The senior medic who chaired an investigation into the increase in neonatal deaths in Scotland said Covid remains a "very plausible" explanation.
A long-awaited report into unusual rates of neonatal mortality in 2021 and 2022 was unable to identify any single cause and did not find evidence of "systemic failings" in maternity or neonatal care.
The independent review was commissioned by Healthcare Improvement Scotland (HIS) on behalf of the Scottish Government, and led by retired consultant neonatologist Dr Helen Mactier in collaboration with a team of medical experts.
Concerns had been raised after the neonatal mortality rate exceeded Public Health Scotland's upper warning limit twice, in September 2021 and March 2022, for the first time since monthly monitoring had begun in 2017.
Investigators examined all 135 neonatal deaths recorded between April 2021 and March 2022 for any recurring patterns.
READ MORE:
- ANALYSIS: Vaccine misinformation is a distraction from the bigger lessons here
- 'Unanswered questions': Probe finds no 'new or unusual' cause of neonatal deaths spike
- Vaccines ruled out as cause of neonatal deaths increase - but maternal vaccination status unknown
They found higher than expected levels of premature births.
Dr Mactier said this included an increase of "around 40 to 50" in the number born extremely pre-term - before 28 weeks - as well as a "doubling" in the mortality rate for infants born prematurely at 32 to 36 weeks.
Being born pre-term increases the risk of neonatal death, but what caused the rise in premature births and the increase in the mortality rate for those born at 32-36 weeks remains unclear.
"We don't know, is the bottom line," said Dr Mactier.
"But the data we have accords with the increase in perinatal mortality recorded across the whole of the UK during 2021 - that's a combination of stillbirths and neonatal deaths.
"MBRACCE [the surveillance body for maternal and infant mortality across the UK] also reported an 18% increase in pre-term births between 24 and 28 weeks gestation.
"They use slightly different data from us, but effectively the same thing happened across the UK in 2021."
The HIS review does not reach any conclusion on the impact of the pandemic, noting only that the "direct and indirect effects of the Covid-19 pandemic may have contributed, at least in part, to the increase in neonatal mortality".
However, Dr Mactier said it remains a "reasonable hypothesis" that Covid may have driven the increase in premature births given consistent worldwide evidence that the infection is associated with an increased risk of early delivery.
She said: "We just don't have the data within 135 cases to make a definitive conclusion about that, but this was a time of unprecedented challenge for the NHS and also for families in terms of being anxious about going to hospital or staying in hospital.
"There were multiple challenges that were associated with the Covid pandemic so it's plausible that that was the case and, in the absence of another obvious explanation, that does seem very plausible."
It is unclear whether the mothers involved had been vaccinated against Covid as this information was not available to investigators.
This has led to claims of a cover-up by vaccine sceptics.
Dr Mactier stresses that the comparatively small number of cases involved in the review means it was "never going to be able to address that question" of a vaccine link.
In Scotland, the Covid-19 in Pregnancy in Scotland (COPS) database - which includes 12,808 vaccinated mothers - has found no increased risk of any adverse maternal or neonatal outcome following vaccination, either shortly before or during pregnancy.
Dr Mactier added: "We were never going to address [the vaccine question] because in terms of numbers, it would have been statistically improper.
"But, of the local case reviews that we looked at, Covid vaccination was never mentioned.
"There were seven cases where Covid was mentioned - either because the mother had Covid or there was some staffing challenges attributed to Covid.
"But that was why we didn't look at Covid either. Not because we didn't want to, but because we were never ever going to be powered [in terms of numbers] to make a sensible comment about that.
"The COPS study, and all the other studies around the world, tell women to get immunised. The benefits way outweigh the risks."
The HIS review did highlight shortcomings in relation to the local reviews carried out by health boards into neonatal deaths, describing them as being of "poor quality" and "inconsistent".
Dr Mactier said a lack of resource to enable "proper, external, independent oversight" was the main obstacle.
"What people don't always understand is how incredibly labour intensive a really thorough review is," she added.
However, she stressed that the team were confident based on the information available to them that there was no evidence of systemic failings in NHS care.
She said: "What's important to understand is that this review was never ever planned to look at care in individual cases, so never planned to re-examine individual deaths.
"This was a national review to look for systematic failings in care.
"So although we couldn't get enough data to pick out why the 32-36 weekers seemed to have a doubled mortality, I think there was enough in the reviews to make us fairly sure that there was not some systematic failure of care going on.
"We saw things that could have been done better, as you would predict in any complex healthcare system with humans involved - there's always going to be mistakes.
"But we didn't see anything that kept coming through as something that was new, or something that really stuck out for one unit."
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel