Minute Book, home
Coroner’s reportPrevention of future deaths · 2025-0284

“The inquest heard evidence that health visitors /midwives and GPs play a key role in the…”

Dated 6 Jun 2025, from the coroner for Manchester South. Sent to 2 organisations or people.

A coroner wrote this report after an inquest, to warn the organisations below about a risk of further deaths.

Read the full report on judiciary.uk

How this works

The 56-day response deadline

All responses published

Replies were due by 1 Aug 2025.

Organisations that receive a report must reply to the coroner within 56 days, saying what they will do or why they will do nothing. We show whether a response is published on judiciary.uk; a reply may have been sent and not yet published.

  1. Report dated6 Jun 2025
  2. Deadline1 Aug 2025
  3. Published on judiciary.uk18 Jun 2025
  4. Today23 Oct 2026

Watch this report

We’ll email you when a response is published on judiciary.uk, or when the 56 days to reply end with none published there yet. Free, and you can stop with one click.

Next we ask your name, then send a link to confirm and create your free account. Already have an account? Sign in

Responses from each recipient

The coroner’s concerns

– The inquest heard evidence that health visitors /midwives and GPs play a key role in the early identification of a heart defect such as Esme’s at an early stage. Such a defect will rarely be apparent at the 72 hour check on the evidence given at the inquest but symptoms will manifest subsequently. Such symptoms can be subtle and the inquest was told that for there to be early suspicion, of a heart defect, training for community midwives/health visitors and GPs needed to be improved and good quality information sharing was also essential. This should include concerns around feeding and weight loss. The GP check at 6- 8 weeks was a key checking point but needed to be informed by asking all of the right questions and a good understanding of how to listen for such a heart defect. The inquest was told that it was important that it was understood by health professionals involved in the care of a baby that the mother being diabetic increased the risk of a defect significantly and should increase the care taken in relation to presenting symptoms. There was no routine echocardiogram of a baby born of a mother with diabetes nationally although their risk of a defect was significantly higher than other babies and such a test it would detect a baby with a ventricular septal defect at an early stage In Esme’s case although her mum’s identical twin had a heart defect this did not in the North West, trigger the protocol for a routine echocardiogram. A heart defect in her mother would have. It was unclear why this was excluded given the genetic link. Esme had the usual abnormality scan which the inquest was told did not detect the defect on her heart. The inquest was told that the cardiac part of the abnormality scan was not audited in England under national guidance and the cardiac images were not stored. This meant they were not available for subsequent examination. The evidence of the paediatricians at the inquest was that tracking weight on the centile chart even from an early point assisted in understanding if there was a significant issue in relation to feeding triggering professional curiosity. However the evidence from the Health Visitor appeared to suggest that centile tracking was not seen as useful before 1 month and the red book was not used to look at weight centile tracking in the early stages.

An extract. Read the full report, including the circumstances of the death, on the Courts and Tribunals Judiciary website.

Source
judiciary.uk, Prevention of Future Deaths reports, 2025-0284
Added to Minute Book
8 Oct 2026
Reuse
We show short extracts and link to the original. We don’t host the full report.

Something wrong, such as a date or who it was sent to? Report a mistake

Is this report about someone close to you? You can ask us to remove names from our pages.

Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. Source: Courts and Tribunals Judiciary, judiciary.uk. Open Government Licence v3.0

Ask about this report

AI

Summaries and questions, with page references. Pro and above.

Sign in to use