Article Text

Download PDFPDF

Quality of investigations into unexpected deaths of infants and young children in England after implementation of national child death review procedures in 2008: a retrospective assessment
  1. Peter Fleming1,
  2. Anna Pease1,
  3. Jenny Ingram1,
  4. Peter Sidebotham2,
  5. Marta C Cohen3,
  6. Robert C Coombs4,
  7. Andrew K Ewer5,
  8. Martin Ward Platt6,
  9. John Fox7,
  10. David Marshall8,
  11. Anne Lewis9,
  12. Carol Evason-Coombe10,
  13. Peter Blair1
  1. 1 Centre for Academic Child Health, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
  2. 2 Health Sciences Research Institute, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK
  3. 3 Department of Histopathology, Sheffield Childrens Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Sheffield, UK
  4. 4 Jessop Neonatal Unit, Sheffield Teaching Hospitals, Sheffield, UK
  5. 5 Institute of Metabolism and Systems Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
  6. 6 National Congenital Anomaly and Rare Disease Registration Service, Public Health England, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
  7. 7 Institute of Criminal Justice Studies, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth, UK
  8. 8 Dave Marshall Consultancy, London, UK
  9. 9 Social Worker (retired), Leeds, UK
  10. 10 Southwest Penninsula Child Death Overview Panel, Plymouth, UK
  1. Correspondence to Dr Peter Fleming, Centre for Academic Child Health, University of Bristol, Bristol BS2 8EG, UK; Peter.Fleming{at}bristol.ac.uk

Abstract

Objectives In 2008, new statutory national procedures for responding to unexpected child deaths were introduced throughout England. There has, to date, been no national audit of these procedures.

Study design Families bereaved by the unexpected death of a child under 4 years of age since 2008 were invited to participate. Factors contributing to the death and investigations after the death were explored. Telephone interviews were conducted, and coroners’ documents were obtained. The nature and quality of investigations was compared with the required procedures; information on each case was reviewed by a multiagency panel; and the death was categorised using the Avon clinicopathological classification.

Results Data were obtained from 91 bereaved families (64 infant deaths and 27 children aged 1–3 years); 85 remained unexplained after postmortem examination. Documentation of multiagency assessments was poorly recorded. Most (88%) families received a home visit from the police, but few (37%) received joint visits by police and healthcare professionals. Postmortem examinations closely followed national guidance; 94% involved paediatric pathologists; 61% of families had a final meeting with a paediatrician to explain the investigation outcome. There was no improvement in frequency of home visits by health professionals or final meetings with paediatricians between 2008–2013 and 2014–2017 and no improvement in parental satisfaction with the process.

Conclusions Statutory procedures need to be followed more closely. The implementation of a national child mortality database from 2019 will allow continuing audit of the quality of investigations after unexpected child deaths. An important area amenable to improvement is increased involvement by paediatricians.

  • unexpected deaths
  • SIDS
  • bereavement care
  • child deaths
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Footnotes

  • Contributors The study was designed by PF, PB, JI, AP and AKE. The interviews with families were conducted by PF, PS, MCC, RCC and AKE. AP coordinated the data collected from families and coroners. Multidisciplinary reviews were carried out by PF, PS, MCC, RCC, AKE, MWP, JF, DM, AL and CE-C. Analysis was carried out by PB and PF. The article was drafted by PF with revisions from all co-authors. All coauthors gave their approval for the final version of the article to be submitted.

  • Funding This study was funded by a research grant (project 268) from the Lullaby Trust, with support from Teddy’s Wish and other charitable funding agencies.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Patient consent for publication Not required.

  • Ethics approval This project was approved by the National Research Ethics Service Committee South West – Central Bristol (Reference 14/SW/1084. October 2014).

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

  • Data availability statement No data are available.