a catastrophic brain injury during a breech delivery at 35 weeks and 2 days gestation on 6 September 2022, after his mother had been discharged from hospital earlier that day despite antenatal risk factors. He later died following a respiratory infection, with the medical cause of death recorded as respiratory failure due to parainfluenza virus infection, with hypoxic-ischaemic brain damage. The investigation identified delayed and suboptimal emergency care, failure to adhere to breech-delivery guidance, and the absence of mandatory paramedic training in obstetric emergencies as substantive concerns.

    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 Shropshire, Telford and Wrekin Integrated Care Board; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Lack of mandatory and comprehensive paramedic training in obstetric emergencies

    Wider context from the report

    “2. The WMAS investigation concluded that the national, JRCALC guidelines for the clinical assessment and management of breech birth were not adhered by the paramedics and regional trauma desk as the clinicians did not appreciate that the delivery was delayed and that intervention to aid delivery should be attempted. 3. Whilst the JRCALC guidance has since been updated (October 2023) to be clearer and provide much better assistance ████████ explained that it is not mandatory for paramedics to receive specific training on obstetric emergencies, including breech delivery, either in their foundation training/education or as part of continuing professional development. 4. The clinicians who attended Mrs Khan said they would not have felt confident to attempt the techniques advised by JRCALC even if they had realised they were advised. 5. ████████ explained that maternity and obstetric care makes up 3 per cent of emergency ambulance responses. 6. Whilst WMAS have purchased specific training equipment and an online course for clinicians on the management of obstetric emergencies in response to the findings of the investigation, resourcing is such that it has not been possible for all paramedics to receive this additional training e.g. less than a third of paramedics with WMAS have completed the online course. 7. ████████ evidence was that in her opinion the absence of any mandatory training on obstetric emergencies was putting lives at risk. ”
    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 NHS Shropshire, Telford and Wrekin Integrated Care Board; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to adhere to clinical guidance for assessing and managing delayed breech birth

    Wider context from the report

    “2. The WMAS investigation concluded that the national, JRCALC guidelines for the clinical assessment and management of breech birth were not adhered by the paramedics and regional trauma desk as the clinicians did not appreciate that the delivery was delayed and that intervention to aid delivery should be attempted. 3. Whilst the JRCALC guidance has since been updated (October 2023) to be clearer and provide much better assistance ████████ explained that it is not mandatory for paramedics to receive specific training on obstetric emergencies, including breech delivery, either in their foundation training/education or as part of continuing professional development. 4. The clinicians who attended Mrs Khan said they would not have felt confident to attempt the techniques advised by JRCALC even if they had realised they were advised. 5. ████████ explained that maternity and obstetric care makes up 3 per cent of emergency ambulance responses. 6. Whilst WMAS have purchased specific training equipment and an online course for clinicians on the management of obstetric emergencies in response to the findings of the investigation, resourcing is such that it has not been possible for all paramedics to receive this additional training e.g. less than a third of paramedics with WMAS have completed the online course. 7. ████████ evidence was that in her opinion the absence of any mandatory training on obstetric emergencies was putting lives at risk. ”
    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
43%43%14%
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