An inquest has begun this week at Pontypridd Coroners’ Court to scrutinise a tragic incident involving the death of a newborn baby, Nanw Thomas, who passed away barely an hour after her birth at University Hospital of Wales, Cardiff, on the morning of 31 July 2024. The case is examining whether a medical intervention performed on Nanw’s mother, Chloe Thomas, contributed to the fatal outcome.
Chloe Thomas, a resident of Barry, was expecting her second child when a cervical polyp was discovered during her pregnancy. Medical professionals define a cervical polyp as a small tumour growing from the mucous lining of a hollow organ, in this case, the cervix. The subsequent removal of the polyp, which is considered a relatively routine procedure, reportedly resulted in the premature rupture of Chloe’s membranes. The inquest heard claims that Chloe was not advised of the heightened risk of infection that could follow such a rupture, leaving her unprepared for possible complications.
The court was told that Chloe attended regular hospital appointments in the run-up to her due date, including scans at 12 and 20 weeks. During these visits, both Chloe and her partner voiced concerns to medical staff about bleeding. Each time, they were reassured by healthcare professionals that their baby was developing as expected and that the bleeding was related to the polyp rather than a sign of a severe problem. Chloe was instructed not to worry unless the bleeding became excessive, although, at her 20-week appointment, she noted an absence of a critical hospital-led appointment, which staff recognised but failed to arrange.
On 25 July, Dr Sharma, a consultant gynaecologist, met Chloe for a scheduled appointment and opted to remove the polyp. Just four days later, on 29 July, Chloe experienced the startling sensation of her waters breaking while visiting her parents and immediately informed her partner, leading to a return visit to the University Hospital of Wales.
Upon readmission, medical tests revealed that Chloe had developed an infection, placing her on what staff described as a “very worrying sepsis pathway”, a situation posing considerable risk to both mother and unborn child. They were presented with difficult options: allow Nanw to be born to receive comfort and care, consider intensive medical intervention, or terminate the pregnancy given the risks involved. Chloe and her partner chose induction with a plan for comfort and care. Sadly, Nanw was born at 9.20am on 31 July and lived only for an hour.
Throughout the inquest’s first day, the focus was placed on whether the earlier removal of the cervical polyp precipitated the sequence of events leading to Nanw’s premature birth and death. The couple shared an ongoing concern in their discussions with clinicians—that the procedure may have played a direct role in the rupture of membranes, infection, and, ultimately, their baby’s death.
Dr Sharma, questioned during the proceedings, recalled consulting with Chloe following an appointment with one of her colleagues ten days prior. The coroner queried whether Dr Sharma had assumed her patient was aware of the risks associated with polyp removal during pregnancy. Dr Sharma admitted that discussions centred around the gestational stage, the anxiety the bleeding was causing, and its possible causes, but crucially added, “We did not discuss pre-term labour or miscarriage risk.” She went on to clarify that she had not considered significant risk from the polyp’s removal, explaining, “I got the impression that it was quite superficial based on the images and notes available at the time.”
When questioned about what she would have done if she had believed there was a risk, Dr Sharma was unequivocal: “Yes, I would have mentioned it and I would have refused to undertake it,” she responded.
This inquest is expected to last for three days as the court seeks clarity on the circumstances surrounding Nanw’s untimely death. The proceedings continue to probe the sequence of events, communication between clinicians and the family, and clinical decision-making in this complex and emotionally charged case.
The tragic circumstances have inevitably raised broader questions about communication, informed consent, and the management of pregnancy complications in the wider healthcare setting. As the inquest continues, it is anticipated that further testimony will shed light on what went wrong, and whether any procedural changes could prevent similar outcomes in future cases.