Louisa Walker · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 27 Oct 2025•Berkshire

Published report and response evidence

This report’s concerns and statements found in recipients’ published responses. Statements are included even where no link to an individual concern is recorded. A link shows an evidence connection; it does not assign responsibility.

View original report
Concerns
3

Raised in this report

Recipients
1

Named on the report

Responses found
2

Of 1 recipient

Stated actions
6

Described in responses

Full report text

This is the full text from the original published report.

Open published report

Concerns and recipient responses

Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

Report evidence summary

Concerns raised3

  1. Increasing prevalence of impacted fetal head at caesarean section
  2. Absence of relevant training for impacted fetal head at caesarean section
    Part of recurring concern: Unsafe management of impacted fetal head at caesarean section
  3. Lack of consistent guidance for managing impacted fetal head at caesarean section
    Part of recurring concern: Unsafe management of impacted fetal head at caesarean section

Stated actions An action is something a recipient says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to a concern raised.6

  1. Care Quality Commission

    Review the investigation process, evidence and findings against the inquest and independent report.

  2. Care Quality Commission

    Add a note to the investigation record highlighting differences between the inquest conclusions and the original report.

  3. Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists

    Consider developing a formal guideline when the evidence base permits.

  4. Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists

    Contribute to the development of the Avoiding Brain Injury in Childbirth programme addressing safe management of impacted fetal head.

  5. Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists

    Produce and publish the second edition of Scientific Impact Paper No. 73 on managing impacted fetal head at caesarean birth.

  6. Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists

    Continue reviewing emerging evidence on impacted fetal head at caesarean birth.

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.2

  1. Care Quality Commission

    The investigation process was correctly followed and its findings were supported by the evidence reviewed.

    Disputes the concernThe respondent disagreed with part of the concern or the basis for it.
  2. Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists

    The evidence base is insufficient to support a formal Green-top Guideline on impacted fetal head; guideline development will be considered when evidence permits.

    Unable to actThe respondent said that a constraint prevented them from taking the relevant action.

Source evidence

How this individual concern was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. Response links show a clear evidence connection; they do not assign responsibility.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Increasing prevalence of impacted fetal head at caesarean section

Wider context from the report

“3. I understand that impacted fetal head is becoming increasingly common. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

No recurring-concern membership is currently published.

Open source report

Source evidence

How this individual concern was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. Response links show a clear evidence connection; they do not assign responsibility.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Absence of relevant training for impacted fetal head at caesarean section

Wider context from the report

“2. Whilst the algorithm referred to in RCOG scientific impact paper number 73 may well have been adopted by many trusts, there is a risk of uncertainty and absence of relevant training in respect of this obstetric emergency. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unsafe management of impacted fetal head at caesarean section.

Open source report

Source evidence

How this individual concern was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. Response links show a clear evidence connection; they do not assign responsibility.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Lack of consistent guidance for managing impacted fetal head at caesarean section

Wider context from the report

“1. There is no national guidance (by way of green top guideline or otherwise) dealing with impacted fetal head seen at caesarean section. 2. Whilst the algorithm referred to in RCOG scientific impact paper number 73 may well have been adopted by many trusts, there is a risk of uncertainty and absence of relevant training in respect of this obstetric emergency. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unsafe management of impacted fetal head at caesarean section.

Open source report

Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Review the investigation process, evidence and findings against the inquest and independent report.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The inquest record and independent report were shared with our investigation team, who have reviewed the MNSI report (████████), process and findings, to ensure that the investigation process was correctly followed, including discussions around the management of the birth.”

Source location

Response from Maternity & Newborn Safety Investigations
Page 1 · response
Published 29 October 2025

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Add a note to the investigation record highlighting differences between the inquest conclusions and the original report.

Verbatim wording from the response

“We have ensured that a note has been added to our investigation record to highlight the findings of the inquest, specifically the difference in the inquest conclusions and those in our original report.”

Source location

Response from Maternity & Newborn Safety Investigations
Page 1 · response
Published 29 October 2025

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Consider developing a formal guideline when the evidence base permits.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Scientific Impact Papers (SIPs) are used where the evidence base is still evolving and insufficient to support a formal Green-top Guideline. While Green-top Guidelines aim to provide clinical instructions, SIPs give expert analysis on the new scientific findings and highlight the future implications on practice. Although a SIP does not carry the status of a Green-top Guideline, it is a formal, peer-reviewed RCOG publication intended to inform national standards and practice.”

Source location

Response from Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists
Page 2 · response
Published 29 October 2025

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Contribute to the development of the Avoiding Brain Injury in Childbirth programme addressing safe management of impacted fetal head.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In recognition of this, impacted fetal head at caesarean birth was included as one of the two components of the recently concluded Avoiding Brain Injury in Childbirth (ABC) Programme. The ABC programme was commissioned by the Department of Health and Social Care in 2018, as a national maternity safety initiative, and concluded its pilot phase and third iteration in 2025. It was developed collaboratively by the RCOG, the Royal College of Midwives and The Healthcare Improvement Studies (THIS) Institute at the University of Cambridge, with crucial input from service users and frontline clinicians. It focuses specifically on reducing avoidable intrapartum brain injury, including through the safe management of impacted fetal head at caesarean birth.”

Source location

Response from Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists
Page 2 · response
Published 29 October 2025

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Produce and publish the second edition of Scientific Impact Paper No. 73 on managing impacted fetal head at caesarean birth.

Verbatim wording from the response

“RCOG Scientific Impact Paper No. 73, Management of Impacted Fetal Head at Caesarean Birth (2025 Second Edition), was produced as part of the ABC programme. It provides a working definition of impacted fetal head, reviews the current evidence regarding prediction, prevention and management, and describes the recognised techniques for managing the emergency.”

Source location

Response from Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists
Page 2 · response
Published 29 October 2025

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Continue reviewing emerging evidence on impacted fetal head at caesarean birth.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The 2025 second edition was developed to reflect current evidence and clarify its strengths and limitations. We will continue to review emerging evidence and consider guideline development when the evidence base permits.”

Source location

Response from Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists
Page 2 · response
Published 29 October 2025

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent position was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

The investigation process was correctly followed and its findings were supported by the evidence reviewed.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The inquest record and independent report were shared with our investigation team, who have reviewed the MNSI report (████████), process and findings, to ensure that the investigation process was correctly followed, including discussions around the management of the birth.”

Source location

Response from Maternity & Newborn Safety Investigations
Page 1 · response
Published 29 October 2025

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent position was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

The evidence base is insufficient to support a formal Green-top Guideline on impacted fetal head; guideline development will be considered when evidence permits.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Scientific Impact Papers (SIPs) are used where the evidence base is still evolving and insufficient to support a formal Green-top Guideline. While Green-top Guidelines aim to provide clinical instructions, SIPs give expert analysis on the new scientific findings and highlight the future implications on practice. Although a SIP does not carry the status of a Green-top Guideline, it is a formal, peer-reviewed RCOG publication intended to inform national standards and practice.”

Source location

Response from Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists
Page 2 · response
Published 29 October 2025

Open published response
Back to top

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

Official responses located
2/1

Data last updated 7 September 2026