Call (0115) 931 51 71 to talk to us about your situation

The Ockenden Report: What Families Affected by NUH Maternity Care Need to Know

/in , ,

Update: 24 June 2026 – Alison Brooks responds to the publication of the Ockenden report

The Ockenden report has been published today. It confirms, formally and at unprecedented scale, what thousands of families in Nottingham have known for years – and what I have witnessed throughout my career.

I am saddened and shocked by its conclusions, and I cannot begin to imagine how the families affected by these findings are feeling today. Unfortunately, the findings are not new to me. I have spent nearly 40 years acting for clients whose child has died at birth or been severely brain injured as a result of medical negligence. These are families that never recover from the consequences of negligence, and no amount of damages can compensate for the devastation that has been caused. What I continue to struggle with is the repeated errors that occur, despite advances in medicine.

Why are the same mistakes being made? As I read the Ockenden report, I could be reading one of the hundreds of expert reports I have read since the 1980s. I truly hope this report will be the catalyst needed to ensure doctors and midwives have the tools they need to provide the service they want to give and which families so deserve. I also hope it will give a voice to the medical staff who have worked in this toxic culture and not been heard, and to the mothers who were not listened to.

In December 2021, I attended a meeting for specialist clinical negligence solicitors at which Action Against Medical Accidents asked the former Health Secretary, The Rt Hon Jeremy Hunt MP, to speak about medical claims. His address focussed on his leadership of the Health and Social Care Committee’s inquiry into NHS Litigation reform and maternity service safety. He spoke about the cost of claims and suggested that no-fault compensation schemes was a solution to reduce those costs. I explained to him that I had seen no improvement in maternity care during my career, and that no family wants to be in a position to claim compensation. They do not want the next family to experience the same mistakes.

The best answer must be to reduce the number of negligence claims by ensuring staff are properly trained, that they have the support they need, and that workloads are manageable.

Why does the NHS find this solution so impossible?

As a reminder for families who have received or are awaiting their individual reports, each one will contain a grading which may indicate that the harm was avoidable. I would encourage anyone with a Grade 2 or Grade 3 to contact a specialist clinical negligence solicitor for advice.

Barratts Guide to The Ockenden Report: What Families Affected by NUH Maternity Care Need to Know

On 24th June 2026, the Ockenden report into maternity services at Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust (“NUH”) was published. For thousands of families, this is not an abstract event or a news story. It is the moment they find out, formally and officially, what happened to them – and in many cases, what was done, said, or withheld without their knowledge.

At the centre of this report are families: families who have been waiting years, some more than a decade, for acknowledgement of what they experienced; families who have raised children with profound disabilities, or who have lived with the loss of a baby or a mother, while fighting for answers that should have been given to them long ago.  Whatever the report says, it will not undo the harm that was done.  But for many families it will represent the first time that harm has been formally recognised by an official process.  That matters enormously.

I have worked with families affected by birth injury and clinical negligence throughout my career, across England and Wales.  I cannot begin to understand how much this moment means to families but I do know that further support will be needed – legally, practically, and emotionally.  This article sets out what families need to know before the report is published, and what their options may be in the weeks and months that follow.

What the Ockenden review is

The review was established in May 2022, led by Donna Ockenden, a senior and highly experienced midwife who was the families’ own choice to lead it.  Many families affected by the maternity care at NUH had fought for years to be heard, and fought specifically to have an independent figure they could trust appointed to chair the process.

Independence matters deeply.  Many families who have been through experiences like these lose trust in the medical profession – understandably so, given what they have faced.  Having someone independent, with no connection to the institution under review, has been central to families feeling able to engage with the process at all.

Donna Ockenden previously led the review into maternity services at Shrewsbury and Telford Hospital NHS Trust, which found that more than 200 babies and nine mothers could have survived with better care.  That review set the standard for what a serious, independent inquiry into maternity failings should look like.

The Nottingham review covers maternity services at Nottingham City Hospital and Queen’s Medical Centre, both run by NUH.  It is the largest review of a single NHS service in this country’s history, covering 2,505 cases including stillbirths, neonatal deaths, significant brain injuries to babies, severe maternal harm and maternal deaths.  The cases span more than twenty years.  New families were added to the review until the doors closed in May 2025, which is itself a deeply troubling indicator: the harm did not stop when the review began.

What happens on and after 24th June

The report was published on 24th June and live-streamed. Families were invited to meetings with Donna Ockenden on 22nd and 23rd June to discuss the findings ahead of publication.

Following publication, around 2,500 families will receive individualised written feedback. These reports will be released in batches of approximately 250 through July, August and into September 2026.  Each family’s report will carry a grading:

  • Grade 0: Care was appropriate and in line with best practice
  • Grade 1: Minor concerns; care could have been improved but different management would have made no difference to the outcome
  • Grade 2: Significant concerns; substandard care in which different management might have made a difference to the outcome
  • Grade 3: Major concerns; substandard care in which different management would reasonably be expected to have made a difference to the outcome

Families where there has been a maternal death will be offered a face-to-face meeting in Nottingham regardless of their grading.

A five-month support window runs from the date of publication until November or early December 2026. Throughout this period, families can contact the review team directly at nottsreview@donnaockenden.com. Psychological support is available, including in side rooms, during the family meetings themselves.

I want to say something honestly about this process. However well prepared families feel, receiving a formal written report about what happened during the most vulnerable moments of their lives is going to be painful. It may bring back memories, emotions and questions that families have spent years trying to manage.

The grading system provides a framework, but it cannot fully capture the complexity of what individual families have been through, or answer every question they have carried. Many families will also be asking, rightly, what changes will actually follow from this report – and whether the culture that allowed this harm to continue for over two decades will genuinely change.

Those are questions the review itself cannot fully answer. They are questions that must now be directed at NUH, at NHS England, and at the government.

What the review confirmed

The published report has now confirmed, formally and at unprecedented scale, what was already on the public record during the review period.

Donna Ockenden has stated publicly during the review period that she has repeatedly heard accounts of cover-ups to hide failings, staff shortages, problems with training, dismissive attitudes towards families, bullying, and discrimination. These are not allegations made by families in isolation. They are observations made by the review chair herself, based on the evidence gathered from thousands of cases.

In February 2025, NUH pleaded guilty to six charges of failing to provide safe care and treatment in relation to three mothers and their babies. The trust was ordered to pay £1,667,944 – the largest maternity-related financial penalty ever imposed on an NHS trust.

Nottinghamshire Police launched Operation Perth in 2024. In June 2025, this was formally escalated to a corporate manslaughter investigation, with police explicitly examining whether NUH as an organisation bears responsibility for deaths and serious injuries in its maternity services. As of early 2026, investigators had reviewed 232 of 360 family folders referred to them by the Ockenden team, and are consulting the Crown Prosecution Service on a number of cases.

These findings reflect what I have witnessed throughout my career, across the country, in case after case. The same failures recur: induction of mismanaged labour; foetal distress not recognised or acted upon quickly enough; midwives stretched across too many patients to give each one the care they need; and junior staff left feeling unable to raise concerns, even when something is clearly wrong.

Families come to me not because compensation is what they wanted – they wanted a healthy baby and a healthy mother – but because the hospital Trust that should have given them answers gave them silence instead, and they had nowhere else to turn.

What this is like to live through

The facts and figures of the Ockenden review tell one part of the story. The human reality is another.

Families describe not being believed as one of the most damaging parts of their experience – not just the original harm, but the years of dismissal that followed.  Concerns raised and ignored.  Notes that did not reflect what was actually said in appointments. Injuries attributed to other causes without adequate investigation, while families were left to fight alone for answers.

Many families have read their medical records for the first time during this process and found things that contradict what they were told at the time. Some have found evidence of decisions that were never communicated to them at all. Reading those records can be profoundly retraumatising – and yet it is also, for many, the moment when they finally understand that what they experienced was real, that their instincts were right, and that they were not to blame.

One family we spoke to recently, in the course of our work with Ockenden families, asked a question I have not been able to stop thinking about: “Why are parents of harmed children having to fight so hard?”

It is a question the report must help to answer. And it is a question that must produce real change – not just acknowledgement, but action.

There is something else I want to acknowledge. Within the Ockenden review there are bereaved families – parents whose babies or whose partners did not survive – and there are families raising children with serious, lifelong disabilities. These two groups are bound together by this process, and many families in both situations have told us they feel a complicated guilt: grief for what they have lost alongside awareness of others’ different losses.

If you are experiencing that, you are not alone, and you are not wrong to feel it. Both experiences of harm are valid. Both deserve to be heard.

What this means legally – what families should know now

Not every case in the Ockenden review will give rise to a legal claim, and I want to say that clearly and honestly. But there are legal points that many families are not aware of, and some have been given advice by previous solicitors that does not reflect the full picture. Here is what I believe families should understand.

We cannot tell you immediately whether you have a claim – but we can tell you whether it is worth investigating. Decades of specialist experience mean we can identify whether there is sufficient merit to look further, particularly once we have access to medical records, complaint outcomes, Ockenden reports or Serious Untoward Incident Reports. In many cases, that investigation can proceed without the family having to pay our legal costs or expert evidence fees, if the evidence does not support a claim.

The causation test. It is not enough to show that something went wrong, or that the care fell below the expected standard.  To recover compensation, we must also show, on the balance of probabilities, that the negligent care caused or materially contributed to the injury or loss. Where there are multiple possible causes of a child’s condition – including a co-existing genetic diagnosis – that does not automatically rule out a claim. Expert evidence is needed to identify the competing causes and to consider whether the negligent care made a material contribution to the outcome. However, if a child would have suffered some disability in any event, compensation can only be recovered for the additional injury, disability or loss caused by the negligence.

Wrongful birth. This is a cause of action that is frequently overlooked by non-specialists. It may arise where parents were not given information which, if known at the time, would have led them to make a different decision about continuing the pregnancy. In those cases, the claim is not that the negligence caused the child’s disability, but that the parents were deprived of the opportunity to make an informed choice. This is a sensitive and complex area of law that requires specialist handling.

If a previous solicitor told you there is no claim, that is not necessarily the end of the road. Over the course of my career I have acted for many clients who went on to secure significant compensation after being told elsewhere that their case had no merit.  The quality of that advice depends on whether the person giving it had the right specialist experience. If you were seen by a general personal injury solicitor rather than a specialist in birth injury and clinical negligence, it can be worth seeking a second opinion. When choosing a specialist, it is worth checking whether they hold a recognised panel membership from the Law Society or AvMA, the specialist charity for patient safety. It is also worth considering what independent legal directories, including the Legal 500, say about their experience. These are meaningful indicators of genuine specialist expertise, rather than general personal injury practice alone.

Time limits.  The rules are different for children. In most cases involving a child, the three-year limitation period does not start to run until their 18th birthday. Where a person lacks capacity, the position may be different again. For parents bringing a claim for wrongful birth, the three-year period runs from the child’s date of birth. For parents claiming for psychiatric injury, such as PTSD, the period can sometimes run from the date of knowledge – when they first knew, or could reasonably have known, that negligence may have caused their injury. However, limitation can be complex and disputed, so we always recommend treating the child’s date of birth as the safest starting point unless the facts clearly suggest otherwise. If you have any doubt about timing, take specialist advice now rather than waiting.

Records.  Medical records are the foundation of any potential claim. Some families have found that records can go missing, or that evidence becomes harder to retrieve the longer it is left. We strongly recommend requesting your records as early as possible. If you have already received your Ockenden report, that document is also significant evidence. Do not wait.

Cerebral palsy and complex brain injury cases. These cases take many years to investigate properly.  The earlier a family contacts a specialist, the sooner they can receive advice on the merits of the case, if a claim can be established, the sooner steps can be taken to seek interim financial support for the child during their most important developmental years. Early contact is not a commitment to pursue a claim. It is simply the best way to understand your options while time and evidence are on your side.

Cases outside the Ockenden review. Barratts is currently in contact with families in Nottingham and across the UK whose cases were not included in the review – either because they fell outside the period covered by the review, or because they were not identified or referred. Not being part of the Ockenden review does not mean a case has no merit. If you have concerns about maternity care at NUH, or at any other hospital Trust, it is worth seeking specialist advice regardless of whether your case is formally within the review’s scope.

The proposed government reforms. The government is currently considering reforms to clinical negligence compensation, including possible changes to the way future care and treatment are valued in compensation awards. I have serious concerns about what any restriction on claims for private care would mean for the most seriously injured children and their families, and I will be writing about this in detail separately. For now, the most important thing for families to know is that the current law applies to claims being investigated now. If you have concerns about your options, take advice under the current framework before any changes come into effect.

What to do if you are affected

If you are waiting for your individualised Ockenden report and want to understand what it might mean for your legal options, it may be worth speaking to a specialist clinical negligence solicitor before it arrives, or soon afterwards. Understanding the legal framework in advance can help you know what questions to ask when the report is received, and can avoid you making important decisions under the acute pressure of having just read something deeply painful.

If you have already received your grading and want to understand what it means in practical terms, we can help you think through what it indicates and whether it is worth investigating further.

If you were previously told you have no claim, please do not assume that is the final word.

When you contact Barratts, you will speak with a specialist in birth injury and clinical negligence from the outset.  You will not be passed through a call centre where you might be talking to an administrator. Calling Barratts will mean you talk to someone with the knowledge and experience to understand your situation and give you an honest assessment of whether there is merit in looking further.

We cannot tell you in that first conversation whether you have a claim. But we can tell you whether your case is worth investigating, and we can do so with the benefit of decades of experience in exactly these cases.

Many families also tell us that one of the most frightening aspects of their situation is not knowing what will happen to their child if they are no longer there to fight for them. A successful clinical negligence claim, where one exists, can provide long-term financial security and genuine peace of mind about a child’s future. That security is not available to every family, but where a claim can be established, it is one of the most meaningful things the legal process can provide.

There is no pressure and no obligation in speaking with us. If you have questions about where you stand, contact Barratts to speak to a specialist and understand your options.

Call us on 0115 931 5171 or email me and I will come back to you promptly.

Alison Brooks is a Partner at Barratts and leads the firm’s clinical negligence practice. She has represented families in birth injury and clinical negligence cases for over 35 years, across England and Wales, including families currently supported through the Ockenden review into maternity services at Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust. In 2025, Alison was inducted into The Legal 500 Hall of Fame in recognition of her outstanding work helping injured clients win clinical negligence claims. 

Nottingham Maternity Investigation: Individual Suspension Raises Wider Questions

/in ,

Update: 24 June 2026

The Ockenden report into maternity services at NUH was published today. It formally confirms, on a scale that should shock us all, the systemic failures in supervision, culture and escalation that this article described in March. For families affected by the review, our full guide to the report – including what the grading system means and what your legal options may be – is available here: The Ockenden Report: What Families Affected by NUH Maternity Care Need to Know.

27 March 2026

The recent decision to suspend an individual clinician in connection with concerns about maternity care at Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust is a significant and unusual step. It reflects the seriousness of the issues being investigated. However, it should not be viewed in isolation.

How Systems and Supervision Should Protect Patients

In maternity services, patient safety depends on systems, not just individuals. Care is delivered through teams, with layers of supervision, oversight and governance designed to identify risks early and prevent harm. Where action is taken against one clinician, it inevitably raises broader questions about how those systems were functioning.

How was this individual’s work supervised? What level of oversight was in place at critical decision points? And were there opportunities for colleagues to review, challenge or escalate concerns where necessary?

These are not new questions. Investigations into maternity services across the UK – including the ongoing review into services at Nottingham – have repeatedly identified similar themes: failures to act on early warning signs, concerns not being escalated, and patterns in outcomes only being recognised after harm has occurred.

Culture also plays a crucial role. In a safe and effective clinical environment, staff should feel able to speak up and challenge decisions where needed. Where that does not happen, it raises concerns about whether issues may have gone unaddressed for longer than they should have.

Another key issue is whether lessons are being learned. Previous inquiries have made clear recommendations, yet in some cases the same problems continue to arise. These problems include delays in intervention and failures in communication. This raises an important question about whether systems are not only identifying problems, but responding to them effectively.

Clinical Failings and the Role of the Individual

While the focus may currently be on one individual, the wider context is essential. Serious clinical failings rarely occur in isolation. They are often the result of multiple breakdowns across supervision, governance, communication and culture.

Patient safety depends on systems that identify and address problems early. It is not good enough to rely on systems that only react once serious harm has occurred.

For families affected by maternity care failures, particularly those connected to services in Nottingham,  these issues are not theoretical. They can have lifelong consequences. Understanding what happened, and ensuring accountability, is an important part of moving forward. This is true for those families and for improving care in the future.

Have you been affected by any of the issues raised in this article, in Nottingham or elsewhere? If you would like a free, confidential conversation please contact Alison Brooks. Alison is a highly experienced clinical negligence solicitor who was admitted into the Legal 500 Hall of Fame for her outstanding work for clients. For a full guide to the Ockenden report, what the grading system means and what families’ legal options may be, please read our detailed resource for families. Alternatively, contact Alison Brooks directly for a free, confidential conversation.

Beyond the Headlines: What a Serious Injury Taught Ed Hudson About Rehabilitation and the Long Term

/in ,

Recent national media coverage, including an article in The Times, told the story of Ed Hudson, trainee solicitor at Barratts Solicitors, walking down the aisle at his wedding, five years after a cycling accident left him with a high-level spinal cord injury. It was a moment that resonated widely, capturing resilience, adaptation and the significance of a milestone once thought impossible.

That moment, however, represents only a single chapter in a much longer and more complex journey. Behind the headlines lie years of medical treatment, rehabilitation, adjustment and planning. Over time, Ed gradually reshaped what life could look like after catastrophic injury.

This article looks beyond the public story to reflect on what Ed learned along the way – about spinal injury, the realities of rehabilitation, and the importance of long-term thinking at a time when the future can feel impossibly uncertain. Drawing on his perspective as a former doctor, a person living with a spinal cord injury, and now a trainee solicitor working in serious injury law, Ed offers insight shaped not by theory, but by lived experience over time.

This article may be helpful if you:

What Happens After a High-Level Spinal Cord Injury: Understanding Versus Living It

In February 2018, Ed was cycling to work at the Queen’s Medical Centre in Nottingham, where he was working as a Foundation Year 1 doctor in general surgery, when he was hit by a car and thrown from his bike. He sustained a high-level spinal cord injury at C4/C5, resulting in tetraplegia.

He underwent surgery and spent a prolonged period in intensive and high dependency care before being transferred to a specialist spinal injuries unit.

As a doctor, Ed understood immediately what a high cervical spinal injury could mean. He was aware of the likely implications for movement, sensation and breathing, and of the seriousness of what had happened. That clinical knowledge, however, did not prepare him for the lived reality of the months that followed.

In the early stages after injury, life became confined to a single space and a tightly controlled routine. Everyday actions required assistance, and decisions about movement, comfort and timing were largely out of his hands.

The contrast between understanding an injury in theory and experiencing the loss of independence that followed was stark. What Ed had known intellectually as a clinician quickly became a personal experience of dependency, restriction and uncertainty that would shape the years ahead.

Why Early Rehabilitation Can Feel Slow and Uncertain After Serious Injury

For many people, the early phase of rehabilitation is one of the most frustrating parts of recovery.

Ed’s early recovery was marked by a prolonged stay in hospital, where the focus was necessarily on medical stability rather than rehabilitation in its broader sense. Months were spent in a ward environment that offered limited privacy and little opportunity for autonomy.

While essential care was provided, the setting placed clear constraints on how much progress could realistically be made, particularly for someone with a high-level spinal injury. In an under-resourced system, the pace of rehabilitation felt slow and uncertain.

Daily routines were dictated by availability rather than individual need, and opportunities to practise independence were limited. Over time, this affected not just Ed’s physical progress, but his morale. When days feel repetitive and horizons remain unchanged, it becomes difficult to see how improvement might unfold.

During this period, Ed became increasingly aware that recovery could not be understood as a short phase of acute treatment. Stabilisation alone was not enough. Meaningful progress would require time, specialist input and a plan that looked beyond discharge dates and immediate care needs.

The lack of clarity about what came next – and when – carried its own emotional and psychological weight, adding to the strain of an already challenging period.

How Specialist Rehabilitation Changes What Is Possible After Injury

Over time, it became clear that remaining in the same setting was unlikely to deliver the kind of rehabilitation Ed needed.

Specialist case management was introduced, alongside interim funding that made it possible to look beyond what was immediately available within the hospital system. This marked an important shift, not a sudden change in physical ability, but a change in what was possible.

Ed was able to move to STEPS, a dedicated neurological rehabilitation facility. There, the focus extended beyond basic care and medical stability.

The environment itself was different. Instead of life being confined to a bed space or a single ward, rehabilitation took place across a wider setting, with structured input from a consistent team who had time to work with him over months rather than weeks.

That change had a significant impact, both practically and psychologically. Specialist rehabilitation expanded Ed’s physical world and, with it, his sense of what life after injury might look like.

Progress was gradual and often hard won. There were no miracle outcomes – only steady gains, grounded in time, consistency and expertise, and supported by a plan that recognised rehabilitation as a long-term process rather than a short phase to be endured.

Rehabilitation Is Not Just Physical: Adjustment, Agency and Identity After Injury

Over time, Ed came to understand rehabilitation as something far broader than physical recovery alone.

Alongside structured therapy sessions, there was a quieter but equally significant process taking place: psychological adjustment to a life that had changed permanently. Rehabilitation became a space not just to work on movement and function, but to begin rebuilding a sense of identity and self-direction.

One of the most important skills Ed developed was learning how to communicate his needs and direct the care around him. For someone with a high-level spinal injury, regaining agency does not mean doing everything independently.

Instead, it means understanding how to work with others to shape daily life, comfort and priorities. Having consistent staff and time to practise this was a critical part of that process.

Accepting that some aspects of life would not return to how they had been was not a single moment, but an ongoing adjustment. Ed has reflected openly on the grief and sense of loss that accompanied that realisation.

At the same time, STEPS specialist rehabilitation created space to plan for a future that was different, but still meaningful. The hope that emerged was realistic rather than idealised. It was grounded in adaptation, support and the gradual rebuilding of his life in a way that still holds purpose and fulfilment.

As part of that long-term planning, specialist accommodation support played an important role. From an early stage, Steven Docker Associates were instructed to advise on Ed’s housing needs. Initially, this involved finding and adapting a rental property that would allow Ed to continue his rehabilitation following discharge from STEPS. Later, once his legal case had settled, the focus shifted to creating a permanent, fully accessible home for Ed, his partner Izzy and their daughter Tabitha.

Drawing on the practical experience gained during five years in the adapted rental property, Ed and Izzy worked closely with Steven Docker Associates to design a bespoke, purpose-built home tailored to Ed’s needs, with level access throughout and the flexibility to adapt over time. Their involvement at every stage ensured that the finished home reflected not only accessibility requirements, but the way the family wanted to live, both now and in the future. Take a look at a case study from Steven Docker Associates showing how their work with Ed and Izzy created a fully accessible home for their family.  

Why Long-Term Planning Matters in Catastrophic Injury Cases

It was only later, after retraining in law, that Ed began to fully understand how decisions made early after injury can shape life many years down the line.

With the benefit of legal training, he was able to look back at his own experience and see rehabilitation funding, care provision and housing not as isolated issues, but as part of a long-term framework designed to support independence and quality of life over decades.

From this perspective, rehabilitation is not simply about maximising recovery in the months after injury. It is about planning for ongoing care needs, creating living environments that enable autonomy, and ensuring that support can adapt as life changes.

These considerations often sit outside acute medical treatment, yet they have a profound impact on how sustainable and fulfilling life after injury can be.

Ed’s experience has highlighted how closely medicine and law intersect in cases of catastrophic injury. Medical treatment addresses immediate survival and stability, but long-term planning – informed by legal support – helps translate that survival into a life with choice, dignity and continuity.

Why Ed Chose Barratts – and Why He Is Now Part of the Team

As Ed approached discharge from the spinal injuries unit, it became increasingly clear to him that his rehabilitation needs were not being fully addressed within the existing legal framework. Although he had already instructed solicitors, he felt that progress was limited at a critical point when decisions about rehabilitation, accommodation and care were becoming urgent.

Drawing on his medical training and his growing understanding of what lay ahead, Ed decided to take a more active role. He interviewed a number of leading personal injury law firms before selecting Barratts Solicitors to pursue his claim. What mattered to him was not only our legal expertise, but our clear understanding of catastrophic injury, rehabilitation pathways and the need for timely, coordinated action.

From Barratts’ perspective, Ed’s case stood out because of the urgency and complexity of his situation. With an imminent discharge from the spinal unit and no suitable accommodation in place, early intervention was critical. Barratts worked collaboratively with insurers under the Serious Injury Guide (and pushed to go beyond it) to secure case management, specialist rehabilitation at STEPS, appropriate accommodation and a structured care regime that could support Ed in the long term.

Reflecting on Ed’s later decision to join the firm as a trainee solicitor, Lesley Edwards, Partner and Head of Personal Injury at Barratts Solicitors has described his contribution as exceptional. Ed brings together three perspectives that are rarely held by one person: clinical understanding as a doctor, lived experience of catastrophic injury and rehabilitation, and formal legal training in serious injury law. That combination informs not only how he understands cases, but how he listens to clients, anticipates challenges and appreciates the realities behind the paperwork.

“I came to work at Barratt’s to pay forward the life changing service they provided me, to use my experience to help the next individual in a position similar to mine maximize their potential and live the life they deserve.” Ed Hudson, January 2026

Life After Injury Is About Adaptation, Not “Overcoming”

Public attention has understandably focused on visible milestones such as Ed’s wedding and the moment he walked down the aisle. While those events carry personal meaning, Ed is clear that they do not represent “overcoming” his injury.

Rather, they are part of living well within a life that has been reshaped by permanent change.

Assistive technology plays a practical role in enabling those moments, but Ed does not see it as symbolic. Tools such as powered mobility or wearable devices are simply that – tools.

They facilitate participation. They are not signs of recovery or transformation. Their value lies in what they make possible day to day, not in how they appear from the outside.

Framing life after injury solely around headline moments can place unhelpful pressure on others who are earlier in their journey. Ed’s experience points to a different reality.

Progress is built through adaptation, sustained support and careful planning over time. Fulfilment does not depend on exceptional moments, but on creating a life that works consistently and realistically in the long term.

If You Are Newly Injured: What the Early Months Can Feel Like

For many people, the early stages after a serious injury are overwhelming.

Pain, exhaustion and uncertainty can sit alongside a constant stream of information and decisions, often at a time when physical and emotional reserves are already depleted. Ed recognises that this period can feel not just difficult, but deeply destabilising.

In the months after injury, it is common for life to feel dramatically smaller. Days may revolve around a single room, a rigid routine or the next clinical task, with little sense of how that narrow world might ever expand again.

This is not a failure of resilience or attitude. It is a natural response to sudden and profound change.

Ed’s experience offers realism shaped by time. With appropriate support, specialist rehabilitation and the space to adjust, perspective can shift gradually.

Progress is rarely quick or linear. The way life feels in the earliest stages is not necessarily how it will always feel. Change, when it comes, often arrives quietly – through adaptation, understanding and the steady rebuilding of confidence over time.

What Lived Experience Brings to Understanding Serious Injury Law

Ed now works in personal injury law as a trainee solicitor at Barratts. He brings together his background in medicine, his lived experience of spinal cord injury, and his developing legal expertise.

This combination gives him a perspective shaped not by theory alone, but by navigating rehabilitation, care and long-term planning firsthand.

Living with a catastrophic injury has informed how Ed understands uncertainty, adjustment and the pace at which change can realistically occur. It has fostered patience, attentiveness and an appreciation of how complex and individual each journey can be.

Ed’s journey reflects what can emerge when appropriate support, informed decision-making and time are allowed to work together. For those at the start of their own journey, his perspective offers understanding, stability and a sense of direction.

If you would like to talk to someone

If this article has raised questions about rehabilitation, long-term planning or life after serious injury, you may find it helpful to speak to someone with experience in this area.

Lesley Edwards is a Partner and Head of Personal Injury at Barratts Solicitors. She acted for Ed during his serious injury claim and works with people who have sustained catastrophic injuries, where early, informed support around rehabilitation, care and long-term needs is critical.

You can view Lesley’s profile

You can also find details of the wider personal injury team

 

Maternity Safety in England: What National Investigations Show and What Families Need to Know

/in ,

Informed by Barratts’ decades of specialist experience supporting families

Update: 23rd January 2026
Barratts’ response to recent national reviews and lived experiences 

Since this article was published, there has been renewed national attention on maternity safety in England, prompted by both official reviews and extensive media reporting.

Public voices and lived experience

This month Sky News aired a special programme bringing together the experiences of women and families who describe traumatic maternity care.

The accounts shared publicly reflect recurring themes seen across national investigations:

  • concerns being dismissed or minimised
  • delays in recognising serious deterioration
  • lack of empathy following baby loss or serious harm
  • long-term physical and psychological consequences for mothers and families

Many contributors describe the lasting impact of these experiences on their health, family life and ability to work, years after giving birth.

While individual stories are deeply personal, their consistency reinforces what multiple inquiries have already found: the same safety and culture issues continue to arise across different services and over time.

Why this matters

Taken together, the interim review findings and recent media coverage, including Sky News, underline a central point: despite repeated investigations, harm continues to occur in ways that families recognise as preventable.

For many parents, the most distressing aspect is not only what happened, but:

  • feeling unheard
  • not receiving clear explanations
  • and experiencing a lack of openness or accountability afterwards

Understanding these national patterns can help families make sense of their own experiences and why so many people report similar concerns.

Our approach

At Barratts, we are closely following these developments as part of our wider focus on serious injury and clinical negligence, including birth injury and maternity-related harm.

This article will continue to be updated as further national findings are published.

If you or your family have been affected by maternity care and would like clear, honest information, you can speak with a senior lawyer, like Alison Brooks, as part of our free initial conversation.

Understanding Maternity Safety in England: What National Investigations Reveal and Why Families’ Experiences Matter

For more than 30 years, we have supported families affected by serious failings in maternity and neonatal care across England. In that time, we have heard remarkably consistent experiences: parents who felt something was wrong but were not fully heard; delays in care; unanswered questions after traumatic events; and difficulties understanding what investigations meant for their family.

The interim findings from the National Maternity and Neonatal Investigation – widely covered by the BBC this week – bring these issues back into public focus. The accounts described in the report are deeply distressing: women left without basic support, delays in responding to warning signs, and discriminatory experiences among Black, Asian and working-class women.

Many families reading this may feel unsettled or unsure what this means for them personally. Others may be encountering this information for the first time.

This article brings together the key themes that appear across national investigations over the past decade. Our intention is not to overwhelm, but to help families see the bigger picture – and to understand how this week’s findings fit into what many parents have been raising quietly for years. Alison Brooks spoke at a recent conference with other clinical negligence solicitors and asked why lessons are still not learned from errors made. No-one seems to have the answer; we welcome reviews that might help to change this and avoid future negligence claims which are so devastating for affected families.

In Brief: Key Themes Seen Across National Maternity Investigations

  • National investigations over more than 10 years – including Morecambe Bay, Shrewsbury & Telford, East Kent, Nottingham, Leeds and now the Amos Review – show recurring patterns of maternity safety concerns.
  • Repeated themes include families not being listened to, escalation delays, inequalities in care, and inconsistent investigation processes.
  • These are system-level issues, not reflections of any individual family’s actions.
  • Many parents feel unsure before seeking help; that uncertainty is normal.
  • Barratts offers a free, confidential conversation with a senior lawyer, with no pressure and no obligation.
  • Our decades of experience means we can review records and documents to let you know if there may be a negligence claim and give you choices to decide what is best for you.

Why These Findings Matter for Families Today

National reviews, regulatory reports and inquiries highlight four recurring themes. Under each, we share insights based on our specialist experience supporting families.

Theme 1: Families Not Feeling Fully Heard

What National Investigations Consistently Report

Across multiple public reviews, parents describe raising concerns that were not fully acknowledged or acted upon. Examples come from inquiries such as Ockenden, East Kent, Nottingham Review and interim findings from the current National Maternity and Neonatal Investigation.

What Families Often Say

Parents frequently describe:

  • Sensing something was wrong but struggling to get attention

  • Not being taken seriously and instincts being undermined

  • Feeling that they were in the wrong when raising warnings

This emotional labour – having to self-advocate in vulnerable moments – is a common theme across public reports.

Why This Happens at System Level

Public inquiries often describe:

  • Communication breakdowns

  • Overstretched teams

  • Hesitancy to escalate concerns

  • Unclear roles during busy periods

These are system issues which need to be addressed.

Theme 2: Delays in Escalation and Missed Warning Signs

What Investigations Highlight

Reports including Shrewsbury & Telford, East Kent, MBRRACE maternal deaths and the Amos interim findings repeatedly describe challenges in recognising or acting on signs that required clinical escalation.

Common Questions Families Ask

Families often wonder:

  • “Should someone have noticed earlier?”

  • “Is this something that happens often?”

  • “Was it just a series of events that built up?”

We speak to many parents who are asking themselves these same questions and we help them to get the answers they need.

System Insight

Public investigations frequently refer to multiple small opportunities for escalation that accumulate over time, not one error. These failings are often influenced by staffing pressures, unclear decision pathways and conflicting priorities during busy periods.

Theme 3: Inequalities and Disparities in Maternity Experience

What National Reports Show

Reviews such as MBRRACE, East Kent and the Amos interim report describe differences in risk, treatment and listening across groups, with Black, Asian and working-class women reporting feeling dismissed or not fully believed.

How Families Describe This

Some parents describe feeling they had to push harder to be heard, which can be deeply exhausting. This is emotionally draining and can shape how safe or supported someone feels during maternity care.

Why This Matters

The inequalities spoken about in public investigations are systemic. This bias is often unconscious but it can shape how quickly concerns are acted upon. Recognising this is essential for understanding why experiences differ between families.

Theme 4: Investigations, Learning and Early-Warning Systems

What Families Often Need

Many families struggle with internal investigations that feel incomplete or unclear. However, public reports show that families reasonably expect:

  • Plain-language explanations

  • A clear timeline

  • A chance to ask questions

  • Sensitivity and transparency

How Systems Are Evolving

To improve safety and transparency, national bodies have introduced mechanisms such as:

  • MNSI (Maternity and Neonatal Safety Improvement Programme)

  • CQC maternity ratings

  • The MOSS early-warning system

  • HSIB/MNSI independent investigations

These are designed to give families reassurance, along with clear information about services and the standards they can reasonably expect.

Why These Patterns Keep Repeating: A System-Level View of Maternity Services

Across investigations and across our work supporting families four recurrent system pressures appear:

  • Communication gaps due to unclear roles, busy units, disrupted handovers

  • Cultural barriers leading to staff being afraid or unwilling to challenge decisions

  • Resource pressures, including staffing shortages and limited space

  • Fragmented learning so lessons remain local rather than embedded nationally

These challenges interact and compound each other. Understanding these patterns helps families see their experience not as an isolated event, but as part of broader patterns that independent reviews continue to highlight.

What Families Can Expect From a Maternity Investigation

Although every investigation is different, we believe that every family should be given 5 important things.

  1. A clear chronological account of events

  2. Identification of missed opportunities or system pressures

  3. Assurance that concerns have been taken seriously

  4. The chance to ask follow-up questions

  5. Communication that is sensitive, honest, respectful and supportive

These are reasonable expectations whether or not a family chooses to seek professional support. If you have an experience that fell short of this standard, we are hear to listen.

Responding to These Reports

It is completely normal to feel overwhelmed, angry, confused or exhausted when reading reports like this. Repeated national findings can feel like confirmation of something deeply painful rather than reassurance that change is coming.

You do not need to have answers before speaking to someone.
You do not need to be sure something went wrong.
You do not need to have the language to describe what happened.

If you would like to talk privately and without pressure, our senior clinical negligence lawyers are here to listen and help you understand what steps – if any – you may wish to take. This is part of Barratts’ free initial conversation which we also offer to anyone who has a lawyer but still has concerns. You can call us on (0115) 931 51 71 to talk about your experience.

About the Author

Alison Brooks – Senior Partner, Clinical Negligence Specialist

  • 35+ years’ experience supporting families affected by maternity and neonatal failings
  • Legal 500 Hall of Fame
  • AvMA Panel Member
  • Law Society Clinical Negligence Panel Member
  • APIL Fellow
  • Specialist in maternal injury, birth trauma, delayed diagnosis and neonatal brain injury

Frequently Asked Questions

What does the Amos maternity investigation mean for families?

Amos highlights recurring concerns, including delays, communication problems and variation in basic care. As the report shows, these experiences are not isolated which may help families understand why their concerns feel familiar.

Are maternity safety problems happening across England?

National reports over more than a decade show similar patterns in multiple trusts. This does not mean all care is unsafe, but it does mean issues are widespread enough to require continued scrutiny.

How do I know if my maternity care fell short?

You do not need to make that judgement alone. Many families seek support because something “doesn’t feel right,” even if they are unsure why. Talking through the sequence of events with an experienced professional can help.

What should I expect from a maternity investigation?

Plain-language explanations, an opportunity to ask questions, respectful communication, and transparency about any missed opportunities or lessons learned.

Can I talk to someone even if I’m not sure something went wrong?

Yes. Many families contact us simply because they feel unsettled and want clarity. A confidential conversation can help you understand your options without commitment.

Alison Brooks joins The Legal 500 Hall of Fame

/in ,

A national award for outstanding client care

This year, The Legal 500 has honoured Alison Brooks, Head of Clinical Negligence at Barratts Solicitors, for her outstanding work over her 37 year career helping injured clients win clinical negligence claims.

Alison has been elevated to the Legal 500 Hall of Fame.  This is a small group of lawyers recognised as the very best in their field.  The accolade is given only to partners who have earned consistent praise from clients and respect from other professionals for many years with a track record of exceptional work.

What this means for our clients

This recognition is about more than just an accolade; it is a sign that clients who choose Barratts are working with one of the country’s most trusted solicitors in the field of clinical negligence.  It means:

  • Clients know they are in safe, experienced hands.
  • Other lawyers and medical experts value Alison’s knowledge and judgment.
  • Her track record of excellent results is based on client satisfaction over many years.

For anyone facing a difficult or complex clinical negligence case, this brings real reassurance and peace of mind.

Alison’s work and approach

Alison leads our Clinical Negligence Team, working on cases involving birth injuries, delayed diagnosis by GPs and trusts, surgical errors and other life-changing outcomes.  She combines in-depth legal knowledge with empathy and understanding.

Alison’s focus is always on getting the best outcome for each individual client.  It is not simply a question of compensation.  For Alison, it means helping clients rebuild their lives and get access to the care and support they need now and in the future.

Alison says

“It’s a real honour to be named in The Legal 500 Hall of Fame. It is especially gratifying to me that it is based on reviews over many decades from my clients, peers and professionals who trust me and the team here and the results we achieve together.”

Excellence across Barratts

Barratts was set up nearly 35 years ago to offer a personal, bespoke service for injured clients.   Our clients work directly with experienced lawyers who take time to listen, explain, and guide every step of the way.

Managing Partner Ross Brain says:

“Alison’s recognition reflects the values that define Barratts – skill, care, and compassion. We are proud that her dedication to clients has been recognised at the highest level.”

About The Legal 500 Hall of Fame

The Legal 500 is an independent guide that ranks the best lawyers and law firms in the UK and worldwide.

The Hall of Fame lists lawyers who are widely regarded as being at the very top of their profession.  Recognition is based on substantial and sustained client praise and peer endorsement over many years for their knowledge, care and consistent results.

Being named in the Hall of Fame is one of the highest accolades a lawyer can achieve.  Elevation to this position shows long-term excellence and trust with a track record of exceptional work.

Find out more:

Barratts Solicitors are recognised nationally for their work in serious injury and clinical negligence.  If you or someone close to you has been affected by medical negligence, our team is here to listen and help.

Learn more about Alison Brooks and our Clinical Negligence Team
Contact us for a free initial chat

Work Begins on new premises for Footprints Conductive Education Centre

/in , ,

Thank you to everyone who gave up their time and energy on Sunday, to help Footprints Conductive Education Centre move into their new home. A real team effort by trustees, parents of children who used to attend the Centre, the Rotary Club of Nottingham and our very own Alison Brooks. Alison is head of our Clinical Negligence Department and Former Chair of Trustees of Footprints Conductive Education Centre.

Alison Brooks explained that she was first introduced to #conductiveeducation in the 1980s when a client was travelling to the Peto Institute in Hungary, because of a lack of facilities in the UK. Over many decades, Alison’s cerebral palsy clients tell her that without the benefit of #conductiveeducation they would not have achieved their full potential. The difference the Centre makes to the lives of children is immeasurable.

As you can see from the photos, there is still lots to do, but if the enthusiasm of volunteers on Sunday is anything to go by, we hope it will not be long before staff, parents and children are welcomed into the new facilities.

If you can spare some time, please contact Footprints Conductive Education Centre to attend their next volunteer day in Clifton.

Makaton At Christmas

/in ,

Footprints Conductive Education Centre (CEC) have kindly let us share their Makaton signing for everyone to use at Christmas. It’s a great way to learn some simple words to help communicate with children with special needs. Can you think of any other Christmas words you would like to share?  Why not try games over the holidays to see who can remember the signing? For more information about surviving over Christmas and keeping safe, go to https://www.footprintscec.org/

 

Pulmonary Embolism – why you need to act quickly.

/in , , ,

In 2018  Paul* contacted Alison Brooks to investigate a claim following the death of his wife, Mary*, in December 2017. She was only 64 years old and had died because of an undiagnosed Pulmonary Embolism (“PE”). This is when a blood clot develops in a pulmonary artery, often when the clot has started as a DVT in the leg. It is easily treatable because anti coagulants are given which break down the blood clot.

Paul knew about Legal 500, an independent legal guide which recommends lawyers in the UK , who are experts. Paul contacted Barratts Solicitors, because we are ranked in the top tier for clinical negligence claims, and asked Alison to help him investigate the death of his wife. He knew that he needed someone with experience to help, as the GP involved in Mary’s care, had denied that he had done anything wrong.

The Facts

In October 2017, Mary had undergone foot surgery and was recovering from the operation but, on 1st December, she began to feel breathless. Paul called the GP surgery and Mary was seen by a doctor who carried out some tests. Despite noting that PE was a possibility, he decided that Mary probably had bronchitis, a condition she had previously suffered from, and prescribed antibiotics.

Mary continued to feel unwell but believed she would soon feel better with the antibiotics. Tragically, in the early hours of 3rd December, Mary collapsed from a huge Pulmonary Embolism. Paul was trained in First Aid and tried to resuscitate his wife, but it was too late, and nothing could be done to save Mary.

The Claim

Paul wanted to ensure that the GP would not make the same mistake again, but the GP did not accept that his assessment of Mary had been negligent. Alison recognised that Paul was also suffering because of the traumatic circumstances of Mary’s death and might be able to claim compensation for his psychiatric illness. This is called a “secondary victim” award and can be hard to prove in medical cases because of restrictions in the law, which limit who can make a claim.

Paul was also suffering financially as he had his own health problems and relied on Mary to look after him. A claim for the support, that Mary would have provided to Paul, was made, as well as an award for her pain and suffering and funeral costs. When someone dies, the Government also sets a fixed amount for bereavement damages. This was £12,890 under the Fatal Accidents Act 1976 for deaths before 1 May 2020.

The Defence

A claim was issued against the GP who saw Mary on 1st December. We argued that the Defendant:

  • Should have carried our further tests for PE, at home or in hospital – the Wells score was developed by NICE (the National Institute for Clinical Excellence) and any result over 4 means a PE is likely; Mary’s score was 4.5.
  • Failed to properly inform Mary and her husband that Pulmonary Embolism was more likely than a chest infection and was potentially fatal if left untreated.
  • Did not follow up with Mary and falsely reassured her by prescribing antibiotics.

The Defendant argued that he did not refer Mary to hospital because she had refused to go in for treatment. A small note in the GP records stated:

Plan; offered admission for PE -patient declined.

The Defendant tried to rely on this entry, but we believed that a Court would not have accepted this defence because:

  • Mary had not refused medical treatment before and it would have been irrational for her to refuse admission to hospital, for a potentially fatal condition, if properly informed.
  • Paul was present during the examination, and the ambulance records showed that he also believed Mary just had a chest infection.
  • A GP with a patient refusing life threatening treatment would have made a very full note to explain the patient’s decision but the Defendant’s note was sparse.
  • If the Defendant was correct, Mary could still have been treated in the Community without going to hospital but the GP did nothing.

The Defence agreed that Mary would have survived if admitted to hospital any time on 1st December. This meant the case would succeed if we could show the GP had not provided a reasonable standard of care.

The GP continued to defend the case but we proposed a settlement meeting in 2021 and were able to settle the case with very little deduction for the risk of losing the case at Trial. This indicated that the Defendant’s advisers probably took a similar view to us about the case.

This has been a very difficult few years for Paul. He will never forget Mary; they were married for 18 years. Paul was disappointed that the GP never admitted any fault for Mary’s death, but he has recovered from his own psychiatric illness and has a new partner. Paul agreed to share this story as he wanted to highlight the risks of DVTs and Pulmonary Embolisms for others, in the hope that someone else recognises the signs and can be treated before it is too late.

*Please note that the clients’ names have been anonymised.

Thirty Years And Continuing….

/in , ,

Over thirty years ago, David Tomlinson, Malcolm Goff and Jill Barratt decided to set up a Claimant injury litigation law firm with a difference. Their ambition was to offer a personal service, focused only on injured clients and their needs. This was achieved by ensuring that clients were advised by specialist lawyers who were experienced in claims arising from an accident or due to medical negligence, with the same senior lawyer dealing with the claim from start to finish.

Since it was established, Barratts has been ranked number 1, every year, in the independent legal guides, Legal 500 and Chambers, for our work in the fields of clinical negligence and personal injury.

Ed Myers and Alison Brooks joined over 20 years ago and became partners in the firm, helping to develop the personal injury and clinical negligence departments. Malcolm and Jill retired some years ago but the same ethos of client care from a small, dedicated firm, continued under the leadership of David, Ed and Alison. The firm’s services were expanded to include Court of Protection work for injured clients, as many wanted Barratts to continue to support them once their claim settled.

After decades of hard work by David and Ed, both have decided to retire, opening a new chapter for Barratts.

Alison was determined to continue the unique approach of  Barratts and knew that many clients chose Barratts because it felt more like a family run firm. It therefore made sense that Alison turned to a long standing colleague, Ross Brain, who had worked with Alison in London. Ross is former head of a large claimant clinical negligence department at a London firm. He has also spent time developing his business and management skills through other ventures, which made Ross the ideal candidate to work alongside Alison and all the staff.

Ross and Alison have embraced this opportunity to build on the firm’s reputation, with help from our loyal and experienced staff, many of whom have worked at Barratts for decades. We could not ask for a better team of lawyers and staff; they continue to fight for injured clients and to help them rebuild their lives following injury. We are extremely excited about the future of Barratts and to be able to continue the formidable legacy which started 30 years ago. The partner led service remains a unique part of our approach and, together, we have over 200 years combined experience to draw upon.

We are proud to have been described as one of the best firms in the country for personal injury and clinical negligence work. We would like to thank all our staff over the years, who have helped us to achieve such a remarkable standing for our claimant injury work.

 

 

 

Mental Health After Spinal Cord Injury

/in , ,

When someone is told they have a spinal cord injury, they need to come to terms with this psychologically as well as physically. Having a spinal cord injury has been especially hard during Covid and the Spinal Injuries Association (“SIA”) have just produced a report addressing the mental health needs of those affected by spinal cord injury and the additional challenges they face.

The SIA report, titled “It’s Not Just Physical”, involved research by the SIA with the Universities of Reading and Buckingham. The SIA recently had a fundraising event, the Gunpowder Ball, where a video from Donna Tuzul was shown. This is a film about life after Cauda Equina Syndrome and shows how the SIA helped Donna. Our clients have been supported by the SIA; their fantastic mentoring service is provided by others with SCI, who are more able to relate to how the person is feeling, having been through a similar pathway themselves. The SIA counselling service was “phenomenal” for Donna and highlights the importance of addressing mental as well as physical health.

The report also considers feedback from family members as well as those living spinal cord injury.  Did you know that someone with spinal cord injury is 3 times more likely to consider suicide and 47% report mental health problems? Nik Hartley, CEO of the SIA, has called on the Government to do more. The SIA is asking “the NHS, government and other health policy makers to provide better mental health support services for SCI people – and their unpaid carers – as a matter of urgency.”

Nik Hartley, SIA’s CEO highlighted:

“We are at risk of failing thousands of people in the UK living with a spinal cord injury. Our new report highlights that psychological damage caused by a SCI is, at best, considered as an afterthought, and at worst, completely ignored by the medical profession. We need urgent action and for services to be sufficiently specialised to support the thousands of people living with this type of injury before it is too late.”

For more news about this important research on the mental impact of living with spinal cord injury, read:

https://www.spinal.co.uk/news/not-just-physical/

Barratts are proud to be recognised by the SIA as specialist spinal cord injury solicitors, with expertise in helping people make claims after accidental spinal injury or negligence. For over 30 years we have acted for clients with SCI including missed cases of Cauda Equina Syndrome, road traffic accidents and accidents at work. If you need advice about SCI and think you may have a claim for clinical negligence or personal injury please contact our specialist teams.