PFD report

Ida Jean Lock · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 21 Mar 2025•Lancashire and Blackburn with Darwen

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
20

Raised in this report

Recipients
4

Named on the report

Responses found
3

Of 4 recipients

Stated actions
45

Described in 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 raised20

  1. Failure to grade fatal severe harm correctly
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable formal safety-incident management processes
  2. Failure to examine the Trust's own clinical governance processes
  3. Unreliability of Trust safety and complaints data
Responses linked to these concerns

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

Actions described in response An action is something a recipient says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to a concern raised.30

  1. Action

    Implement a Trust-wide clinical governance reform covering document control, mandatory governance training, oversight restructuring, outcome-focused learning and family-centred care.

    Stated by University Hospitals of Morecambe Bay NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 26 March 2025.
  2. Action

    Operate multidisciplinary daily triage and cross-care-group reviews of concerns, incidents and feedback to support early escalation and coordinated learning.

    Stated by University Hospitals of Morecambe Bay NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 26 March 2025.
  3. Action

    Strengthen cultural leadership through visible executive engagement, leadership safety conversations, behavioural performance assessment and quarterly culture reviews.

    Stated by University Hospitals of Morecambe Bay NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 26 March 2025.

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.4

  1. Position

    No further investigation was considered beneficial because significant time had elapsed, relevant disclosures were made, and key senior leaders had left.

    Stated by University Hospitals of Morecambe Bay NHS Foundation TrustNo action considered necessaryThe respondent said that 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 grade fatal severe harm correctly

Wider context from the report

“14. The Trust graded Ida’s level of harm as “moderate”, even after her death. This grading should have been adjusted to "severe" by the Trust before Ida was transferred to Royal Preston Hospital as the consultant paediatrician identified that she had sustained a severe hypoxic ischaemic encephalopathy due to fetal bradycardia. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable formal safety-incident management processes.

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 examine the Trust's own clinical governance processes

Wider context from the report

“7. As a result of the Trust's deficient processes, the Trust did not undertake any examination of its own clinical governance processes, which were a principle area of concern and which was identified to the Trust five months before the inquest commenced. The Trust's clinical governance arrangements were extracted piecemeal during the course of the inquest. The deficiencies included lack of version control and audit of documents, untrained staff, chaotic clinical governance arrangements, defensive attitudes and inappropriate self-congratulation. The clinicians' reports to the inquest only answered the questions they were asked rather than trying to assist with a holistic view of the evidence, did not provide relevant information until it was extracted from the witness in testimony, that resulted in rolling disclosure of documents and additional witness evidence. ”

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

Unreliability of Trust safety and complaints data

Wider context from the report

“5. Trust figures to the Board provided in 2025 stated that there were no complaints over 6 months old when the Trust at the time of the inquest have not responded to ████████ and ████████'s 1 June 2020 complaint., Together with the Trust's failure to categorise Ida's death as only "Moderate Harm" (see point 4 above) cause me also to have concern about the reliability of Trust's data. ”

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 ensure midwives complete current mandatory training

Wider context from the report

“11. The Band 5 midwife supporting ████████ in Labour had not undertaken her required mandatory training and this fact had not been provided and was only revealed at the inquest as part of the evidence of the Head of Midwifery in March 2025. I was also concerned to learn that in 2025 non-completion of mandatory training was still an issue as ████████ had not completed her mandatory training. 12. It concerns me that the Trust do not have robust systems in place to ensure that any midwife who has not completed her mandatory training is subject to immediate action to ensure that all mandatory training is completed and is in date. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to ensure mandatory safety training is completed before safety-critical work.

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 of harm-only reporting to identify underlying safety problems

Wider context from the report

“15. The 2024 NHSE Learn from patient safety events (LFPSE) guidance that replaced the National Reporting and Learning System (NRLS) confirms that the recording and analysis of patient safety events that occur in healthcare support the NHS to improve learning from patient safety events to help make care safer. There is a significant risk that if reporting is graded on harm alone, clinical care that resulted in hypoxic brain damage during delivery and which was prevented by therapeutic cooling, will not adequately identify the problems that caused the harm during the delivery. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to identify and address recurring safety issues through organisational learning.

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 notify external and internal patient-safety bodies of serious incidents

Wider context from the report

“4. The Trust did not disclose that they had failed to notify the external bodies namely the CQC and the then CCG [ICB] via STEIS and the Trust's internal Serious Incidents Reporting Investigation panel, none of which was noted by the Trust's Patient Safety Summits .The matter was reported to the Coroner a year after Ida's death by the family after the Trust took no action to do so, despite being on notice of failures in treatment from the HSIB report Ida’s harm was at no point categorised by the Trust as a harm event that caused “death”. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable formal safety-incident management processes; Unreliable reporting of patient-safety incidents.

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 a system of remedial training

Wider context from the report

“13. There was no remedial training was put in place for either the midwives involved in Ida's delivery and resuscitation or for the paediatric SHO after Ida’s death. This raises a significant concern that the Trust do not operate a system of remedial training when this inquest has identified remedial training was required for ████████, ████████, ████████ and ████████ ”

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

Inconsistent categorisation of harm for cooled babies with hypoxic injury

Wider context from the report

“16. ████████ confirmed that nationally there is inconsistency in categorisation of harm for babies who sustain a hypoxic injury due to fetal bradycardia in labour and who require cooling and clarification and guidance would assist prevent further maternity deaths and ensure full and proper investigation of hypoxic injuries sustained in labour. ”

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

Lack of document version control and audit

Wider context from the report

“7. As a result of the Trust's deficient processes, the Trust did not undertake any examination of its own clinical governance processes, which were a principle area of concern and which was identified to the Trust five months before the inquest commenced. The Trust's clinical governance arrangements were extracted piecemeal during the course of the inquest. The deficiencies included lack of version control and audit of documents, untrained staff, chaotic clinical governance arrangements, defensive attitudes and inappropriate self-congratulation. The clinicians' reports to the inquest only answered the questions they were asked rather than trying to assist with a holistic view of the evidence, did not provide relevant information until it was extracted from the witness in testimony, that resulted in rolling disclosure of documents and additional witness evidence. ”

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 learn from identified safety issues and themes

Wider context from the report

“2. ████████s evidence to the inquest was that a deep-seated and endemic culture within the Trust leads to denial and a failure to learn. ████████'s Investigation report was published in 2015, the Trust is ten years on and still issues and themes identified in 2015 were very much in issue in 2019 and still exist at the Trust as identified by Ida’s inquest. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to identify and address recurring safety issues through organisational learning.

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 a culture of candour

Wider context from the report

“1. I am concerned that there is not a culture of candour within University Hospitals of Morecambe Bay NHS Foundation Trust (Trust) and the impact that this has on safety, learning and implementing required changes to prevent deaths. Urgent action is required by the Trust to meaningfully embed the Duty of Candour ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to maintain an open and accountable safety culture.

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 assured ongoing funding for MSNI investigations

Wider context from the report

“18. The MSNI is now hosted by the CQC with funding secured for the next two years but no certainty as to ongoing funding after this date. These independent investigations by specialist skilled investigators into the most serious of events is an essential safeguard to the lives of mothers and unborn children. 19. Without an assurance that funding will continue beyond 2027 I am concerned that significant harm events to mothers and babies and deaths such as Ida's will go unrecorded and lessons that should be learned to prevent future maternal and baby deaths will go unnoticed, and there will be a risk of future maternity deaths. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate safety incident investigations; Unreliable specialist and forensic support for death investigations.

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

Insufficiently skilled and trained clinical governance personnel

Wider context from the report

“6. I consider the clinical governance arrangements at the Trust require urgent review to ensure the appropriate personnel are in place, with the necessary training and skills to deliver robust clinical governance to ensure patient safety in maternity care. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to ensure clinical governance staff are competent for safety oversight.

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 of clinical reporting to provide a holistic and complete account of evidence

Wider context from the report

“7. As a result of the Trust's deficient processes, the Trust did not undertake any examination of its own clinical governance processes, which were a principle area of concern and which was identified to the Trust five months before the inquest commenced. The Trust's clinical governance arrangements were extracted piecemeal during the course of the inquest. The deficiencies included lack of version control and audit of documents, untrained staff, chaotic clinical governance arrangements, defensive attitudes and inappropriate self-congratulation. The clinicians' reports to the inquest only answered the questions they were asked rather than trying to assist with a holistic view of the evidence, did not provide relevant information until it was extracted from the witness in testimony, that resulted in rolling disclosure of documents and additional witness evidence. ”

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 categorise a death-causing harm event correctly

Wider context from the report

“4. The Trust did not disclose that they had failed to notify the external bodies namely the CQC and the then CCG [ICB] via STEIS and the Trust's internal Serious Incidents Reporting Investigation panel, none of which was noted by the Trust's Patient Safety Summits .The matter was reported to the Coroner a year after Ida's death by the family after the Trust took no action to do so, despite being on notice of failures in treatment from the HSIB report Ida’s harm was at no point categorised by the Trust as a harm event that caused “death”. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable formal safety-incident management processes.

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

Inadequate Trust investigations failing to identify safety issues

Wider context from the report

“9. All investigations conducted by the Trust to date in respect of Ida’s death have been unskilled, superficial, brief, failed to identify issues and left the family without answers and were all features identified by the 2015 Kirkup Report. In view of the continuing culture at the Trust, this cause a significant concern that issues of safety and safeguarding are not properly considered, transparently engaged with and then addressed formally in respect of a child fatality and serious injury by the Trust. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to identify and address recurring safety issues through organisational learning.

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 investigate senior staff roles in disputed safety-report decisions

Wider context from the report

“8. ████████ is now Head of Compliance and Assurance at the Trust but that there has been no investigation into her role in respect of reneging on the Trust's acceptance of the HSIB report at senior management level and with the family as was indicated by her approval of the July 2021 position statement. Similarly, ████████ is now Head of Midwifery at the Trust and there has been no investigation in respect of her disputing the HSIB findings and submission of challenge to the HSIB report in Ida’s case. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure of organisational governance to act on escalated patient-safety concerns.

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 provide relevant information transparently and openly

Wider context from the report

“3. The Trust's approach to the inquest has been one of a lack of transparency and openness, failure to provide relevant information and a failure to identify with candour the defective clinical governance processes that have operated at the Trust from 2019 to present day. ”

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

Chaotic clinical governance arrangements

Wider context from the report

“7. As a result of the Trust's deficient processes, the Trust did not undertake any examination of its own clinical governance processes, which were a principle area of concern and which was identified to the Trust five months before the inquest commenced. The Trust's clinical governance arrangements were extracted piecemeal during the course of the inquest. The deficiencies included lack of version control and audit of documents, untrained staff, chaotic clinical governance arrangements, defensive attitudes and inappropriate self-congratulation. The clinicians' reports to the inquest only answered the questions they were asked rather than trying to assist with a holistic view of the evidence, did not provide relevant information until it was extracted from the witness in testimony, that resulted in rolling disclosure of documents and additional witness evidence. ”

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

Untrained clinical governance staff

Wider context from the report

“7. As a result of the Trust's deficient processes, the Trust did not undertake any examination of its own clinical governance processes, which were a principle area of concern and which was identified to the Trust five months before the inquest commenced. The Trust's clinical governance arrangements were extracted piecemeal during the course of the inquest. The deficiencies included lack of version control and audit of documents, untrained staff, chaotic clinical governance arrangements, defensive attitudes and inappropriate self-congratulation. The clinicians' reports to the inquest only answered the questions they were asked rather than trying to assist with a holistic view of the evidence, did not provide relevant information until it was extracted from the witness in testimony, that resulted in rolling disclosure of documents and additional witness evidence. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to ensure clinical governance staff are competent for safety oversight.

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

Implement a Trust-wide clinical governance reform covering document control, mandatory governance training, oversight restructuring, outcome-focused learning and family-centred care.

Verbatim wording from the response

“We have undertaken a comprehensive reform of our Trust-wide clinical governance framework. This includes:”

Source location

Response from University Hospitals of Morecambe Bay NHS Foundation Trust
Page 6 · response
Published 26 March 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

Operate multidisciplinary daily triage and cross-care-group reviews of concerns, incidents and feedback to support early escalation and coordinated learning.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Daily Triage and Cross-Care Group Reviews”

Source location

Response from University Hospitals of Morecambe Bay NHS Foundation Trust
Page 3 · response
Published 26 March 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

Strengthen cultural leadership through visible executive engagement, leadership safety conversations, behavioural performance assessment and quarterly culture reviews.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Cultural Leadership and Accountability”

Source location

Response from University Hospitals of Morecambe Bay NHS Foundation Trust
Page 3 · response
Published 26 March 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

Operate structured maternity complaints monitoring, central tracking through resolution, leadership review of responses and opportunities for families to discuss concerns.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In 2022, a structured process was implemented to monitor and track complaints within maternity services. This includes weekly meetings between the Patient Experience Team and maternity service representatives to ensure timely review and action.”

Source location

Response from University Hospitals of Morecambe Bay NHS Foundation Trust
Page 4 · response
Published 26 March 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

Employ three full-time Learning Response Leads to conduct investigations and oversee the PSIRF process.

Verbatim wording from the response

“What we are going to do next:”

Source location

Response from University Hospitals of Morecambe Bay NHS Foundation Trust
Page 10 · response
Published 26 March 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

Evaluate the operating effectiveness and consistency of serious-incident controls following PSIRF adoption.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The Board has asked the internal auditors to:”

Source location

Response from University Hospitals of Morecambe Bay NHS Foundation Trust
Page 8 · response
Published 26 March 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

Operate twice-weekly Executive Review Group oversight of validated moderate-or-above harm incidents, complaints and organisational concerns.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The ERG is chaired by the Chief Medical Officer or Chief Nursing Officer. The group is convened twice weekly to oversee all incidents reviewed by the Divisions that have been validated as causing moderate or above harm. In addition to this, the group may review other incidents that trigger organisational concern. The group also reviews all complaints and claims received in the previous week. This process enables executive oversight of any immediate issues which need addressing. The group has the power to investigate any”

Source location

Response from University Hospitals of Morecambe Bay NHS Foundation Trust
Page 9 · response
Published 26 March 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

Implement PSIRF through proportionate learning responses, co-produced investigations, and training for staff involved in incident responses.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Implementation of the Patient Safety Incident Response Framework (PSIRF)”

Source location

Response from University Hospitals of Morecambe Bay NHS Foundation Trust
Page 3 · response
Published 26 March 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

Review embeddedness of the Kirkup recommendations or successor practices through internal audit.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The Board has asked the internal auditors to:”

Source location

Response from University Hospitals of Morecambe Bay NHS Foundation Trust
Page 8 · response
Published 26 March 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

Enhance engagement with level 3 centres to improve handover of maternity events and concerns relevant to external reporting.

Verbatim wording from the response

“We acknowledged that poor handover of maternity events and concerns to level 3 centres would impact on their decisions around reporting to the CQC and the Coroner and so have enhanced our engagement with these centres.”

Source location

Response from University Hospitals of Morecambe Bay NHS Foundation Trust
Page 5 · response
Published 26 March 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

Map critical clinical training requirements across the Trust and ensure staff compliance.

Verbatim wording from the response

“What we are going to do next:”

Source location

Response from University Hospitals of Morecambe Bay NHS Foundation Trust
Page 9 · response
Published 26 March 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

Conduct regular mortality reviews and triangulation meetings to inform governance, training, resourcing and risk-prevention decisions.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Promoting a Culture of Transparency and Accountability”

Source location

Response from University Hospitals of Morecambe Bay NHS Foundation Trust
Page 3 · response
Published 26 March 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

Implement immediate changes to the Being Open policy following evidence given at the inquest.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Actions taken after the request:”

Source location

Response from University Hospitals of Morecambe Bay NHS Foundation Trust
Page 5 · response
Published 26 March 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

Embed the Duty of Candour process across the Trust, with standardised letters, family contact arrangements and governance monitoring.

Verbatim wording from the response

“To reinforce a culture of candour within the Trust - where openness, honesty, and learning are embedded at all levels - we have implemented a range of measures that go beyond compliance and aim to change behaviours, mindsets, and systems. In addition, we continue to monitor the impact of these changes through ward to board governance arrangements. The changes we have made are detailed below.”

Source location

Response from University Hospitals of Morecambe Bay NHS Foundation Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 26 March 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

Embed enhanced quality assurance for Patient Safety Incident Investigations through a structured clinical governance review process.

Verbatim wording from the response

“What we are going to do next:”

Source location

Response from University Hospitals of Morecambe Bay NHS Foundation Trust
Page 10 · response
Published 26 March 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

Provide internal audit assurance that divisional governance arrangements operate within the Trust’s accountability frameworks.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The Board has asked the internal auditors to:”

Source location

Response from University Hospitals of Morecambe Bay NHS Foundation Trust
Page 8 · response
Published 26 March 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

Provide training and development where compliance concerns identify gaps in skills, knowledge or behaviours.

Verbatim wording from the response

“What we are going to do next:”

Source location

Response from University Hospitals of Morecambe Bay NHS Foundation Trust
Page 9 · response
Published 26 March 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

Scrutinise patient-safety investigation reports and monitor PSIRF implementation through safety-panel attendance, supportive challenge and review of patient and family engagement.

Verbatim wording from the response

“As stated earlier in this response the ICB acknowledges that the Trusts journey in implementing and embedding PSIRF, the frameworks principles and the training of investigators in line with national expectations is not as advanced as initially planned or expected. This includes the clear need for compassionate engagement that is timely, open and transparent when care goes wrong. We are re-assured by the Trust that there is a plan in place to address these gaps and will actively and robustly monitor the progress to fully meet the PSIRF expectations using both quantitative and qualitative intelligence sources.”

Source location

Response from NHS Lancashire and South Cumbria Integrated Care Board
Page 5 · response
Published 26 March 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

Operate maternity governance and reporting forums to review incidents, outcomes, investigations, learning and improvement actions across the system.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The LMNS, (the maternity arm of the Integrated Care Board) has established and embedded a governance and reporting structure for all local maternity services. This includes a bi-monthly Quality Assurance Panel and Patient Safety Learning Group (see attached Terms of Reference). U H M B T maternity service are fully engaged and provide regular reporting on maternity and neonatal outcomes and patient safety incidents in order to maximise learning across the Integrated Care System (ICS).”

Source location

Response from NHS Lancashire and South Cumbria Integrated Care Board
Page 3 · response
Published 26 March 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

Triangulate information and data sources, using soft intelligence and formal scrutiny to validate provider data and identify issues requiring further investigation.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The ICB acknowledges the concerns of the coroner in respect of reliability of data. In order to be re-assured on the validity of data either supplied to the ICB or in the public domain, triangulation of hard and soft information is undertaken. This also includes the use of a Soft Intelligence System across Lancashire and South Cumbria; issues can be raised that allow for consideration of further interrogation or collation/theme/trending to build a wider view of a service or provider. This system plus all the other information held gives an ability to validate information/data provided and where necessary provide external scrutiny and challenge through formal contract meetings and Quality Review meetings.”

Source location

Response from NHS Lancashire and South Cumbria Integrated Care Board
Page 4 · response
Published 26 March 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

Monitor the impact of clinical-governance recruitment and attend Trust committees to scrutinise and challenge governance practices.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The ICB is deeply saddened that the family of Ida were unnecessarily exposed to an extended court hearing as a result of poor clinical governance within the Trust; we were very concerned to read the findings from the inquest and do not support poor governance practices. We are aware that there has been staffing vacancies/absences within the clinical governance team which we would partly attribute to the deficiencies identified. The ICB are assured that key governance posts have been recruited to and staff commenced in post (albeit interim in some cases). The ICB will continue to monitor the impact of this recruitment to assure itself that clinical governance practices are improved, embedded and sustained. Additionally, the ICB will attend internal Trust key committee meetings and ensure scrutiny is afforded and challenge given where these practices are seen.”

Source location

Response from NHS Lancashire and South Cumbria Integrated Care Board
Page 5 · response
Published 26 March 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

Monitor the Duty of Candour improvement action plan through continued assurance, committee attendance, external challenge and scrutiny.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The ICB has identified that the Trust is currently showing common cause variation with the lower compliance attributed to staffing capacity. The capacity issue is being addressed through divisional reconfiguration and additional capacity was identified which came into effect on 1 April 2025. An audit has been undertaken and there is an associated action plan in order to improve compliance to ensure every patient/family is served Duty of Candour in a timely and compassionate manner. The ICB are committed to ensuring that compliance improves and will monitor the effectiveness of the action plan through continued mechanisms including attendance at the Trust Quality Assurance Committee providing external challenge and scrutiny.”

Source location

Response from NHS Lancashire and South Cumbria Integrated Care Board
Page 2 · response
Published 26 March 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

Maintain contractual oversight and scrutiny of the Trust’s patient-safety-event reporting, challenging unexpected variation.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In line with contractual and regulatory requirements LSC ICB expects all providers to report all patient safety events onto the Learning From Patient Safety Events (LFPSE) platform (this has replaced the National Reporting Learning System – NRLS). Where appropriate and in line with Trust local and national priorities, patient safety events must also be reported onto StEIS where the ICB is then notified. The ICB is very concerned to note from you findings that the Trust failed to fulfil these contractual and regulatory requirements. Since the inception of the ICB there has been a detailed oversight in the reporting of patient safety events from the Trust against expected reporting, with challenge where there has been unexpected variation. The ICB will continue to seek assurance from the Trust through the contractual route and by the ongoing scrutiny of patient safety events.”

Source location

Response from NHS Lancashire and South Cumbria Integrated Care Board
Page 3 · response
Published 26 March 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

Obtain the external audit outcome on PSIRF progress and monitor implementation of any resulting action plan.

Verbatim wording from the response

“It is understood by LSC ICB that Mersey Internal Audit Authority (MIAA) as external auditors are scheduled to undertake an audit on the Trust’s PSIRF progress in 2025/26; the ICB will seek a copy of the audit outcome and monitor the implementation of any resulting action plan.”

Source location

Response from NHS Lancashire and South Cumbria Integrated Care Board
Page 4 · response
Published 26 March 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

Ensure actions arising from shared-learning discussions are implemented across the system.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Additionally, the ICB are sighted on the improvements being made to embed the Patient Safety Incident Response Framework (PSIRF) which is focussed on learning and compassionate engagement. We do however acknowledge that progress with PSIRF has been limited which in turn delays learning and improvements. In order to address this deficit the ICB are aware that additional capacity has now been sought to ensure that investigations into patient safety events are conducted in a timely manner, and this is currently being closely monitored with appropriate challenge provided to the Trust at both internal Trust and external assurance meetings. Within the wider organisation the Trust attend and actively participate in the ICS Shared Learning Forum and Patient Safety Specialist meetings. The ICB will ensure that actions taken from these discussions are implemented.”

Source location

Response from NHS Lancashire and South Cumbria Integrated Care Board
Page 3 · response
Published 26 March 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

Seek monthly assurance on mandatory maternity-training compliance, including reasons for non-compliance and actions taken to protect patient safety.

Verbatim wording from the response

“It is acknowledged that whilst the LMNS has oversight and assurance of training in line with Training Needs Analysis (Maternity Incentive scheme safety action 8), this does not include mandatory training. The Director of Midwifery at UHMBT has provided reassurance to the LMNS that further actions are underway to ensure there is monthly reporting on mandatory maternity training with deep dives to understand those staff not compliant and immediate action taken to remedy this position. As an LMNS we will seek assurance through the monthly reporting process that all staff are compliant and where this is not the case the rationale and actions being taken to ensure patient safety.”

Source location

Response from NHS Lancashire and South Cumbria Integrated Care Board
Page 6 · response
Published 26 March 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

Participate actively in developing regional maternity guidance and principles for consistent identification and reporting of incidents.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The North-West Regional Chief Midwife is developing Maternity Guidance and Principles with the aim to ensure there is a consistent approach in the identification and reporting of incidents. The ICB are supportive of this work and are actively engaged with the regional work to reduce this known risk.”

Source location

Response from NHS Lancashire and South Cumbria Integrated Care Board
Page 7 · response
Published 26 March 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

Publish and update national guidance on recording patient safety events and levels of harm.

Verbatim wording from the response

“To support the new system and framework, NHS England has published guidance on recording patient safety events and levels of harm (updated in October 2024) - NHS England » Policy guidance on recording patient safety events and levels of harm. For example, severe physical harm is defined as when at least one of the following apply:”

Source location

Joint response from DHSC and NHSE
Page 3 · response
Published 26 March 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

Operate a regional procedure for escalating serious maternity patient-safety incidents to regional and national NHS England teams.

Verbatim wording from the response

“NHS England North West (NW), has developed a Management of Patient Safety Incidents Standard Operating Procedure (April 2024), which ensures escalation of the maternity incidents of serious concern to the NW Regional Maternity Team. The ICB are responsible for escalating concerns, which are shared directly with the regional maternity team. The regional maternity team receive, monitor, and share escalation through the regional governance architecture. By extreme exception(s), the significant concerns are escalated to the National Chief Midwifery Officer and the National Obstetric Lead within NHS England.”

Source location

Joint response from DHSC and NHSE
Page 6 · response
Published 26 March 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

Discuss Prevention of Future Deaths reports through the Regulation 28 Working Group and share learning across regional and national NHS services.

Verbatim wording from the response

“I would also like to provide further assurances on national NHS England work taking place around the Reports to Prevent Future Deaths. All reports received are discussed by the Regulation 28 Working Group, comprising Regional Medical Directors, and other clinical and quality colleagues from across the regions. This ensures that key learnings and insights around events, such as the sad death of Ida, are shared across the NHS at both a national and regional level and helps us to pay close attention to any emerging trends that may require further review and action.”

Source location

Joint response from DHSC and NHSE
Page 7 · response
Published 26 March 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

No further investigation was considered beneficial because significant time had elapsed, relevant disclosures were made, and key senior leaders had left.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Our Director of Midwifery has taken HR advice and concluded that given:”

Source location

Response from University Hospitals of Morecambe Bay NHS Foundation Trust
Page 7 · response
Published 26 March 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 Trust is best placed to respond to concerns about individual staff members.

Verbatim wording from the response

“8. Specific concerns relating to individual members of staff”

Source location

Response from NHS Lancashire and South Cumbria Integrated Care Board
Page 5 · response
Published 26 March 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

Nationally led MSNI funding prevents assurance about funding continuing beyond 2027.

Verbatim wording from the response

“E. Funding for MSNI”

Source location

Response from NHS Lancashire and South Cumbria Integrated Care Board
Page 7 · response
Published 26 March 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

University Hospitals Morecambe Bay NHS Foundation Trust and Lancashire and South Cumbria ICB will address specific changes arising from the report.

Verbatim wording from the response

“My response therefore focuses on concern D and E. I note that you have also addressed this report to University Hospitals Morecambe Bay NHS Foundation Trust (UHMBT) and NHS Lancashire and South Cumbria Integrated Care Board (LSC ICB). These organisations will address specifics as to the changes being implemented as a result of the Report. NHS England’s response to you is also made on behalf of the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC), and I understand that they will not therefore be issuing a separate response to the Coroner. With DHSC input, I have also addressed in this response some of your concerns regarding A and B.”

Source location

Joint response from DHSC and NHSE
Page 2 · response
Published 26 March 2025

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-stated actions An action is something a recipient says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to a concern raised.15

  1. 1

    Commence phase two of the Maternity cultural action plan, focusing on teamwork, communication and psychologically safe teams.

    Stated by University Hospitals of Morecambe Bay NHS Foundation TrustStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 26 March 2025.
  2. 2

    Introduce local maternity PSIRF priorities and executive escalation for incidents outside national reporting structures.

    Stated by University Hospitals of Morecambe Bay NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 26 March 2025.
  3. 3

    Review implementation of the PFD-related changes through the Board-commissioned quarter-four internal audit.

    Stated by University Hospitals of Morecambe Bay NHS Foundation TrustStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 26 March 2025.
  4. 4

    Complete phase one of the Maternity cultural action plan, including leadership, wellbeing, civility, psychological safety and leadership-development measures.

    Stated by University Hospitals of Morecambe Bay NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 26 March 2025.
  5. 5

    Appoint a lead Professional Midwifery Advocate to expand structured support and education for maternity colleagues.

    Stated by University Hospitals of Morecambe Bay NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 26 March 2025.
  6. 6

    Increase Freedom to Speak Up visibility and accessibility, provide psychological safety training, and report FTSU themes to senior leaders and the Board.

    Stated by University Hospitals of Morecambe Bay NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 26 March 2025.
  7. 7

    Undertake skills analysis for existing and newly appointed senior midwives to inform annual appraisal and individual development plans.

    Stated by University Hospitals of Morecambe Bay NHS Foundation TrustStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 26 March 2025.
  8. 8

    Conduct quarterly maternity quality-assurance visits reviewing evidence against the ten National Maternity Incentive Scheme safety actions.

    Stated by NHS Lancashire and South Cumbria Integrated Care BoardStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 26 March 2025.
  9. 9

    Oversee the maternity culture and leadership improvement plan, including six-monthly progress reporting and assurance to the LMNS.

    Stated by NHS Lancashire and South Cumbria Integrated Care BoardStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 26 March 2025.
  10. 10

    Provide independent scrutiny of the maternity Senior Advocate role through LMNS oversight and review of its reports.

    Stated by NHS Lancashire and South Cumbria Integrated Care BoardStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 26 March 2025.
  11. 11

    Continue independent challenge and scrutiny of the Maternity and Neonatal Independent Senior Advocate’s effectiveness.

    Stated by NHS Lancashire and South Cumbria Integrated Care BoardStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 26 March 2025.
  12. 12

    Deliver the national maternity and neonatal safety improvement programme to reduce maternal and neonatal deaths, stillbirths and birth-related brain injuries.

    Stated by Department of Health and Social CareStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 26 March 2025.
  13. 13

    Roll out the Maternity Outcomes Signal System to identify clusters of maternity and neonatal incidents.

    Stated by Department of Health and Social CareStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 26 March 2025.
  14. 14

    Publish and update the national three-year delivery plan for safer, more personalised and equitable maternity and neonatal care.

    Stated by Department of Health and Social CareStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 26 March 2025.
  15. 15

    Maintain the Perinatal Surveillance Group to identify and escalate maternity safety concerns and coordinate subsequent action.

    Stated by Department of Health and Social CareStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 26 March 2025.

Recipient positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when they do not describe a specific action.2

  1. 1

    The pilot advocate service cannot accept new referrals while NHS England evaluates it pending a future national decision.

    Stated by NHS Lancashire and South Cumbria Integrated Care BoardUnable to actThe respondent said that a constraint prevented them from taking the relevant action.
  2. 2

    The future decision on the advocate role rests at national level with NHS England.

    Stated by NHS Lancashire and South Cumbria Integrated Care BoardRedirects responsibilityThe respondent said that another organisation was responsible for deciding or taking action.

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

Commence phase two of the Maternity cultural action plan, focusing on teamwork, communication and psychologically safe teams.

Verbatim wording from the response

“What we are going to do next:”

Source location

Response from University Hospitals of Morecambe Bay NHS Foundation Trust
Page 5 · response
Published 26 March 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

Introduce local maternity PSIRF priorities and executive escalation for incidents outside national reporting structures.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Any incident that is graded as moderate harm or above triggers the Patient Safety Incident Response Framework (PSIRF) incident management response - this ensures that a comprehensive independent investigation is undertaken. The Trust has also introduced local maternity PSIRF priorities, since there is a lack of national guidance about the response when an incident falls outside the national reporting structure for MNSI and Perinatal Mortality Review Tool (PMRT). We have triangulated data from complaints, moderate and serious harm incidents to develop our local priorities. Neonatal seizures not meeting cooling criteria is one of those priorities. Any incident that meets the local priorities criteria is escalated for executive oversight of the incident management process.”

Source location

Response from University Hospitals of Morecambe Bay NHS Foundation Trust
Page 9 · response
Published 26 March 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

Review implementation of the PFD-related changes through the Board-commissioned quarter-four internal audit.

Verbatim wording from the response

“As part of the 2025/26 internal audit programme, the Board has asked our internal auditors to complete a review of the implementation of the changes proposed following receipt of the PFD in quarter 4.”

Source location

Response from University Hospitals of Morecambe Bay NHS Foundation Trust
Page 5 · response
Published 26 March 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

Complete phase one of the Maternity cultural action plan, including leadership, wellbeing, civility, psychological safety and leadership-development measures.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In 2023, we undertook extensive cultural diagnosis work with Maternity teams to understand the state of the culture and how best to address the issues identified. In 2024, a three phased cultural action plan commenced, overseen by the Chair of Culture, Inclusion and Organisational Development and the Head of Midwifery. Phase one delivered actions against several themes including:”

Source location

Response from University Hospitals of Morecambe Bay NHS Foundation Trust
Page 4 · response
Published 26 March 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

Appoint a lead Professional Midwifery Advocate to expand structured support and education for maternity colleagues.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Increasing leadership visibility and access to leadership colleagues was central to the improvements, with a focus on improving two-way communication with colleagues and setting standards. A lead Professional Midwifery Advocate (PMA) has been appointed with the objective of expanding formal and structured support and education. A number of colleagues have attended training aimed at increasing cultural understanding and”

Source location

Response from University Hospitals of Morecambe Bay NHS Foundation Trust
Page 4 · response
Published 26 March 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

Increase Freedom to Speak Up visibility and accessibility, provide psychological safety training, and report FTSU themes to senior leaders and the Board.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Strengthening Freedom to Speak Up (FTSU)”

Source location

Response from University Hospitals of Morecambe Bay NHS Foundation Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 26 March 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

Undertake skills analysis for existing and newly appointed senior midwives to inform annual appraisal and individual development plans.

Verbatim wording from the response

“What we are going to do next:”

Source location

Response from University Hospitals of Morecambe Bay NHS Foundation Trust
Page 7 · response
Published 26 March 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

Conduct quarterly maternity quality-assurance visits reviewing evidence against the ten National Maternity Incentive Scheme safety actions.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The ICB can confirm that in line with the National Maternity Incentive Scheme the LMNS also undertake quarterly quality assurance visits to review evidence against each of 10 safety actions.”

Source location

Response from NHS Lancashire and South Cumbria Integrated Care Board
Page 6 · response
Published 26 March 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

Oversee the maternity culture and leadership improvement plan, including six-monthly progress reporting and assurance to the LMNS.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Following the Care Quality Commissions (CQC) Inspection of Maternity Services in 2021, the service was entered onto the national Maternity Safety Support Programme (MSSP). A full diagnostic assessment was undertaken by the Maternity Improvement Advisor (MIA) allocated to the service which identified several areas for focussed improvement work, including governance, culture and leadership. An associated improvement and sustainability plan has been developed, and the oversight and assurance are led by the national MSSP team. The LSC ICB Local Maternity and Neonatal System (LMNS) are integral to the oversight and assurance work reporting internally within the ICB on progress against this work and are committed to ensuring that the Trust are building a culture to ensure learning from all patient safety events and near misses.”

Source location

Response from NHS Lancashire and South Cumbria Integrated Care Board
Page 2 · response
Published 26 March 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

Provide independent scrutiny of the maternity Senior Advocate role through LMNS oversight and review of its reports.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Specific to maternity the Trust now has an Independent Senior Advocate whose role is to ensure that the voices of women and families are listened to, heard and acted upon by the maternity services. In UHMBT the Advocate provides a report to Trust Quality and Assurance Committee which the ICB attend. Particular focus on the effectiveness of the Advocate role will continue by the LMNS ensuring there is independent challenge and scrutiny.”

Source location

Response from NHS Lancashire and South Cumbria Integrated Care Board
Page 5 · response
Published 26 March 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 independent challenge and scrutiny of the Maternity and Neonatal Independent Senior Advocate’s effectiveness.

Verbatim wording from the response

“‘Specific to maternity the Trust now has an Independent Senior Advocate, whose role is to ensure that the voices of women and families are listened to, heard and acted upon by the maternity services. In UHMNBT the Advocate provides a report to Trust Quality and Assurance Committee which the ICB attend. Particular focus on the effectiveness of the Advocate role will continue by the LMNS ensuring there is independent challenge and scrutiny’.”

Source location

Response from NHS Lancashire and South Cumbria Integrated Care Board
Page 1 · response
Published 26 March 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

Deliver the national maternity and neonatal safety improvement programme to reduce maternal and neonatal deaths, stillbirths and birth-related brain injuries.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In March 2023, NHS England also published its Three year delivery plan for maternity and neonatal services, setting out how we would make care for babies, women and their families safer, more personalised and more equitable. An update on the first year of the plan was published in May 2024. The plan is supported by the work of the Maternity and Neonatal Safety Improvement Programme which aims to reduce the rates of maternal and neonatal deaths, stillbirths and brain injuries that occur during or soon after birth by 50% by 2025.”

Source location

Joint response from DHSC and NHSE
Page 6 · response
Published 26 March 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

Roll out the Maternity Outcomes Signal System to identify clusters of maternity and neonatal incidents.

Verbatim wording from the response

“This will be further supported by the roll-out of the new Maternity Outcomes Signal System (MOSS). This system will use Trust Electronic Patient Records to show term stillbirths, neonatal deaths up to 28 days from birth and term Hypoxic Ischaemic Encephalopathy (HIE) at grade 2/3 for all maternity providers, to be used as a signalling system for Trusts when there are clusters or an increased number of”

Source location

Joint response from DHSC and NHSE
Page 3 · response
Published 26 March 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

Publish and update the national three-year delivery plan for safer, more personalised and equitable maternity and neonatal care.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In March 2023, NHS England also published its Three year delivery plan for maternity and neonatal services, setting out how we would make care for babies, women and their families safer, more personalised and more equitable. An update on the first year of the plan was published in May 2024. The plan is supported by the work of the Maternity and Neonatal Safety Improvement Programme which aims to reduce the rates of maternal and neonatal deaths, stillbirths and brain injuries that occur during or soon after birth by 50% by 2025.”

Source location

Joint response from DHSC and NHSE
Page 6 · response
Published 26 March 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

Maintain the Perinatal Surveillance Group to identify and escalate maternity safety concerns and coordinate subsequent action.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In addition, the region has Perinatal Surveillance Group in place, which is attended by multi-stakeholder group such as the LMNS and external arm’s length bodies, which enables to provides a timely identification and escalation of concerns and subsequent action(s).”

Source location

Joint response from DHSC and NHSE
Page 6 · response
Published 26 March 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 pilot advocate service cannot accept new referrals while NHS England evaluates it pending a future national decision.

Verbatim wording from the response

“‘The ICB has a Maternity and Neonatal Independent Senior Advocate, whose role is to ensure that the voice of women and families are listened to, heard and acted upon by maternity and neonatal services. To note this pilot service is currently under national evaluation by NHS England pending a future decision around the role at a national level. Within Lancashire and South Cumbria currently the service is unable to accept new referrals. Due to this families being supported by the service receive an individualised plan and relevant signposting, including to other local advocacy organisations.”

Source location

Response from NHS Lancashire and South Cumbria Integrated Care Board
Page 2 · response
Published 26 March 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 future decision on the advocate role rests at national level with NHS England.

Verbatim wording from the response

“‘The ICB has a Maternity and Neonatal Independent Senior Advocate, whose role is to ensure that the voice of women and families are listened to, heard and acted upon by maternity and neonatal services. To note this pilot service is currently under national evaluation by NHS England pending a future decision around the role at a national level. Within Lancashire and South Cumbria currently the service is unable to accept new referrals. Due to this families being supported by the service receive an individualised plan and relevant signposting, including to other local advocacy organisations.”

Source location

Response from NHS Lancashire and South Cumbria Integrated Care Board
Page 2 · response
Published 26 March 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
3/4

Data last updated 7 September 2026