Prevention of Future Deaths reports · 2021

Mollie Dimmock

Regulation 28 report to prevent future deaths, reference 2021-0379, written 9 Nov 2021. A coroner writes one of these when an inquest reveals a risk that could cause further deaths unless something changes.

Date of report9 Nov 2021
Reference2021-0379
DeceasedMollie Dimmock
CoronerCrispin Butler
Coroner areaBuckinghamshire
CategoryChild Death (from 2015) · Hospital Death (Clinical Procedures and medical management) related deaths
Sourcejudiciary.uk record · original PDF
Responses published1

The report

Text extracted from the PDF text layer. Reproduced verbatim, including the scan's own layout.

C.G.BUTLER 
SENIOR CORONER  ·  BUCKINGHAMSHIRE 

REGULATION  28  REPORT TO  PREVENT FUTURE  DEATHS 

THIS REPORT IS  BEING SENT TO: 

1.  The National Institute for Health  and  Care  Excellence (NICE) 

CORONER 

I am CRISPIN  GILES  BUTLER,  senior coroner for the coroner area of Buckinghamshire 

2 

CORONER'S LEGAL  POWERS 

I make this report under paragraph  7,  Schedule 5,  of the Coroners and  Justice Act 2009 
and  Regulations 28  and  29 of the Coroners (Investigations)  RegIulations 2013 . 

http://www.legislation.gov/uk/ukpga/2009/25/schedule/5/paragraph/7 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/1629/pdfs/uksi/2013/1629/part/7 /made 

3 

INVESTIGATION and  INQUEST 

On 3rd  July 2020, I commenced an  Investigation into the death of Mollie Daisy DIMMOCK, 
who died at 03 : 11  on 25th  June 2020 at Stoke Mandeville Hospital,  34 minutes after being 
delivered. 

The  Investigation concluded  at the end  of the Inquest on  14th  October 2021. 

The medical cause of death was confirmed as: 

Coroner's Office, 29  Windsor End,  Beaconsfield,  Buckinghamshire . HP9  2JJ 

 
 
 
 C.G.BUTLER 
SENIOR CORONER  ·  BUCKINGHAMSHIRE 

1 a Perinatal asphyxia 

4 

CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE  DEATH 

Molly's death was confirmed when  she was  34  minutes old  at 03: 11  on  25th June 2020 at 
Stoke  Mandeville  Hospital  from  perinatal  asphyxia  due  to  hypoxia  caused  by  umbilical 
cord  compression  from  shoulder dystocia which  lasted  for five  minutes before  Molly was 
fully  delivered . 

A narrative conclusion was recorded : 

Molly was a large for gestation  age  baby. 

On the balance of probabilities, comparison between the 20 week and 36 week ultrasound 
scans demonstrate accelerated fetal  growth . 

Retrospective  review  of  the  36  week  scan  by  the  Health  Safety  Investigation  Branch 
clinical  panel considered  that the abdominal circumference of Molly was  under measured 
and  this led  to  an  under estimation of her fetal  weight. 

Molly's mother was not referred for obstetric consultation following  the 36 week scan . 

The  first  opportunity  for  an  obstetric  discussion  with  Molly's  parents  about  the  risks  of 
delivery came late in  labour, early on  the morning of delivery.  On  balance,  Molly's parents 
did not have the understanding that shoulder dystocia was a risk.  The option of proceeding 
straight  to  a  caesarean  section  was  not  offered  to  Molly's  parents  and  consent  was 
procured on the basis of a trial delivery with  Kiel land's forceps, only with caesarean section 
as an  option thereafter. 

Molly's  head  was  delivered  at  02 :31  and  shoulder dystocia  was  identified.  Molly's  body 
was delivered five  minutes thereafter with  the  umbilical cord wrapped around  her neck. 

Molly  was  unresponsive,  although  there  was  evidence  of  a  heartbeat  reported,  and, 
notwithstanding  attempts  to  resuscitate  her, she was confirmed  to  have  died  34  minutes 
after delivery. 

The  risk of shoulder dystocia was  heightened  by  Molly's size. 

Coroner's Office, 29  Windsor End,  Beaconsfield,  Buckinghamshire . HP9  2JJ 

 
 
 
 C.G.BUTLER 
SENIOR CORONER  •  BUCKINGHAMSHIRE 

5 

CORONER'S CONCERNS 

During  the course of the  inquest the evidence revealed  matters  giving  rise to concern.  In 
my  opinion  there  is  a  risk  that  future  deaths  could  occur  unless  action  is  taken .  In  the 
circumstances it is  my statutory duty to report to you . 

The MATTERS OF  CONCERN are as follows .  -

NICE Guidance NG121  last updated 25 April 2019 relates to  intrapartum care for 
women  with  existing  medical  conditions  or  obstetric  complications  and  their 
babies. 

Within  this  Guidance,  whist there  is  reference  at paragraph  1.17  to  guidance  in 
respect mode of birth for large-for-gestational-age babies, there is no definition of 
a large-for-gestational-age baby in  the Guidance. 

There does not appear to be any national guidance or accepted definition of large­
for-gestational-age such that application of the Guidance is open to  interpretation 
and variation depending upon an  NHS Trust's own policies and guidance, and , in 
turn,  the  interpretation  of  obstetricians  and  other  clinicians  advising  potential 
parents in  anticipation of delivery modes. 

It is clear that NG121  is  intended to provide guidance in  relation to many potential 
scenarios which  may impact upon care and  mode of delivery decisions. 

The  uncertainty  surrounding  when  section  1.17  of  the  Guidance  should  be 
relevant arises through the lack of a definition of a large-for-gestational-age baby. 

Application  of section  1.17  of the  Guidance  includes  consideration  of shoulder 
dystocia and  options for continuing  labour or caesarean  section  relevant to  both 
the life of the  mother and  the  baby. 

6 

ACTION SHOULD BE  TAKEN 

Coroner's Office, 29 Windsor End,  Beaconsfield, Buckinghamshire.  HP9  2JJ 

 
 
 
 
 
 C.G.BUTLER 
SENIOR  CORONER  •  BUCKINGHAMSHIRE 

In  my  opinion  action  should  be  taken  to  prevent  future  deaths  and  I  believe  your 
organisation  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 4th  January 2022 

I, the coroner,  may  extend the  period . 

Your response  must contain  details of action taken  or proposed  to  be  taken,  setting out 
the  timetable for action . Otherwise you  must explain why no action  is  proposed . 

8 

COPIES and  PUBLICATION 

I  have  sent  a  copy  of  my  report  to  the  Chief  Coroner  and  to  the  following  Interested 
Persons and  other agencies: 

The Family of Molly  Dimmack 

Buckinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust 

Healthcare Safety Investigation  Branch  (HSIB) 

NHS  England  (National  Maternity Lead) 

Royal  College of Obstetricians and  Gynaecologists (RCOG) 

I am  also under a duty to  send the Chief Coroner a copy of you r response. 

Coroner's Office, 29  Windsor End,  Beaconsfield,  Buckinghamshire.  HP9  2JJ 

 
 
 
 
 C.G.BUTLER 
SEN IOR  CORONER  •  BUCKINGHAMSHIRE 

The Chief Coroner may publish either or both  in  a complete or redacted or summary form . 
He  may  send  a copy  of this  report to  any  person  who he  believes  may  find  it  useful  or of 
interest.  You  may make representations to  me, the coroner,  at the time of you r response, 
about the release or the  publication of your response by  the Chief Coroner. 

9 

9th  November 2021 

Crispin  Giles Butler, Senior Coroner for Buckinghamshire 

Coroner's Office, 29  Windsor End,  Beaconsfield,  Buckinghamshire . HP9  2JJ

Responses

1 response published against this report on judiciary.uk. A response is a body's written reply to the coroner's concerns; publication is at the discretion of the Chief Coroner's office, so an absent response does not mean nobody replied.

Response from Nice (PDF)
2nd Floor 
2 Redmond Place 
London 
E20 1JQ 
United Kingdom 

4 January 2022 

Crispin Butler 
Coroner’s Office 
29 Windsor End 
Beaconsfield 
Buckinghamshire 
HP9 2JJ 

Dear Mr Butler, 

I write in response to your regulation 28 report of 9 November 2021 regarding the very sad 
death of Molly Dimmock. I would like to express my sincerest condolences to her family.  

In your report you state that, while NICE’s clinical guideline on intrapartum care for women 
with existing medical conditions or obstetric complications and their babies [NG121] makes 
recommendations on the mode of birth for large-for-gestational-age babies, as there is no 
standard definition of large for gestational age, the guidance is open to interpretation and is 
inconsistently applied.  

During the development of NG121, the committee acknowledged that there is a lot of 
uncertainty around the diagnosis of large for gestational age. There is no standardised 
definition and clinical suspicion of large for gestational age, particularly during labour, is 
subjective and often inaccurate. While ultrasound estimation of fetal weight is likely to be 
more accurate, it is difficult to perform accurately during labour.  

Given this uncertainty the committee felt it was important to give the woman balanced 
information to support shared decision making. The discussion between healthcare 
professionals and a woman with a baby suspected of being large for gestational age should 
focus not only on the potential risk of adverse outcomes for the woman and the baby, but 
also on the uncertainty around the diagnosis of a large-for-gestational-age baby and what it 
might mean for the woman and her baby if such problems did occur. 

We believe that if the guideline were to provide a cut off it would be liable to convey 
inappropriate certainty, or reassurance if the cut off is not reached. As such, we do not 
believe that any action is required of NICE. 

Yours sincerely, 

Chief executive

Related reports

Other reports by Crispin Butler

See all →

More reports categorised “Child Death (from 2015)”

See all →

Track Child Death (from 2015)

See every Prevention of Future Deaths report matching Child Death (from 2015), and how often a new one appears.

What would an alert for this have sent me? Search the full text

Free to try — the preview shows the real matches and how many arrived in the last 12 months. Your first email alert is free.

These reports are published by the Chief Coroner's office at judiciary.uk and are © Crown copyright. The text here is reproduced from the published PDF so it can be searched. If something on this page is wrong, or you are a person named in it and want it reviewed, email drcjar@gmail.com and we will act promptly.