“D evidence was that the cervix was almost fully dilated at 12:30 and 13:50 examinations…”

The coroner’s concerns

1. D evidence was that the cervix was almost fully dilated at 12:30 and 13:50 examinations at which point it could be “pushed easily”, which was not supported by midwife’s evidence of examination at 13:30 (8cm) nor of what transpired at attempted delivery, namely that cervix “retracted” to 6 to 7cm; 2. Dr evidence was that during a telephone conversation at 13:57 he did not express concern about the CTG reading and did not give this as the reason to proceed to delivery of Kobi. This was in conflict to the evidence of Dr Consultant Obstetrician/Gynaecologist and to his first statement 16.7.2018 para 6. 3. Dr evidence at the inquest that he expressed concern about Kobi’s mother being pre- term, high risk with prolonged rupture of membranes was not contained in his first statement nor in his record of the conversation. In any event the evidence of Ms and the expert Mr who gave evidence was that these would not be reasons in themselves to proceed to an early delivery at that time. 4. Further second statement 21.4.2020, refers to some consideration being given to variable decelerations and variabilities contained in the CTG trace when making his decision to proceed to delivery at that time. It was accepted by Dr Ms consultant and Mr expert, that the CTG readings were within normal range and would not be a reason to proceed to delivery at that time. Their evidence was it would be appropriate in light of the full clinical picture and the CTG readings to “wait and see” how matters progressed. 5. Dr gave evidence that his arranging to take Kobi’s mother to theatre and prepare for delivery, and then carrying out a further vaginal examination at that time, would stand in for a later examination to see how matters were progressing. This was not regarded as good practice by the expert on the basis, it would be better to carry out a further examination after an hour, and then decide how to proceed with the delivery. 6. Dr did not accept the Consultant’s offer of assistance but regarded himself as fully competent to carry out the procedure. 7. Dr proceeded with a forceps delivery of the baby’s head. The body did not follow and the cervix “retracted” (which Dr had not encountered before. Nor had Mr the expert witness). Dr cut the cervix and rotated the head and tried unsuccessfully to deliver the shoulders through the incision. Mr expert said in evidence the baby’s head on its own should never be rotated due to the damage this can cause. 8. Dr instructed a midwife to replace the baby’s head. 9. Dr then attempted to deliver the baby via caesarean section, which was unsuccessful. 10. Ms then attended and arranged for the Paediatric Team to be called. She was eventually able to deliver the baby 11. There was a conflict in the evidence as to whether Ms applied both forceps blades. The evidence of Ms was preferred in that she was the one performing the procedure and would be best placed to know what she was doing and she had throughout been a good and competent witness. 12. There was no evidence that Dr had undergone training in emergency obstetrics in the recent period prior 3 March 2019. Dr has undergone training since 3 March 2019 but at the instigation of North Devon District Hospital. 6. ACTION SHOULD BE TAKEN In my opinion action should be taken to prevent future deaths and I believe you have the power to take such action. 7. YOUR RESPONSE You are under a duty to respond to this report within 56 days of the date of this report, namely by 09 September 2020. I, the coroner, may extend the 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, 2020-0143

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