PFD report

Alba May Pemberton · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 9 Oct 2018•North London

Report record

Published report and response evidence

This page connects the concerns raised in this report with statements found in recipients’ published responses. A link shows a clear evidence connection; it does not assign responsibility.

View original report
Concerns
6

Raised in this report

Recipients
1

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 1 recipient

Stated actions
0

Described in responses

Recipients and published responses

Source document

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 raised6

  1. Failure to provide obstetric review for every birthing centre patient
  2. Insufficient close collaboration among obstetric staff in managing low-risk cases
  3. Failure to use CCG equipment when meconium is present
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable classification and management of meconium during childbirth
Responses linked to these concerns

Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.1

  1. Position

    Existing NICE guidance and escalation protocols are considered sufficient without routine obstetric involvement in low-risk birth care.

    Stated by Department of Health and Social CareExisting arrangements considered sufficientThe respondent said that existing arrangements were sufficient, so no further action was needed.

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

Failure to provide obstetric review for every birthing centre patient

Wider context from the report

“That every patient at a birthing centre should be the subject of obstetric review ”

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

Insufficient close collaboration among obstetric staff in managing low-risk cases

Wider context from the report

“There should be MDT meetings with the obstetric staff and midwifery staff and obstetric staff encouraged to work closely together in the management of low risk cases. ”

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

Failure to use CCG equipment when meconium is present

Wider context from the report

“The presence of meconium should be classified as meconium, and not graded, and once present should result in the use of CCG equipment. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable classification and management of meconium during childbirth.

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 MDT meetings between obstetric and midwifery staff

Wider context from the report

“There should be MDT meetings with the obstetric staff and midwifery staff and obstetric staff encouraged to work closely together in the management of low risk cases. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable communication and coordination across maternity care providers.

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

Failure to classify meconium as meconium rather than grading its presence

Wider context from the report

“The presence of meconium should be classified as meconium, and not graded, and once present should result in the use of CCG equipment. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable classification and management of meconium during childbirth.

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

Insufficient obstetrician involvement in the management of low-risk cases

Wider context from the report

“That obstetricians should be more involved in the management of low risk cases ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

No recurring-concern membership is currently published.

Open source report

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

Existing NICE guidance and escalation protocols are considered sufficient without routine obstetric involvement in low-risk birth care.

Verbatim wording from the response

“CG190 does not recommend an obstetric review or that obstetricians should be more involved in low risk births.”

Source location

2018-0288-Response-by-Department-of-Health-Social-Care
Page 1 · response
Published 18 January 2019

Open published response

Other statements in published responses

These actions and other statements could not be clearly connected to one concern in this report.

Recipient positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when they do not describe a specific action.1

  1. 1

    NICE considers CG190 evidence-based and does not need updating at this time.

    Stated by Department of Health and Social CareNo action considered necessaryThe respondent said that no further action was needed.

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

NICE considers CG190 evidence-based and does not need updating at this time.

Verbatim wording from the response

“NICE has advised that it considers that CG190 appropriately reflects the available evidence and does not need to be updated at this time. I am content to accept that position. You will wish to note that NICE will log the concerns in your report against this guideline topic so that they can be taken into consideration when NICE next comes to review the need for the guideline to be updated.”

Source location

2018-0288-Response-by-Department-of-Health-Social-Care
Page 3 · response
Published 18 January 2019

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
1/1

Data last updated 7 September 2026