Senior midwife Donna Ockenden was appointed on March 10 to chair the independent review of maternity and neonatal services at Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust. Health Secretary Wes Streeting's decision reversed his earlier position that Ockenden would not lead the review because of existing commitments. Bereaved and harmed families had campaigned for her appointment and met the health secretary as confidence in the process deteriorated.
Ockenden previously led the review of maternity services at Shrewsbury and Telford and, at the time of the Leeds appointment, was chairing the Nottingham maternity review. Her selection gives the Leeds process an experienced chair. It does not, by itself, settle the review's final scope, timetable or the standards by which its recommendations will be enforced.
The Expected Scope Covers 15 Years
The Department of Health and Social Care said the terms of reference would be developed further with families. Its expected scope includes stillbirths, neonatal deaths and serious incidents, hypoxic injuries and maternal deaths between January 1, 2011, and December 31, 2025. Individual clinical case reviews were expected to begin in August 2026.
The government also said eligible cases would be included on an opt-out basis, meaning families whose cases meet the final terms would be included unless they choose otherwise. That approach is intended to reduce the risk that relevant experiences are missed because a family did not know how to join. Final decisions still depended on engagement with Ockenden and families, so the announcement should not be reported as if every term had already been fixed.
The review is also expected to examine governance, accountability and how the trust handled concerns raised by women, families and staff. Learning and recommendations are due to be shared during the work with the trust, NHS England and the department rather than held until one final report. The final reporting timetable had not yet been confirmed.
CQC Findings Define the Starting Evidence
The review follows serious regulatory findings at Leeds General Infirmary and St James's University Hospital. After unannounced inspections, the Care Quality Commission reported in June 2025 that maternity services at both hospitals had fallen from good to inadequate overall and were also inadequate for safety and leadership. Neonatal services were rated inadequate for safety and requires improvement overall.
CQC issued a warning notice and required immediate improvements. Its findings included concerns about staffing, learning after incidents, risk management, the care environment, infection control, medicines management and management processes. Those are documented regulatory findings. They provide a firmer baseline than the old article's broad statements about what the review should probably discover.
Press coverage also placed the appointment in the context of scrutiny involving the deaths of 56 babies and two mothers over five years. That figure should not be rewritten as a conclusion that every death was caused by avoidable care. The review exists to examine individual cases and system failures with a defined method, not to prejudge every clinical outcome before records are assessed.
Appointment Is Only the First Accountability Test
Families welcomed Ockenden because they believed her experience and independence could produce trusted answers. Their campaign also exposed a process problem: the government announced the review in October 2025, initially ruled Ockenden out, and reversed that position only after sustained pressure. A credible review now has to show that family involvement affects more than the name of the chair.
The measurable tests are straightforward. The final terms must be public and specific. Families need a clear route to check whether a case is included, understand consent and opt-out arrangements, submit evidence and receive updates. The review team must have access to records and staff, explain its case-review method and distinguish individual care findings from failures of governance. Recommendations need named recipients, deadlines and visible progress reporting.
Ockenden's appointment may begin to rebuild confidence, but it cannot substitute for evidence. Trust will depend on whether the review publishes how it works, reports what it finds and shows who acts on each recommendation. If families again have to campaign merely to learn whether promised changes occurred, the process will have documented another accountability failure while claiming to investigate the last one.