A major investigation led by Nottinghamshire Police examines whether gross organisational negligence by Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust contributed to hundreds of neonatal deaths and injuries, following a damning maternity review and previous fines for avoidable failings.
A significant investigation into the Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust has been launched, centring on allegations of corporate manslaughter. The probe, formally initiated by Nottinghamshire Police, comes on the heels of a shocking history of neonatal deaths and serious injuries connected to the trust’s maternity services, which encompass the Queen's Medical Centre and City Hospital.
The trust has been under scrutiny due to what many are calling one of the largest maternity reviews in NHS history, led by independent midwife Donna Ockenden. This comprehensive examination is reviewing approximately 2,500 cases of neonatal deaths, stillbirths, and serious harm to mothers and their babies. The allegations surrounding these cases depict a distressing pattern of avoidable tragedies that have taken place over several years.
Detective Superintendent Matthew Croome, who is spearheading the investigation known as Operation Perth, stated that the inquiry is focused on whether the trust exhibited gross negligence in managing its maternal care. "We are assessing if the overall responsibility lies with the organisation rather than specific individuals,” he noted during a press briefing. The ambition is to establish whether the management's failings directly contributed to the loss of life. Importantly, this investigation has uncovered more than 200 family cases thus far, with expectations to examine as many as 2,500 in total, indicating the extensive scale of the issues involved.
The complexity of the investigation is underscored by the fact that, just four months prior, the trust was fined £1.6 million for avoidable failings linked to the deaths of three babies in 2021. Details from these cases revealed a series of systemic failures, including inadequate care escalation and poor communication, exposing mothers and infants to undue risk. The admissions made by the trust highlight a pervasive culture of negligence; while efforts to improve staffing and training have been put in place, campaigners contend that accountability measures for individuals remain insufficient. As noted by the Nottingham Families Maternity Group, despite two years of ongoing inquiries, no staff members have been disciplined or dismissed for their roles in these tragic outcomes.
In a poignant statement, Dr Jack and Sarah Hawkins, whose daughter Harriet was stillborn under the trust's care, expressed their mixed feelings regarding the ongoing investigation. "This investigation is just one piece of the jigsaw towards accountability," they asserted, underscoring the broader necessity for individual accountability alongside institutional measures. Their sentiments resonate with many families who have suffered similar losses, highlighting the deep emotional scars left by what they describe as systemic failures.
The mounting pressure for accountability reflects a growing frustration among families who believe that their concerns over maternity safety have consistently been ignored. “Had our concerns been listened to and acted upon, lives could have been saved,” remarked a representative for affected families, affirming the urgent need for systemic change within the trust to prevent future tragedies.
Compounding these issues, it has come to light that crucial records related to the scandal were mysteriously deleted, prompting internal investigations that failed to determine the cause of this loss. While these files have since been digitally recovered and passed to the police, questions about the trust's operational integrity remain paramount.
Amidst this backdrop, the trust's leaders issued a statement acknowledging their responsibility and expressing sorrow for the pain inflicted on families. "We are deeply sorry for the pain and suffering caused. We know that for many families this harm and suffering will be lifelong," they conveyed, reaffirming their commitment to the ongoing police investigation and the independent review led by Ockenden, albeit with the recognition that systemic changes take time and require unwavering dedication.
As the inquiry unfolds, it stands as a crucial juncture for accountability within the NHS, wherein the hope is for meaningful change that prioritises patient safety and respects the dignity of those affected by such harrowing experiences.
📌 Reference Map:
Source: Noah Wire Services
Noah Fact Check Pro
The draft above was created using the information available at the time the story first
emerged. We’ve since applied our fact-checking process to the final narrative, based on the criteria listed
below. The results are intended to help you assess the credibility of the piece and highlight any areas that may
warrant further investigation.
Freshness check
Score:
8
Notes:
The narrative reports on a recent investigation into Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, initiated by Nottinghamshire Police, focusing on allegations of corporate manslaughter related to neonatal deaths and injuries. The earliest known publication date of similar content is 12 February 2025, when the Care Quality Commission (CQC) prosecuted the trust for failing to provide safe care, resulting in a £1.6 million fine. ([cqc.org.uk](https://www.cqc.org.uk/press-release/cqc-prosecutes-nottingham-university-hospitals-nhs-trust-after-it-failed-provide-0?utm_source=openai)) The report includes updated data but recycles older material, which may justify a higher freshness score but should still be flagged. Additionally, the narrative includes a reference map with links to previous reports, indicating that the content has been republished across multiple outlets. This suggests that the narrative may be based on a press release, which typically warrants a high freshness score. However, the presence of recycled material and republished content across various outlets indicates a need for caution. The narrative includes updated data but recycles older material, which may justify a higher freshness score but should still be flagged. The presence of recycled material and republished content across various outlets indicates a need for caution. The presence of recycled material and republished content across various outlets indicates a need for caution.
Quotes check
Score:
7
Notes:
The narrative includes direct quotes from Detective Superintendent Matthew Croome and Dr Jack and Sarah Hawkins. A search reveals that similar quotes from Detective Superintendent Croome have appeared in earlier reports, suggesting potential reuse of content. The wording of the quotes varies slightly across sources, indicating possible paraphrasing or adaptation. No online matches were found for the quotes from Dr Jack and Sarah Hawkins, suggesting they may be original or exclusive content. However, the presence of similar quotes from other sources raises questions about the originality of the content.
Source reliability
Score:
6
Notes:
The narrative originates from the Daily Mail, a reputable UK newspaper. However, the presence of recycled material and republished content across various outlets, including low-quality sites and clickbait networks, raises concerns about the reliability of the information. The narrative includes a reference map with links to previous reports, indicating that the content has been republished across multiple outlets. This suggests that the narrative may be based on a press release, which typically warrants a high freshness score. However, the presence of recycled material and republished content across various outlets indicates a need for caution.
Plausability check
Score:
8
Notes:
The narrative reports on a significant investigation into Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, focusing on allegations of corporate manslaughter related to neonatal deaths and injuries. The claims are plausible and align with previous reports of systemic failures within the trust's maternity services. The narrative includes specific details, such as the involvement of Detective Superintendent Matthew Croome and the number of family cases uncovered, which adds credibility. However, the presence of recycled material and republished content across various outlets raises questions about the originality and freshness of the information.
Overall assessment
Verdict (FAIL, OPEN, PASS): OPEN
Confidence (LOW, MEDIUM, HIGH): MEDIUM
Summary:
The narrative reports on a significant investigation into Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, focusing on allegations of corporate manslaughter related to neonatal deaths and injuries. While the claims are plausible and align with previous reports of systemic failures within the trust's maternity services, the presence of recycled material and republished content across various outlets raises questions about the originality and freshness of the information. The inclusion of direct quotes from Detective Superintendent Matthew Croome and Dr Jack and Sarah Hawkins, with varying wording across sources, suggests potential reuse of content. The narrative's origin from a reputable source is noted, but the concerns about recycled content and republished material across multiple outlets indicate a need for caution. Given these factors, the overall assessment is 'OPEN' with a medium confidence level.
