Skip to content
recurance

Thor Dalhaug

6 Mar 2015 · Coroner Stuart Fisher · Lincolnshire (Central)

The coroner's concerns

  1. 1. lack of supervision of new staff during complex twin delivery

    “The failure to supervise the operating surgeon on her first day at work for this complex twin delivery. It was stated in evidence that the policy of inducting new staff had changed but that this had not been enshrined in any formal document. Such a document should be produced and a copy submitted to myself.”
  2. 2. inappropriate clinical technique leading to death

    “The lack of any steps having been taken to discipline the clinicians involved or limit their practice given their decision to adopt a wholly inappropriate, unacceptable, and unorthodox technique in delivering [the deceased], resulting in his death.”
  3. 3. inadequate record keeping of neonatal death

    “The failure to ensure a full contemporaneous record was kept by doctors involved in a term neonatal death. Such failure has seriously hampered my investigation into the circumstances surrounding [the deceased]'s death and has resulted in serious difficulties to [the deceased]'s family who clearly struggled and suffered as a result of not being able to understand why their son died shortly after his birth.”
  4. 4. lack of candour in death disclosure

    “The failure to identify in the immediate aftermath of [the deceased]'s death that the operating surgeons had neglected to make a full note of the circumstances in which he died and to obligate them to provide the same; in particular was advised to amend the Caesarean pro forma, to include the fact that forceps were used in the interests of candour. He was then dissuaded from doing so by senior management as a result of their concerns as to how this would be perceived if the matter was investigated. This raises”
  5. 5. conflict of interest in SUI report authorship

    “The fact that the consultant ultimately responsible for [the deceased] was also charged with undertaking the SUI Report into his death. Further, that the consultant signed off the original SUI Report without having read any of the statements referred to in that report. Please disclose the policy or means by which it has been made clear that this should not happen in the future.”
  6. 6. lack of disciplinary action for inadequate SUI

    “The fact that no steps have been taken to discipline those involved in the production of this wholly inadequate SUI.”

Responses

2015-0063-Response-by-United-Lincolnshire-Hospitals-NHS-Trust.pdf ↗· United Lincolnshire Hospitals NHS Trust

Stated action

“the Trust has now taken various steps to significantly reduce the chance of such a situation occurring again. In particular, all junior doctors will now:- e Have a welcome session conducted by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists Tutor or appropriate, nominated representative. e Have a comprehensive tour of the department. This will include all clinical areas in which they will be working, including wards, clinics, theatres and secretarial offices. They will also be shown how to”
  • 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