A landmark independent inquiry into NHS maternity services in Nottingham has documented severe safety failures affecting nearly 2,500 families, yet experts warn that systemic cultural change—widely acknowledged as essential to prevent future harm—remains elusive. According to the Ockenden review, published in The BMJ, 500 mothers and babies experienced serious or avoidable harm between 2012 and 2025, with 156 child deaths and six maternal deaths potentially preventable through improved care standards.
Key takeaways
- The Ockenden review covered nearly 2,500 families and found 500 cases of serious or avoidable harm in NHS Nottingham maternity services (2012–2025)
- 156 child deaths and 6 maternal deaths may have been preventable, according to the independent inquiry
- Cultural factors within maternity services—particularly ideology around natural birth—are identified as barriers to implementing safety improvements
- Previous reviews and investigations have failed to halt the maternity crisis, raising questions about implementation and accountability mechanisms
Scale of Harm in NHS Nottingham Maternity Services
Serious or avoidable incidents documented in the Ockenden review (2012–2025), involving nearly 2,500 families
Source: Ockenden Review, The BMJ, 2026 | Georgian Medical Journal News
The Ockenden Review: Scale and Scope of the Crisis
The Ockenden review represents the largest independent inquiry into NHS maternity services in the United Kingdom, covering 13 years of care provision. Published in The BMJ, the investigation examined maternity care in Nottingham NHS services and identified systematic failures across multiple domains of clinical practice. The review’s scope—encompassing nearly 2,500 families—provides unprecedented granularity in understanding the nature and frequency of preventable harm in maternity settings.
According to the Ockenden review, the scale of documented harm extends beyond individual clinical incidents to suggest systemic failures in safety culture, clinical governance, and adherence to evidence-based guidelines. The identification of 156 potentially preventable child deaths and six maternal deaths underscores the severity of these failures and raises critical questions about accountability and organizational learning within NHS maternity services.
Cultural Ideology as a Barrier to Safety Implementation
A central thesis of the analysis in The BMJ is that cultural factors—particularly ideology surrounding natural childbirth and resistance to evidence-based clinical interventions—have created organizational barriers to safety improvement. This observation reflects a tension between normalization of childbirth as a physiological process and recognition of clinical risk factors that may necessitate medical intervention to prevent harm.
The persistence of this cultural dynamic despite documented harm suggests that simple publication of safety data is insufficient to drive change. Quality and safety improvement in maternity services requires not only identification of failures but also systematic engagement with the underlying professional and institutional values that may resist evidence-based practice change. This raises a critical question about the mechanisms through which safety recommendations are translated into practice.
Five hundred mothers and babies experienced serious or avoidable harm in NHS Nottingham maternity services between 2012 and 2025, with 156 child deaths and six maternal deaths potentially preventable through improved clinical practice and safety systems.
— The Ockenden Review, published in The BMJ, 2026
Why Previous Interventions Have Failed to Achieve Sustained Change
The observation that multiple prior reviews and investigations have not halted the maternity crisis points to a significant implementation gap in healthcare systems. According to the Ockenden analysis in The BMJ, this pattern suggests that producing evidence of harm is necessary but not sufficient to achieve institutional change. Several structural factors contribute to this implementation failure, including the complexity of changing embedded professional culture, resource constraints, and the absence of robust accountability mechanisms for monitoring and enforcing compliance with safety recommendations.
The NHS maternity services crisis illustrates a broader challenge in health policy and systems implementation: the gap between knowing what needs to change and successfully embedding change into daily clinical practice. This requires not only leadership commitment but also alignment of financial incentives, workforce training, and clinical governance systems to support practitioners in adopting safer practices.
Accountability and the Question of Implementation
The Ockenden review poses a critical challenge to UK health leadership, particularly to the new health secretary tasked with oversight of NHS maternity services. The central question—what will be different this time around?—reflects skepticism that yet another investigation will produce sustained improvement without fundamental changes to accountability structures, resource allocation, and organizational governance.
Effective implementation of safety recommendations requires clear accountability for outcomes, transparent reporting of harm data, and integration of safety metrics into performance evaluation frameworks. The Ockenden review in The BMJ suggests that absent these structural changes, maternity services may continue to experience preventable harm despite awareness of the problem and identification of solutions. This raises important questions about resource allocation, workforce capacity, and the political will necessary to confront entrenched professional practices that may not align with evidence-based safety standards.
What this means
Frequently asked questions
How large was the Ockenden review compared to previous maternity investigations?
The Ockenden review examined nearly 2,500 families and covered 13 years of maternity care (2012–2025) in NHS Nottingham services, making it the largest independent inquiry into NHS maternity services to date, according to The BMJ publication.
What specific cultural factors are identified as barriers to safety improvement in maternity services?
The Ockenden review, as analyzed in The BMJ, identifies ideology around natural childbirth and resistance to evidence-based medical interventions as significant cultural barriers. This suggests that some practitioners may prioritize birth philosophies over individualized clinical risk assessment, potentially delaying or preventing necessary interventions that could prevent harm.
Why have previous reviews and investigations failed to stop the maternity crisis?
According to the Ockenden analysis in The BMJ, multiple factors contribute to implementation failure: organizational culture is difficult to change rapidly, prior recommendations have not been accompanied by robust accountability mechanisms, resource constraints limit training and system redesign, and the absence of clear consequences for non-compliance allows unsafe practices to persist.
The Ockenden review represents a critical juncture for NHS maternity services. With nearly 2,500 families affected and 162 potentially preventable deaths documented, the evidence for systemic failure is incontrovertible. However, the persistence of this crisis despite previous investigations suggests that knowledge of the problem is insufficient without commensurate changes in organizational governance, accountability, resource allocation, and the professional culture that influences clinical decision-making. The question posed to the UK’s health secretary—what will be different this time?—remains unanswered pending concrete policy action and implementation mechanisms.
Source: Natural birth ideology and the unavoidable challenge of avoidable harms, The BMJ, 2026
Was this article helpful?
Disclaimer. This article is health journalism intended for general information and education. It is not medical advice and is not a substitute for professional diagnosis or treatment. Always consult a qualified healthcare provider about your individual circumstances. Full disclaimer →
Related Coverage
Editorial standards. This article was produced under the GMJ News editorial process, with oversight by the GMJ Editorial Board. Our editorial process. Spotted an error? Contact the editorial team.
