Prevention of Future Deaths reports · 2025

Jannat Abbker

Regulation 28 report to prevent future deaths, reference 2025-0203, written 25 Apr 2025. A coroner writes one of these when an inquest reveals a risk that could cause further deaths unless something changes.

Date of report25 Apr 2025
Reference2025-0203
DeceasedJannat Abbker
CoronerMary Hassell
Coroner areaInner North London
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.

Regulation 28:  Prevention of Future Deaths report 

Jannat ABBKER (died 19.08.24) 

THIS REPORT IS BEING SENT TO: 

1.  The President 

Royal College Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG) 
10-18 Union Street 
London SE1 1SZ 

1 

CORONER 

I am:   Coroner ME Hassell 
           Senior Coroner  
           Inner North London 
           St Pancras Coroner’s Court 
           Camley Street 
           London  N1C 4PP 

2 

CORONER’S LEGAL POWERS 

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

3 

INVESTIGATION and INQUEST 

On  23  August  2024,  one  of  my  assistant  coroners,  Edwin  Buckett, 
commenced  an  investigation  into  the  death  of  Jannat  Abbker,  a  baby 
who died shortly after birth. The investigation concluded at the end of the 
inquest yesterday. I made a determination at inquest that Jannat died as 
a  consequence  of  trauma  suffered  during  birth  as  a  result  of  shoulder 
dystocia. 

4 

CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE DEATH 

Jannat was a big baby and her mother had a history of shoulder dystocia 
with  two  out  of  her  three  previous  pregnancies.    Her  mum  received 
midwifery  and  obstetric  care  for  the  two  pregnancies  at  University 
College London Hospital (UCLH), and Jannat was delivered there.   

1 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Unfortunately, the fact of the shoulder dystocia was not communicated 
to Jannat’s parents after the earlier births, and was not recognised by the 
staff  at  UCLH  during  this  pregnancy.    If  it  had  been,  Jannat’s  mother 
would have been offered a Caesarean section for Jannat’s delivery.  A 
Caesarean  section  would  have  avoided  the  shoulder  dystocia  that 
caused Jannat’s death. 

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 will occur 
unless  action  is  taken.  In  the  circumstances,  it  is  my  statutory  duty  to 
report to you. 

The MATTERS OF CONCERN are as follows.  

With the benefit of a maternity and newborn safety investigation (MNSI),  
UCLH is undertaking a significant piece of work to improve its systems. 

However, there remains one outstanding point.  When all else had failed, 
Jannat  was  finally  delivered  by  use  of  a  manoeuvre  called  a  shoulder 
shrug.  I heard at inquest that this is not a manoeuvre included within the 
NICE (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence) guidelines, but 
it is used abroad.  One of the obstetric registrars looking after Jannat’s 
mother had seen it in a training video. 

I wonder if there is merit in considering this for inclusion in the next set 
of relevant NICE guidelines, whenever these are updated? 

6 

ACTION SHOULD BE TAKEN 

In  my  opinion,  action  should  be  taken  to  prevent  future  deaths  and  I 
believe that 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 23 June 2025.  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. 

2 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 8 

COPIES and PUBLICATION 

I have sent a copy of my report to the following. 

•  Jannat’s parents 
•  HHJ Alexia Durran, the Chief Coroner of England & Wales 

I  am  also  under  a  duty  to  send  a  copy  of  your  response  to  the  Chief 
Coroner and all interested persons who in my opinion should receive it.  
I  may  also  send  a  copy  of  your  response  to  any  other  person  who  I 
believe may find it useful or of interest.  

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

9 

DATE                                                  SIGNED BY SENIOR CORONER 

25.04.25                                              ME Hassell 

3

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 Royal College Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (PDF)
ME Hassell 
His Majesty’s Coroner for St Pancras Coroners Court 
Inner North London 
St Pancras Coroners Court 
Camley Street 
London 
N1C 4PP 

19 June 2025 

Dear Ms Hassell 

Re: Baby Jannat Abbker 
Your ref: 

Thank you for your Regulation 28 Report to Prevent Future deaths following the inquest into 
the death of Baby Jannat Abbker on 25 April 2025. 

The loss of a baby is a devastating tragedy for parents, the wider family, and healthcare 
professionals involved. We would like to begin by extending our deepest and heartfelt 
condolences to Jannat’s family for their profound loss. 

This response has been developed following input from members of the Royal College of 
Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG) Patient Safety Committee and Senior Officers of 
the College.  

We recognise and respect the narrative conclusion from the inquest that Jannat died as a 
consequence of trauma suffered during birth as a result of shoulder dystocia. 

We also recognise the matters of concern as outlined in your letter as follows, Jannat was 
finally delivered by use of a manoeuvre called a shoulder shrug. I heard at inquest that this is 
not a manoeuvre included within the NICE (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence) 
guidelines, but it is used abroad. One of the obstetric registrars looking after Jannat’s 
mother had seen it in a training video. I wonder if there is merit in considering this for 
inclusion in the next set of relevant NICE guidelines, whenever these are updated? 

The RCOG supports doctors to deliver maternity services through its educational initiatives. 
This encompasses developing curricula, elevating care standards through clinical guidance, 
assisting in career advancement through examinations, coordinating professional 
development initiatives and events, and offering support services to its members.  

Page 1 of 2 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 The RCOG Green Top Guideline (No. 42) on Shoulder Dystocia is due to be updated and 
published this year. This update has been in production for the last two years and is 
undergoing extensive development including comprehensive literature searches, internal 
and external review, involvement of key stakeholders and liaison with multi-professional 
specialists and experts. There is no NICE guidance on this topic and national guidelines are 
produced either by the RCOG or NICE to avoid replication. 

Relevant to the index birth, the guideline makes recommendations about mode of birth 
after a previous history of shoulder dystocia and delivery by planned caesarean birth is one 
of the recommended options, as referenced in your report.  

Intrapartum stillbirth is extremely rare at shoulder dystocia and current training 
programmes and the correct use of the release manoeuvres are as per the algorithm in the 
RCOG guidance. Reviewing the evidence, there are more than 100,000 vaginal births 
reported in the literature by training teams in the UK, United States, Spain and Germany 
with no permanent brachial plexus injury post shoulder dystocia (usual rate 3 per 10,000 
vaginal births) and no intrapartum stillbirths. All these multi-professional teams used the 
clinical algorithm laid out in the RCOG Green-Top Guideline. 

There are other manoeuvres outside of those listed in the RCOG guidance as reported in the 
literature, for consideration, when the routine release manoeuvres have been unsuccessful. 
However, the data and evidence supporting these manoeuvres are extremely limited.  

The updated Shoulder dystocia guideline will include a section on ‘alternative manoeuvres’ 
based on good quality interventional research before making any new recommendations. 
We can confirm that the evidence for shoulder shrug has been considered, but the lead 
developers do not feel that there is sufficient evidence to currently recommend it in our 
evidence based RCOG management algorithm.  

However, effective training to manage shoulder dystocia using the mentioned release 
manoeuvres continues to be recommended and is also incentivised through the NHS 
Resolution Maternity Incentivisation Scheme to reduce morbidity and mortality to a 
minimum.  

Thank you for bringing this to our attention. I hope this is a helpful response to this matter.  

Yours sincerely, 

CEO Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists 

Page 2 of 2

Related reports

Other reports by Mary Hassell

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.