CW: childbirth, baby loss
A campaign group made up of more than 800 families harmed during their maternity care at Oxford University Hospitals (OUH) are calling for an independent investigation into its services. In an open letter addressed to the Health Secretary, parents have raised concerns that a national inquiry conducted earlier this year failed to “capture the complexity of families’ accounts and the recurring pattern of harm described” because of the use of AI to complete the investigation and conflicting interests of senior NHS members.
Parents treated by OUH’s maternity ward say that their concerns “were not being adequately investigated or taken seriously” during their treatment at the hospital.
An affected mother recalled how, during a complicated and distressing labour, a member of staff “entered the room and handed me paperwork asking what we wanted to happen to our baby’s remains. There had been no bereavement discussion. Nobody had explained that my daughter was going to die. Yet I was being asked to consider what should happen to her body before she had even been born.” Her baby was successfully delivered and did not die. She described her labour as “one of the most traumatic and devastating experiences of my life.”
“At times I felt procedures were being carried out before I had even understood what was happening,” she told Cherwell. “I remember a midwife having to remind the other professionals in the room to introduce themselves”.
OUH encompasses four Oxfordshire hospitals, including the John Radcliffe Hospital, which work with the University to deliver education and training to doctors. The University’s Vice-Chancellor, Professor Irene Tracey, is co-chair of OUH Strategic Board. It was one of fourteen NHS Trusts identified by then-Health Secretary Wes Streeting in September 2025 as requiring urgent review.
Baroness Valerie Amos, Master at University College, chaired the investigation, which intended to make recommendations to improve care and safety in maternity and neonatal care and promised to “put families at the heart of the work”.
Amos’s investigation, which was published in June this year, concluded that there was “evidence of a willingness to ignore national guidelines based on evidence in favour of what Oxford clinicians think is the better way”. One staff member called this “the Oxford way”, adding that “it is the best” and “woe betide you if you challenge it.”
The report additionally flagged staffing issues, finding that overnight medical cover at the John Radcliffe Hospital was “not an appropriate staffing model for a unit of this size” and that leaders have “limited insight” into staff distress and its operational causes.
One mother told Cherwell that while she was initially told that her daughter was in relatively good condition for her age, she has since discovered information indicating that respiratory equipment malfunctioned during her daughter’s resuscitation, and that she was subsequently placed on alternative respiratory equipment because the intended machine was unavailable.
She continues to attend investigations and specialist appointments at OUH, including sleep studies and neurological assessments, to monitor and treat the life-threatening conditions which her daughter has incurred since delivery.
“One of the most difficult aspects of this journey is the uncertainty,” she says. “We are constantly trying to understand whether her symptoms represent changes in her neurological condition, whether further intervention will be necessary, and what this could mean for her future.”
Initially, OUH were not considered for the Amos investigation because their perinatal data did not necessitate “urgent measures”. However, grassroots campaigns by FFOUH, Keep the Norton General, and lobbying by local MPs raised attention to severe patient complaints surrounding communication and consent.
A report made by FFOUH, containing testimonies from more than 700 patients, was submitted for consideration in the Amos investigation last November. However, it appears that expert advisors within the Amos investigation did not even view the report, according to Dr Bill Krikup.
Krikup resigned from the Amos investigation prior to its publication, stating that the review was changed just days before publication to remove criticism of natural birth ideology where patients were discouraged from caesarean sections and using pain relief.
Parents are criticising the reliance on artificial intelligence to analyse sensitive family testimonials and evidence submissions in the Amos investigation which failed to recognise the complexity of the families’ accounts and the recurring patterns of the harm they detected, in particular “the influence of birth ideology and the conduct of key staff members”.
“This means that the harm in Oxford has never been properly analysed”, the letter states. “Lessons cannot have been adequately captured and women and babies in Oxfordshire remain at risk.” Cherwell understands that the families who submitted evidence did not consent to their personal testimonies or sensitive health data being analysed by AI.
An affected parent told Cherwell: “Families like mine have relived deeply traumatic experiences to provide evidence, hoping our voices would finally be heard and meaningful changes would follow. Learning that artificial intelligence was used to assist in analysing testimonies raises concerns about whether important details, patterns of poor care and patient safety warnings may have been overlooked.”
Parents have criticised unequal treatment between hospitals involved in the Amos investigation since its publication. An independent investigation has been ordered at Leeds University Hospitals after a report of at least 56 potentially preventable baby deaths, meanwhile a review commissioned for University Hospitals Sussex after at least 55 preventable baby deaths were identified.
The open letter asks why Oxford has not received equivalent scrutiny, despite a similar BBC investigation reporting that 58 baby deaths were potentially avoidable at OUH between 2019 and 2024. Speaking to Cherwell, an affected parent who volunteers at FFOUH said “we have to address the elephant in the room: reputation and protectionism.”
FFOUH also said an independent investigation is needed and expressed distrust over conflict of interests in the Amos investigation. FOIs obtained from the Department of Health and Social Care show that the data analysed by AI was held by NHS England. The CEO of OUH was recently seconded to Deputy CEO of NHS England, and the Trust’s chair has recently taken a regional role there. Families have expressed concern about their sensitive health data and said an investigation commissioned or influenced by OUH or bodies closely tied to it “would not gain families’ trust and would not be credible”.
Rebecca, the co-founder of FFOUH, told Cherwell that though OUH have responded to individual situations raised by patients, they have “focussed on reputation management instead of addressing the issues raised adequately. There has to be accountability for the harm, and the changes are surface-level and many appear to be ‘for show’.”
They claim that they have been met with “defensiveness and families left having to try and prove they are telling the truth”.
In a statement to Cherwell, Professor Meghana Pandit, Chief Executive Officer at OUH, said: “We are very sorry for the poor experience that some mothers and families have had in our care. This is below the standards that we aim to deliver for our patients.
“The Trust remains fully committed to learning from every family’s experience and to continuously improve the quality of maternity care. We encourage women and families to communicate with us so we can learn from them and work with them to address the areas where care may have fallen short.”
Speaking to Cherwell, one parent said that “one of the most significant consequences has been the complete breakdown of my trust in healthcare professionals. After repeatedly feeling that my concerns were dismissed, I now find myself constantly questioning, researching and documenting everything to ensure [my daughter] receives appropriate care.
There is a particular kind of grief in watching your child endure so much, while knowing that some of the answers you desperately need may never come.”
