Skip to content
recurance

Misinterpretation of CTG traces leading to missed abnormal fetal heart rate

Closely relatedConfidence 0.80 · moderate3 reports · 2017–2025No published response to an earlier report One-page brief (print or PDF)

Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists received 3 coroners' reports about this hazard between 22 Feb 2017 and 18 Mar 2025.

They came from 3 different coroners in 3 coroner areas. A similar concern was raised again 2 times after the first warning.

A published response was found for 2 of the 2 earlier reports, stating 1 specific action.

3
reports
3
different coroners
2017–2025
years
0.80
lowest link confidence

The story, report by report

Spacing grows with the time between reports.

  1. First warning

    Maxim Karpovich↗

    22 Feb 2017 · David Hinchliff · West Yorkshire (East)

    “It was apparent that the Midwives involved with [the deceased]'s birth and a Junior Obstetrician, appeared not to understand that the cardiotocograph (CTG) trace was abnormal on several occasions.”
    Original on judiciary.uk ↗

    Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists responded.Response (PDF) ↗

  2. 2 years 11 months later

    Raised again · 1st time

    Harry Richford↗

    3 Feb 2020 · Christopher Sutton-Mattocks · North East Kent

    Closely relatedConfidence 0.85 · higha different coroner
    “There is a risk to the life of both mothers and babies if there is a lack of clarity as to the processes or the need to take prompt action where it is necessitated in the event of an obstetric concern or emergency developing.”
    Original on judiciary.uk ↗

    Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists responded.Response (PDF) ↗

  3. 5 years 1 month later

    Raised again · 2nd time

    Alonzo Wood↗

    18 Mar 2025 · Joanne Andrews · West Sussex, Brighton and Hove

    Closely relatedConfidence 0.80 · moderatea different coroner
    “During the course of the evidence I was informed that the clinicians consider that there is insufficient guidance as to the management actions that should be taken in the event of an abnormal antenatal CTG.”
    Original on judiciary.uk ↗

    Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists responded, stating 1 specific action.Response (PDF) ↗Response (PDF) ↗

    “the RCOG fully supports and recommends Element 3 of NHS England's Saving Babies Lives Care Bundle version 2 which recommends the use of computerised CTG (fetal heart monitoring) during antenatal period and states the following (page 21): When the available evidence is inconclusive, SBLCBv2 aims to implement pragmatic best practice care, based upon clinical experience and a recognition of the important human factors. Human error in antepartum CTG interpretation has been identified as a significant”
  4. All reports to Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists

Next

This shows that a similar concern was raised again after an earlier report. It does not say why, and it is not a finding about any organisation or person. To report an error, see the corrections route.

  • 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

Misinterpretation of CTG traces leading to missed abnormal fetal heart rate · Recurance