“(brief summary of matters of concern) This inquest has exposed important issues with…”
No date on the report, from the coroner for Derby and Derbyshire. Sent to 5 organisations or people.
A coroner wrote this report after an inquest, to warn the organisations below about a risk of further deaths.
The 56-day response deadline
No date on the reportOrganisations 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.
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.
Responses from each recipient
| Sent to | Response |
|---|---|
| Sett Valley Medical Centre | Response publishedPublished on judiciary.uk in December 2025. |
| Derbyshire Community Health Services NHS Foundation Trust | Response publishedPublished on judiciary.uk in December 2025. |
| Derbyshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust | Response publishedPublished on judiciary.uk in December 2025. |
| NHS Derby and Derbyshire Integrated Care BoardNamed in the report as “NHS Derby & Derbyshire Integrated Care Board” | Response published, not yet matchedA response is published with this report. We haven’t yet matched it to the organisation it’s from, so it may be this one’s. |
| NHS England | Response publishedPublished on judiciary.uk in December 2025. |
The coroner’s concerns
(brief summary of matters of concern) This inquest has exposed important issues with information sharing between services and also within services. Those issues are: • Difficulties encountered because different IT systems were being used for record keeping in different services. Essentially a lack of a single patient record. • A lack of a shared understanding of what is relevant information and needs to be made available to other services. • Relevant notes being made in records of baby and not repeated in notes of the mum. Further detail: 1. Sett Valley, the health visitors and perinatal mental health services all had information about Hannah that was potentially relevant to her mental health, but none had the whole picture. It was evident that had those within the perinatal mental health services known about Hannah’s increasing frequency of contact with services about her baby’s development, it would have prompted further contact by them with Hannah and prompted a review of risk and support offered. They did not know and there was no further contact. 2. There was no single electronic patient record accessible to all services. Whilst the perinatal mental health and health visitors used SystmOne, Sett Valley did not. The health visitor had not informed Sett Valley about the contact Hannah had had with them on 27th December so that the GP seeing Hannah on 31st did not know that Hannah was beginning to make increased contact with services about her concerns and did not share any information about that consultation with other services. 3. There was increasing contact with health visitors that was not escalated to or shared with perinatal mental health. The significance of the increased contact, to Hannah’s mental health, did not appear to have been understood. The concerns raised at each contact around her baby’s development were dealt with at face value with exploration and examination of her baby’s development and reassurances given to Hannah regarding the particular concerns raised. The evidence revealed that it was not the individual concerns raised that were relevant to Hannah’s mental health but the fact that she was making more frequent contact which suggested she was struggling. There are no policies, guidance or any shared understanding between services of what might be relevant information to be shared and when. 4. Within both Sett Valley and health visitor records there was potentially important information relevant to Hannah’s mental health recorded only within her baby’s records. At any future appointments concerning Hannah the relevant medical history available on her record would have been incomplete. It also meant that whilst the perinatal mental health services had access to the health visitor notes in relation to Hannah (because they both used SystmOne), even had they had cause to look at Hannah’s notes they would still not have had all relevant information. There are no policies or guidance regarding when information potentially relevant to both mother and baby should be placed in both records or cross referenced. This appears to be particularly important in the perinatal period.
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, 2025-0615
- 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
AISummaries and questions, with page references. Pro and above.
Sign in to use