Improve joint working between hospital sites
Morecambe Bay Investigation · Report of the Morecambe Bay Investigation · Issued 3 March 2015 · Addressed to: University Hospitals of Morecambe Bay NHS Foundation Trust
Government responseDepartment of Health and Social Care: Not applicable (Jul 2015)
DeliveryDHSC and NHS England say completed (Feb 2026)
Recommendation, verbatim from the inquiry
●Inquiry recommendation
The University Hospitals of Morecambe Bay NHS Foundation Trust should identify an approach to developing better joint working between its main hospital sites, including the development and operation of common policies, systems and standards. Whilst we do not believe that the introduction of extensive split-site responsibilities for clinical staff will do much other than lead to time wasted in travelling, we do consider that, as part of this approach, flexibility should be built into working responsibilities to provide temporary solutions to short-term staffing problems. This approach should be begun by September 2015.
Morecambe Bay Investigation, Report of the Morecambe Bay Investigation · 3 Mar 2015 Source PDF →
Published evidence summary
AI-generated evidence summary
In commentary from September 2024 published in February 2026, the Department of Health and Social Care and NHS England stated that the recommendation was implemented and closed, recording that the Thirlwall Inquiry had noted action taken in response (DHSC and NHS England, Feb 2026). Earlier, in May 2024, the Thirlwall Inquiry legal team found that the recommendation had been clearly implemented, citing the Trust's development of cross-bay obstetric and midwifery guidelines and Bay-wide procedural documents (The Thirlwall Inquiry legal team, May 2024).
AI-generated summary of the record on this page, checked by a second model and automatic checks, 26 Sep 2026.
Government response
●Department of Health and Social Care · Not applicable · 16 Jul 2015
[A] Recommendations for the Trust Recommendations for the Trust: 1-18 1. The Morecambe Bay Investigation found that there were serious failures in clinical care at University Hospitals Morecambe Bay NHS Foundation Trust, causing avoidable harm to mothers and babies including unnecessary deaths, and found that there was a pattern of Trust failure to recognise the severity and nature of the problem, compounded by denial. The Trust failed to look into serious incidents and sought to diminish the seriousness of the situation to others. At the Trust level there were failures in risk assessment and care planning; a deficient response to adverse incidents; and failure to investigate and improve. The Investigation Report, published on 3 March 2015, challenged the Trust to make a number of improvements quickly. 2. The Trust had earlier been placed into special measures in July 2014 following the Care Quality Commission inspection of February 2014. This means that they have to have made real improvements by the next Care Quality Commission inspection in July 2015. An Improvement Director appointed by Monitor provides constructive challenge as part of the process. The Care Quality Commission will publish their judgment of the Trust in the autumn. 3. To address both the requirements of special measures and the Morecambe Bay Investigation recommendations, the Trust has put substantial plans in place to make improvements. Delivery of these plans is overseen by several groups including a "Kirkup Recommendations Implementation Group". The Group reports to the Morecambe Bay Investigation sub-committee, which is a sub-committee of the Trust Board and the local Quality Surveillance Group (QSG), chaired by local NHS England representatives and ensuring that the Trust, clinical commissioning groups (CCGs), regulators and others are working together in the best interests of the local population. Progress reports are publicly available10. The Trust has taken care to involve affected families in groups looking at how their services can be made more effective and patient-centred. 4. The Trust is being inspected by the Care Quality Commission in July 2015 and it would be wrong to speculate whether sufficient progress will have been made by then. However the Trust reports that they have so far: • Formally admitted the extent and nature of the problems that occurred and apologised individually to families (recommendation 1); • Started to strengthen multi-disciplinary working - in particular between paediatricians, midwives, obstetricians and neonatal staff – as part of a broader, ongoing programme of work (recommendation 5); • With maternity staff, begun to review how investigations into incidents are carried out and started a programme to raise awareness of incident reporting, (recommendations 11 & 12); • Reviewed clinical leadership in terms of individuals and structures in obstetrics, paediatrics and midwifery (recommendation 14); and • Ensured that in carrying out all of these, the Trust is working closely with the Care Quality Commission, Monitor, NHS England and others (recommendation 18).
Delivery
●DHSC and NHS England say completed · 27 Feb 2026
The Thirlwall Inquiry has noted action taken in response to this recommendation.
What other bodies have found
●Thirlwall Inquiry legal team · 15 May 2024
In the Trust’s ‘One Year on’ report (April 2016):
Project Title: Governance Recommendations (p. 89) and Kirkup Workforce Project (p. 78).
9.1 “a multidisciplinary approach to the development, ratification and implementation of all procedural documents to ensure consistency of approach across the Bay underpinning the delivery of safe high-quality care by an engaged and knowledgeable workforce.” (p. 91)
9.2 “Cross Bay Obstetric and Midwifery guidelines in place … Development of Multi-Disciplinary and Speciality specific training and development […] Specialist leadership roles for nursing and midwifery roles – including, for example, the development of governance, educational, quality & safety, risk, bereavement roles.” (p. 81)
How this page is built
The recommendation and the government responses are verbatim from primary documents. Delivery statements and other bodies' findings are shown in their own words, each with its source. The summary is written by this site and labelled as such. The Index does not paraphrase sources or characterise intent; it records what has been published.