Skip to content
recurance

Thomas Beaty

31 Mar 2015 · Coroner Lisa Hashmi · Manchester (North)

The coroner's concerns

  1. 1. abandoning instrumental delivery too early or too late

    “When to abandon the procedure: - No evidence of progressive descent with each pull - No evidence of imminent birth following 3 pulls of a correctly placed instrument by an experienced operator...”
  2. 2. ambiguous terminology causing misinterpretation

    “The RCOG Guidance did not provide operational definitions for words such - as 'imminent' (vis a vis birth) or”
  3. 3. misleading term 'gentle' causing unsafe traction

    “The term 'gentle' (traction) forming the 'G' of the algorithm within the Trust's - protocol was misleading and not in line with the RCOG Guidance”
  4. 4. delayed adoption of improved guidance

    “it is difficult for Trusts to change their guidance until - and unless there is a change/material improvement in the Guidance issued by the RCOG”

Responses

2015-0130-Response-by-Department-of-Health.pdf ↗· Department of Health and Social Care

2015-0130-Response-by-Pennine-Acute-Hospitals.pdf ↗· Pennine Acute Hospitals NHS Trust

  • Built with
  • NVIDIA Nemotron Nano, Super and Ultra
  • Nebius Token Factory inference
  • Qwen3 Embedding 8B on Token Factory
  • Tavily follow-up web search
  • Postgres and pgvector search
  • Next.js site

Source: Prevention of Future Deaths reports and responses published by the Courts and Tribunals Judiciary at judiciary.uk. Crown copyright, used under the Open Government Licence v3.0. Data updated 26 Oct 2026.

A link shows that a similar concern was raised again, not why. It is not a finding about any organisation or person. Methodology and responsible use · Report an error

Thomas Beaty · Recurance