Outrage as private consultant accuses victims of maternity scandal of spreading false information

Martin Shipton

A briefing document written by a private consultant involved in reviewing the performance of a failing maternity unit has accused families whose lives have been blighted by medical errors of making false allegations about the review.

The document, written by Kate Jury, the managing partner of Niche Health and Social Care Consulting, suggests parents have created a distorted narrative in order to discredit efforts to understand what went wrong at Singleton Hospital’s maternity unit in Swansea.

Parents at the forefront of what they see as a campaign for justice say they are upset and outraged by what Ms Jury has written.

Safety

In September 2023 a Healthcare Inspectorate Wales inspection report concluded that the safety and wellbeing of mothers and babies could not be guaranteed at the Singleton Hospital unit.

The Welsh Government has refused to hold a public inquiry into concerns about the unit. Instead a review has been commissioned by Swansea Bay University Health Board, which presided over the unit’s failings.

Parents led by Rob and Sian Channon, whose five-year-old son Gethin suffered serious brain damage at birth because of medical negligence at the unit, have walked away from the review, saying they have no confidence in it, and have announced that what they call a genuinely independent review will now take place, In doing so they have the support of Donna Ockendon, regarded by many as the UK’s top maternity review chair.

The briefing document, which has been distributed to journalists and others, says Niche was commissioned in April 2024 to “support an independent review of maternity and neonatal services” run by the health board.

Risks

It states: “This document provides a response to repeated allegations made in relation to this review, through various channels. It is the view of Niche that, in not correcting the record surrounding these allegations, there are two key risks; one, is that the confidence of some families in participating in this review will be damaged and, two, there is a risk that independent reviews into maternity services across the UK … will be undermined.”

Ms Jury argues that “a concerted campaign of misinformation should [not] be allowed to stand as ‘matters of fact’ and to disrupt a review in the public interest”.

She continues: “This review has, in the last few months, been subject to a targeted campaign of misinformation from a range of communication sources, in the press and on social media. This has included harmful allegations, some of which have been personal in nature, involving in some cases, very concerning content. This campaign has sought to polarise debate and undermine public confidence in the review in all aspects, in its current form.”

‘Misinformation’

Describing what she sees as a “coordinated campaign of misinformation”, Ms Jury states: “There are generally five key themes associated with the coordinated campaign against this review, they include: a) referring to the review as a ‘sham’ and a ‘scam’ on a repetitive basis on social media and in the press; b) directly attacking the independence of the review on social media and in the press; c) saying that the review is ‘ignoring families’ and also ‘excluding families’; d) saying that the review is causing distress to the families who are involved in the ‘scandal’ and; e) saying that the review has not achieved anything so far, and therefore, should be ‘scrapped’.”

Ms Jury states: “No basis in evidence or reasonable opinion has been provided for these allegations other than to install repetition of the words ‘sham’ and ‘scam’ on a consistent basis within the press and on social media. This approach is being used to diminish the review within the minds of the freethinking public.

“No basis in evidence or reasonable opinion has been provided to support the allegations that this review lacks independence. The independence of the review (or perceived lack thereof) has been consistently used to diminish the good standing of the review in the minds of the free-thinking public … There is no basis to assume that a review commissioned to examine services provided by the health board will only be independent if it is commissioned directly by the Welsh Government. The health board are not investigating themselves; they have directly commissioned external, independent reviewers, not previously known to them, and with no allegiances, duties or obligations towards them.

“Niche (amongst the external, independent reviewers) has an extensive and proven track record in delivering independent investigations and reviews; much of this evidence is available in the public domain.”

‘Good-standing’

In response to the allegation that the review is Ignoring families and excluding them, Ms Jury states: “No basis in evidence or reasonable opinion has been provided for these allegations other than versions of these statements being consistently repeated and used to diminish the good standing of the review within the minds of the free-thinking public. The review is keen to hear from all families and individuals who would like to share their experiences of maternity and neonatal services in the Swansea Bay region. Indeed, the timescales relating to the review self-referral process have been expanded to include families who want to report their experience originating over any time period.

“There is a dedicated team for family engagement, dedicated web pages have been built along with extensive and tailored information for families … The self-referral and online feedback processes are now live, clinical cases are being reviewed, and families have started to speak to us directly now that the awareness of the review is increasing. Many more families have now provided their views via key stakeholders.

“Each and every family in the Swansea Bay region deserves to be heard and deserves a reliable, independent review. Actively dissuading families from having confidence in the current review and lobbying for other families not to participate, is an act which is actively delaying improvement and ultimately, it is working against the public interest.”

Distress

Responding to the suggestion that the review has caused distress to those involved in the scandal, Ms Jury states: “No basis in evidence or reasonable opinion has been provided for these allegations, other than to consistently reiterate the use of the word ‘scandal’ in the minds of the free-thinking public. This could lead to prejudicial opinions about the outcome of this independent review.”

Responding to the briefing document, Mr Channon said: “We have learned in recent days that Niche Consulting have compiled a document designed to attack us, our well intentioned, and, we strongly believe, fully accurate views of the health board’s maternity review. Our views are shared by the top UK maternity expert Donna Ockenden and maternity unit campaigners from Nottingham and Morecambe Bay.

“This document completely vindicates families’ decision to walk away from a review which is becoming more toxic by the week and has already been discredited.

“At the end of the day we are victims of a maternity scandal that left our son with lifelong serious disabilities, destroying his future and our family. If this is how they treat families like ours who simply want justice then they have no business being involved in this maternity review.

“Ms Jury, who wrote the document, is the ‘lead client partner on governance’ for the review. She is actually one of the reviewers – attacking victims! It’s beyond belief.”

‘Disregarded’

Donna Ockenden, a midwife and community activist who was commissioned in 2016 by the then UK Secretary for Health and Social Care, Jeremy Hunt, to chair an independent review into maternity services at Shrewsbury and Telford Hospital NHS Trust, said: “Over the last year I have become aware of the enormous efforts of many ‘Swansea Bay’ families to ensure an independent review is undertaken into maternity services provided by the health board. I know that the families have tried really hard to be heard in all of this time. Sadly they have not been listened to. Their views have instead been completely disregarded.

“Throughout all my work chairing independent reviews from Tawel Fan ward in north Wales, to the Shrewsbury and Telford maternity review and now to Nottingham, I am absolutely clear that for any review to be credible it must have the trust and confidence of affected families. The Swansea Bay health board has failed to achieve this and failed to engage effectively with families. Families who have already been so badly affected have had their harm and distress compounded by the way they have been treated.

“Today I am aware of the very brave step taken by over 70 families. They are setting

up their own review which will be led by families. This is happening because the local health board has failed to listen to the concerns of local families. For this situation to have been allowed to happen, for families to be so completely disregarded in 2024, is completely unacceptable.”

Jack Hawkins, a key campaigner from the Nottingham maternity scandal, said: “Harriet Hawkins was born dead in Nottingham on April 17 2016. She, her mum, and pregnancy had been completely normal. She died from negligence.

“Nottingham University Hospitals (NUH) were very keen for us, her parents, to accept that she died from an infection. But there was no infection. Their efforts to convince us, a hospital consultant and a senior critical care physiotherapist, led us to only one conclusion. They were covering up.

“We fought for years, against NUH, against NHS England and many other bodies whose sole aim was to prevent the truth from coming out.

“Fortunately we had an amazing MP, Lilian Greenwood, and incredible support from our solicitor and our PR team. It took a long time but we eventually got enough power to be heard. We had a group of us. When we got to 100 families (with dead babies, dead mums and severely harmed babies and mums) we wrote to the then Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, Sajid Javid. He listened, investigated, then granted us something that the NHS were clearly desperate to prevent. An independent review led by Donna Ockenden.

“That review has uncovered nearly 2,000 cases where babies and mothers have died or been very very significantly injured. This, on a background of NUH and NHS England wanting us all to believe ‘there is nothing to see here’.

“We are struck by the similarities between Nottingham and Swansea. The clear failures. The terrible outcomes. And, most sadly, the attempts to cover up. Swansea Bay appears to be using the same playbook as Nottingham. I hope the ‘leaders’ in the health service understand how bad they look, and how they might well be considered to be perpetuating the same poor care, forcing it on family after family when the solution is so much better and, frankly, easier.

“The true leaders are these families. Listen to them, as we are at long last and with untold wasted time, being listened to in Nottingham.”

‘Saddened’

Responding to the families’ decision to set up their own review, a Swansea Bay University Health Board spokesperson said: “We are very disappointed and saddened that a group of families has decided to take this step rather than engage with the independent review, especially as it is now gathering pace and is on track to report its findings in the early summer of next year. There is a real danger that this step will confuse families and be counter-productive by dissuading some with important stories to tell from coming forward.

“While we have already acknowledged that the proper setting up of the independent review took too long, it was partly a product of the care given to ensuring its independence. This was achieved by properly constituting it, developing clear terms of reference and the recruitment of individuals with no preconceived views or bias for or against the maternity and neonatal services in Swansea Bay, to sit on an oversight panel.

“These are all vital ingredients in a review and the care taken will ensure that the review’s findings will be evidence based, will be seen to have been reached without prejudice and will stand up to expert clinical scrutiny. Now that the independent review is fully in delivery mode, thousands of families will be engaged.

“We are fully confident in the independence, experience and professionalism of the clinical review team and oversight panel and of the overall integrity of this independent review.

“Currently, clinical reviews of individual cases are being conducted with families given the option of opting out of this if they wish. Further cohorts of cases will be clinically reviewed as part of the thorough and systematic approach being followed.

“In addition, a self-referral process has been opened up to enable any families with experience of our maternity and neonatal services to feed back to the independent review no matter how long ago that might have been. We are mindful that it is difficult to relive some experiences which is why we have offered psychological help and support to individuals coming forward and will continue to do so.

“On top of this, thousands of letters will be going out in the coming weeks to all families who have had experience of our services asking them to feed in their views. The truth is we would never disregard anyone which is why, once again, we’d issue an open invitation to anybody who wants to discuss our maternity services and contribute to the independent review to do so.”