Proportion of adults living with obesity in England, by local area
Here is a full list of the proportion of adults in England estimated to be living with obesity in 2023/24, broken down by local authority area.
The figures have been published by the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities using data from the Sport England Active Lives Adult Survey.
The list covers all upper-tier and lower-tier local authorities in England, including both district and county councils.
It reads, from left to right: name of local authority; region; proportion of adults estimated to be living with obesity in 2023/24; the equivalent proportion (in brackets) in 2022/23 and in 2018/19.
West Lindsey (E Midlands): 38.8% (2022/23 26.3%, 2018/19 25.6%) Hartlepool (NE England): 37.9% (33.8%, 35.6%)Bolsover (E Midlands): 37.9% (35.0%, 38.6%)Cannock Chase (W Midlands): 37.8% (38.4%, 28.4%)Doncaster (Yorkshire/Humber): 37.5% (29.7%, 30.2%)Tamworth (W Midlands): 37.4% (35.9%, 30.3%)Gateshead (NE England): 37.2% (35.8%, 28.4%)Hull (Yorkshire/Humber): 36.8% (36.5%, 30.9%)Amber Valley (E Midlands): 36.6% (29.1%, 27.4%)Stockton-on-Tees (NE England): 36.4% (34.1%, 31.9%)Telford & Wrekin (W Midlands): 36.3% (28.4%, 34.4%)Walsall (W Midlands): 36.2% (29.0%, 28.0%)Halton (NW England): 36.0% (34.5%, 29.5%) Rotherham (Yorkshire/Humber): 36.0% (37.8%, 36.8%)Newark & Sherwood (E Midlands): 35.9% (29.0%, 33.1%)East Lindsey (E Midlands): 35.9% (35.6%, 26.1%)North Warwickshire (W Midlands): 35.8% (33.4%, 26.3%)South Holland (E Midlands): 35.6% (35.6%, 31.0%)Tendring (E England): 35.6% (28.1%, 26.4%)Ashfield (E Midlands): 35.4% (36.1%, 26.9%)Middlesbrough (NE England): 35.3% (34.7%, 33.3%)Wakefield (Yorkshire/Humber): 35.1% (31.0%, 23.9%)North Lincolnshire (Yorkshire/Humber): 35.1% (35.8%, 28.8%)Fenland (E England): 34.9% (36.6%, 36.0%)Barnsley (Yorkshire/Humber): 34.9% (28.8%, 27.8%)Wyre Forest (W Midlands): 34.8% (30.7%, 23.9%)Burnley (NW England): 34.7% (30.5%, 30.2%)Stoke-on-Trent (W Midlands): 34.7% (38.7%, 29.6%)Gosport (SE England): 34.7% (33.1%, 36.6%)Thurrock (E England): 34.6% (26.3%, 35.8%)King's Lynn & West Norfolk (E England): 34.6% (28.6%, 26.3%)Tameside (NW England): 34.5% (34.6%, 26.9%)Durham (NE England): 34.4% (34.0%, 29.5%)Breckland (E England): 34.4% (25.0%, 29.7%)North West Leicestershire (E Midlands): 34.2% (28.4%, 29.9%)Great Yarmouth (E England): 34.1% (39.1%, 29.3%)St Helens (NW England): 34.0% (34.4%, 28.0%)Redditch (W Midlands): 33.7% (32.0%, 25.9%)Swindon (SW England): 33.7% (30.1%, 27.2%)Havant (SE England): 33.6% (30.1%, 28.1%)Crawley (SE England): 33.5% (22.9%, 26.8%)Colchester (E England): 33.5% (31.9%, 19.7%)Medway (SE England): 33.3% (30.2%, 31.2%)Darlington (NE England): 33.3% (30.5%, 21.5%)Blackpool (NW England): 33.2% (33.2%, 28.2%)Derby (E Midlands): 33.0% (34.6%, 26.5%)Mansfield (E Midlands): 33.0% (27.4%, 24.8%)Redcar & Cleveland (NE England): 33.0% (31.2%, 32.2%)Southend-on-Sea (E England): 32.9% (31.4%, 20.0%)Knowsley (NW England): 32.9% (35.6%, 30.7%)Sunderland (NE England): 32.8% (30.4%, 29.0%)Chesterfield (E Midlands): 32.8% (38.1%, 33.6%)North Kesteven (E Midlands): 32.6% (25.1%, 22.9%)Pendle (NW England): 32.6% (30.6%, 20.2%)Plymouth (SW England): 32.6% (26.0%, 26.5%)Oldham (NW England): 32.4% (32.7%, 26.9%)Broxbourne (E England): 32.3% (25.6%, 23.2%)Rochford (E England): 32.3% (24.5%, 22.2%)Harlow (E England): 32.3% (31.2%, 28.5%)North East Derbyshire (E Midlands): 32.3% (33.4%, 24.2%)Peterborough (E England): 32.2% (26.5%, 30.5%)West Devon (SW England): 32.1% (23.8%, 19.8%)Stevenage (E England): 32.0% (32.4%, 28.7%)Maldon (E England): 32.0% (33.7%, 27.8%)Dover (SE England): 32.0% (32.6%, 30.0%)Sandwell (W Midlands): 31.9% (35.1%, 35.0%)Lincolnshire (E Midlands): 31.9% (29.4%, 27.3%)Rugby (W Midlands): 31.9% (29.0%, 29.1%)Boston (E Midlands): 31.9% (32.3%, 28.0%)New Forest (SE England): 31.8% (25.0%, 21.4%)Fylde (NW England): 31.8% (27.6%, 24.3%)North East Lincolnshire (Yorkshire/Humber): 31.8% (30.0%, 28.9%)Wirral (NW England): 31.6% (35.7%, 24.6%)Rossendale (NW England): 31.6% (26.0%, 27.5%)Portsmouth (SE England): 31.4% (30.8%, 30.0%)Rochdale (NW England): 31.3% (34.9%, 27.3%)Gloucester (SW England): 31.3% (27.9%, 24.2%)Bradford (Yorkshire/Humber): 31.2% (32.9%, 26.5%)Wolverhampton (W Midlands): 31.1% (33.0%, 26.5%)Castle Point (E England): 31.1% (29.7%, 26.3%)South Tyneside (NE England): 31.1% (38.8%, 29.4%)Barking & Dagenham (London): 31.0% (30.5%, 33.3%)Dudley (W Midlands): 31.0% (32.2%, 27.4%)North Northamptonshire (E Midlands): 30.9% (29.2%, 25.4%)Cumberland (NW England): 30.9% (26.6%, 25.5%)Bolton (NW England): 30.9% (28.1%, 28.7%)Blackburn with Darwen (NW England): 30.8% (31.0%, 24.4%)High Peak (E Midlands): 30.8% (21.2%, 18.6%)East Suffolk (E England): 30.8% (27.2%, 26.2%)Derbyshire (E Midlands): 30.8% (30.1%, 27.0%)Gedling (E Midlands): 30.7% (29.1%, 24.5%)Northumberland (NE England): 30.7% (28.8%, 25.9%)Slough (SE England): 30.7% (26.2%, 24.0%)Isles of Scilly (SW England): 30.6% (14.0%, 25.1%)Luton (E England): 30.5% (23.2%, 30.4%)Wokingham (SE England): 30.5% (19.0%, 19.4%)Basildon (E England): 30.4% (34.4%, 28.7%)Havering (London): 30.4% (25.7%, 19.7%)East Riding of Yorkshire (Yorkshire/Humber): 30.1% (27.7%, 22.4%)Test Valley (SE England): 30.1% (20.9%, 19.1%)Newcastle-under-Lyme (W Midlands): 30.1% (32.9%, 22.0%)Liverpool (NW England): 30.1% (29.8%, 28.6%)Wigan (NW England): 30.0% (39.1%, 31.3%)Chichester (SE England): 30.0% (24.7%, 18.3%)Hyndburn (NW England): 30.0% (34.4%, 33.4%)Bracknell Forest (SE England): 30.0% (27.3%, 18.7%)Isle of Wight (SE England): 29.9% (21.9%, 24.9%)Nottinghamshire (E Midlands): 29.9% (27.9%, 26.6%)Mid Suffolk (E England): 29.8% (32.4%, 20.4%)Preston (NW England): 29.8% (24.5%, 22.7%)South Derbyshire (E Midlands): 29.6% (27.8%, 25.5%)Warrington (NW England): 29.6% (25.2%, 21.8%)Central Bedfordshire (E England): 29.5% (24.7%, 22.4%)Norfolk (E England): 29.4% (27.4%, 24.7%)Worcestershire (W Midlands): 29.4% (27.7%, 22.4%)Birmingham (W Midlands): 29.3% (25.9%, 26.1%)Staffordshire (W Midlands): 29.2% (29.0%, 25.1%)Arun (SE England): 29.0% (29.6%, 24.1%)East Staffordshire (W Midlands): 29.0% (27.7%, 29.5%)Bromsgrove (W Midlands): 29.0% (23.6%, 20.7%)Hastings (SE England): 28.9% (31.2%, 22.6%)Bassetlaw (E Midlands): 28.9% (28.5%, 33.9%)Wychavon (W Midlands): 28.8% (24.7%, 22.0%)Erewash (E Midlands): 28.8% (30.0%, 25.9%)Milton Keynes (SE England): 28.7% (25.9% 24.8%)Eastleigh (SE England): 28.7% (28.0%, 21.4%)Shropshire (W Midlands): 28.6% (28.6%, 26.5%)Tonbridge & Malling (SE England): 28.6% (22.2%, 23.1%)Tewkesbury (SW England): 28.6% (28.5%, 22.8%)Suffolk (E England): 28.5% (26.8%, 26.2%)Lancashire (NW England): 28.5% (28.0%, 25.5%)Essex (E England): 28.5% (29.1%, 23.5%)South Ribble (NW England): 28.5% (25.9%, 21.1%)Sheffield (Yorkshire/Humber): 28.3% (24.5%, 22.9%)Wyre (NW England): 28.3% (29.5%, 30.1%)Newcastle-upon-Tyne (NE England): 28.2% (29.9%, 23.6%)Babergh (E England): 28.2% (21.8%, 27.3%)Cheshire West & Chester (NW England): 28.2% (30.2%, 21.8%) North Yorkshire (Yorkshire/Humber): 28.0% (25.3%, 24.7%)Lincoln (E Midlands): 28.0% (27.4%, 28.6%)Hinckley & Bosworth (E Midlands): 27.9% (32.9%, 23.1%)Staffordshire Moorlands (W Midlands): 27.6% (28.9%, 22.6%)West Suffolk (E England): 27.6% (27.7%, 27.3%)Salford (NW England): 27.6% (28.6%, 25.6%)North Norfolk (E England): 27.5% (29.7%, 20.6%)Dartford (SE England): 27.5% (29.2%, 26.1%)Melton (E Midlands): 27.4% (34.2%, 20.4%)Nottingham (E Midlands): 27.4% (28.0%, 25.2%)Leicestershire (E Midlands): 27.3% (26.2%, 24.3%)Kirklees (Yorkshire/Humber): 27.3% (26.9%, 27.5%)Brentwood (E England): 27.3% (20.5%, 19.2%)Watford (E England): 27.3% (20.8%, 21.4%)Leeds (Yorkshire/Humber): 27.2% (26.2%, 23.2%)Coventry (W Midlands): 27.1% (27.7%, 31.4%)Chorley (NW England): 27.1% (27.0%, 24.8%)Hampshire (SE England): 27.0% (24.7%, 23.0%)Wiltshire (SW England): 27.0% (26.7%, 20.2%)Norwich (E England): 26.9% (23.2%, 21.0%)Calderdale (Yorkshire/Humber): 26.9% (28.2%, 25.4%)Ipswich (E England): 26.8% (25.3%, 28.1%)West Sussex (SE England): 26.8% (23.9%, 22.0%)Herefordshire (W Midlands): 26.8% (26.1%, 26.2%)Nuneaton & Bedworth (W Midlands): 26.6% (34.3%, 28.3%)Sefton (NW England): 26.6% (35.3%, 26.1%)Worcester (W Midlands): 26.6% (26.2%, 26.1%)Gravesham (SE England): 26.6% (35.6%, 29.8%)Leicester (E Midlands): 26.6% (24.9%, 21.2%)Cherwell (SE England): 26.4% (23.4%, 20.1%)Epping Forest (E England): 26.4% (25.7%, 21.6%)Welwyn Hatfield (E England): 26.4% (26.4%, 26.9%)Warwickshire (W Midlands): 26.3% (26.4%, 24.5%)Sutton (London): 26.3% (21.1%, 20.6%)Blaby (E Midlands): 26.2% (25.6%, 23.7%)Lancaster (NW England): 26.2% (25.8%, 27.2%)Bedford (E England): 26.2% (22.3%, 28.6%)Thanet (SE England): 26.2% (28.8%, 28.1%)Stafford (W Midlands): 26.1% (25.9%, 20.9%)Braintree (E England): 26.1% (28.4%, 24.5%)South Staffordshire (W Midlands): 26.1% (25.7%, 26.4%)Stockport (NW England): 26.0% (25.3%, 19.1%)Oadby & Wigston (E Midlands): 26.0% (23.8%, 20.1%)Maidstone (SE England): 26.0% (32.7%, 19.2%)Bury (NW England): 25.9% (30.0%, 24.9%)Reading (SE England): 25.9% (28.2%, 18.5%)Forest of Dean (SW England): 25.9% (34.3%, 22.3%)Torbay (SW England): 25.9% (32.6%, 24.4%)Huntingdonshire (E England): 25.9% (26.3%, 20.3%)North Hertfordshire (E England): 25.8% (19.5%, 17.3%)Malvern Hills (W Midlands): 25.8% (26.4%, 16.2%)Somerset (SW England): 25.8% (27.8%, 23.9%)South Norfolk (E England): 25.8% (22.0%, 22.4%)South Gloucestershire (SW England): 25.7% (23.1%, 23.1%)Hart (SE England): 25.7% (20.0%, 17.5%)Kent (SE England): 25.6% (27.8%, 24.5%)North Tyneside (NE England): 25.6% (29.8%, 30.7%)Ashford (SE England): 25.6% (27.4%, 24.8%)Solihull (W Midlands): 25.5% (22.9%, 20.2%)Rushmoor (SE England): 25.5% (30.2%, 26.8%)Cheshire East (NW England): 25.5% (21.5%, 24.8%)East Devon (SW England): 25.5% (28.9%, 15.4%)Lewes (SE England): 25.4% (24.5%, 24.6%)Charnwood (E Midlands): 25.3% (20.2%, 23.9%)York (Yorkshire/Humber): 25.2% (23.5%, 22.7%)Bexley (London): 25.2% (24.2%, 27.4%)South Kesteven (E Midlands): 25.1% (26.3%, 28.8%)Teignbridge (SW England): 25.0% (22.2%, 20.1%)Mid Devon (SW England): 24.9% (27.2%, 26.3%)Southampton (SE England): 24.9% (29.5%, 23.1%)Gloucestershire (SW England): 24.9% (25.9%, 21.5%)Dacorum (E England): 24.8% (22.9%, 20.3%)East Cambridgeshire (E England): 24.8% (26.8%, 22.9%)East Sussex (SE England): 24.8% (25.3%, 23.8%)Enfield (London): 24.8% (24.0%, 27.8%)Harborough (E Midlands): 24.7% (26.3%, 24.3%)Torridge (SW England): 24.6% (23.6%, 22.0%)West Northamptonshire (E Midlands): 24.6% (27.0%, 24.4%)Broadland (E England): 24.6% (31.2%, 20.6%)Runnymede (SE England): 24.6% (23.0%, 16.9%)Waltham Forest (London): 24.5% (22.4%, 21.0%)Hertfordshire (SE England): 24.5% (22.7%, 22.1%)Croydon (London): 24.4% (24.1%, 20.1%)Dorset (SW England): 24.3% (28.9%, 20.6%)Cambridgeshire (E England): 24.3% (23.9%, 22.0%)Bournemouth, Christchurch & Poole (SW England): 24.3% (26.8%, 23.3%)Rushcliffe (E Midlands): 24.2% (19.8%, 17.9%)Horsham (SE England): 24.2% (22.7%, 20.4%)East Hampshire (SE England): 24.1% (17.7%, 17.6%)Sevenoaks (SE England): 24.0% (23.5%, 18.2%)Cornwall (SW England): 24.0% (27.5%, 21.0%)Broxtowe (E Midlands): 23.9% (27.1%, 24.0%)Fareham (SE England): 23.9% (23.7%, 23.2%)Folkestone & Hythe (SE England): 23.8% (24.0%, 23.6%)Lichfield (W Midlands): 23.8% (18.2%, 26.9%)Mid Sussex (SE England): 23.6% (16.1%, 19.8%)Manchester (NW England): 23.5% (27.3%, 24.0%)Swale (SE England): 23.5% (39.1%, 30.8%)Devon (SW England): 23.3% (24.3%, 19.7%)Rother (SE England): 23.3% (23.1%, 28.2%)Greenwich (London): 22.9% (23.2%, 23.8%)Hackney (London): 22.9% (21.9%, 22.1%)Three Rivers (E England): 22.9% (22.3%, 24.0%)Exeter (SW England): 22.9% (21.1%, 19.8%)Stratford-on-Avon (W Midlands): 22.8% (24.8%, 20.9%)Chelmsford (E England): 22.8% (28.6%, 18.9%)Hillingdon (London): 22.8% (22.3%, 19.4%)Worthing (SE England): 22.7% (24.8%, 20.5%)Derbyshire Dales (E Midlands): 22.7% (20.6%, 18.4%)Tandridge (SE England): 22.6% (23.4%, 21.3%)South Cambridgeshire (E England): 22.4% (20.3%, 18.3%)Stroud (SW England): 22.3% (22.6%, 20.1%)Brent (London): 22.2% (19.4%, 13.3%)Westmorland & Furness (NW England): 22.1% (24.8%, 19.8%)Vale of White Horse (SE England): 22.0% (20.6%, 15.1%)West Berkshire (SE England): 22.0% (26.8%, 20.1%)Surrey Heath (SE England): 21.8% (22.5%, 19.8%)Tower Hamlets (London): 21.7% (16.0%, 17.7%)Basingstoke & Deane (SE England): 21.6% (27.4%, 24.2%)Canterbury (SE England): 21.6% (21.5%, 24.1%)Cotswold (SW England): 21.5% (23.1%, 23.1%)Eastbourne (SE England): 21.5% (22.3%, 25.0%)Southwark (London): 21.4% (19.7%, 17.7%)Ealing (London): 21.4% (22.2%, 20.1%)Bromley (London): 21.4% (26.4%, 20.1%)West Oxfordshire (SE England): 21.2% (24.2%, 20.9%)Ribble Valley (NW England): 21.2% (25.8%, 21.3%)West Lancashire (NW England): 20.9% (29.2%, 23.3%)Hertsmere (E England): 20.9% (21.5%, 19.1%)Harrow (London): 20.8% (16.7%, 15.7%)Oxfordshire (SE England): 20.8% (21.3%, 17.2%)Redbridge (London): 20.7% (25.3%, 23.9%)Barnet (London): 20.6% (18.2%, 18.1%)Winchester (SE England): 20.6% (18.3%, 21.1%)Adur (SE England): 20.4% (27.4%, 24.7%)North Somerset (SW England): 20.4% (27.9%, 19.7%)Newham (London): 20.4% (23.3%, 20.9%)Bristol (SW England): 20.3% (22.3%, 17.2%)Wealden (SE England): 20.3% (23.9%, 20.6%)Brighton & Hove (SE England): 20.1% (15.1%, 19.3%)East Hertfordshire (E England): 20.1% (21.1%, 25.1%)Warwick (W Midlands): 20.1% (16.8%, 20.5%)Lewisham (London): 20.1% (23.8%, 20.9%)Rutland (E Midlands): 20.0% (20.2%, 18.0%)Reigate & Banstead (SE England): 19.9% (22.7%, 17.9%)Buckinghamshire (SE England): 19.8% (23.7%, 17.5%)Merton (London): 19.6% (20.9%, 18.6%)Hounslow (London): 19.4% (26.2%, 21.2%)Cheltenham (SW England): 19.3% (18.9%, 18.4%)Windsor & Maidenhead (SE England): 19.3% (23.3%, 15.9%)Spelthorne (SE England): 19.0% (25.2%, 20.6%)Surrey (SE England): 19.0% (20.4%, 17.3%)Guildford (SE England): 18.9% (18.0%, 16.5%)North Devon (SW England): 18.9% (26.5%, 20.8%)Lambeth (London): 18.4% (19.2%, 18.1%)Mole Valley (SE England): 18.2% (19.5%, 14.4%)Waverley (SE England): 18.1% (16.8%, 12.8%)Woking (SE England): 18.0% (16.5%, 21.6%)Bath & North East Somerset (SW England): 17.9% (20.8%, 17.4%)South Oxfordshire (SE England): 17.3% (22.3%, 15.6%)Tunbridge Wells (SE England): 17.2% (18.6%, 18.5%)Trafford (NW England): 16.9% (22.8%, 19.8%)Haringey (London): 16.5% (13.9%, 19.2%)Epsom & Ewell (SE England): 16.4% (21.8%, 16.3%)St Albans (E England): 16.2% (17.3%, 15.1%)Oxford (SE England): 16.2% (16.2%, 14.6%)Cambridge (E England): 16.1% (19.6%, 14.0%)Kingston-upon-Thames (London): 15.8% (15.5%, 15.8%)City of London (London): 15.5% (14.3%, 12.9%)Wandsworth (London): 15.3% (16.3%, 9.9%)Westminster (London): 15.2% (16.2%, 12.6%)Uttlesford (E England): 15.1% (24.7%, 16.6%)Elmbridge (SE England): 14.8% (17.8%, 16.1%)Richmond-upon-Thames (London): 14.7% (20.5%, 12.5%)Kensington & Chelsea (London): 14.3% (13.2%, 19.3%)South Hams (SW England): 13.8% (21.3%, 20.4%)Islington (London): 13.0% (17.9%, 15.6%)Hammersmith & Fulham (London): 12.1% (18.1%, 13.0%)Camden (London): 11.0% (17.3%, 14.1%)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
15 minutes ago
- The Guardian
The Guardian view on fitness: evidence of the benefits of exercise keeps growing, but who is listening?
The role of exercise in promoting good general health, and helping to prevent heart disease, strokes and diabetes is well established. No wonder, then, that long‑distance running keeps growing in popularity. Popular tracks and parks have never been busier, with groups in stretchy Lycra and fitness trackers on their wrists. The internet is awash with exercise videos, while figures earlier this year showed that gym memberships have climbed to a record 11.5m. The 16.9% of people aged 16 or over in Britain who belong to a gym is one of the highest proportions in Europe. The older teenagers and young adults of generation Z are a key demographic behind this social trend. And recent news from the world's biggest cancer conference, in Chicago, shows how right they are to take the health benefits of fitness seriously. A landmark trial compared the outcomes of patients in several countries who were placed on a programme of structured exercise – assisted by a personal trainer – with those offered standard health advice. The results showing that exercise could be as effective as drugs, without the side-effects, in preventing the recurrence of colon cancer, were described by Prof Sir Stephen Powis, the national medical director of NHS England, as 'really exciting'. The expectation is that the study will influence treatment guidelines worldwide – including in the increasingly fitness-conscious UK. But there is another narrative about exercise in Britain that is hard to reconcile with the one above. This is that we are a chronically unwell, overweight and sedentary population, whose health problems are only partly linked to the Europe-wide demographic challenge of ageing. These difficulties are widely recognised to be psychological as well as physical, with particular concerns around the worsening mental health of children and young people, which is widely linked to the rise in smartphone use. Which of these accounts of British fitness habits is more accurate depends which segment of the population is being scrutinised. Government figures show that the age gap – with 16- to 24-year-olds the most physically active age group – is not the only one. There is also a significant socioeconomic disparity. Students and adults in managerial and professional jobs are much more likely to keep active than manual workers or people who are long-term unemployed. As with other indicators of health, such as weight or smoking, there is a clear correlation with income. Richer people with more education and higher social status are more likely to be well. Could gen Z buck this trend with its more general embrace of fitness, which some point out is far cheaper than pub-going? It is too soon to be sure. Some young people believe their gym-going habits are as much about economic insecurity and status anxiety as they are about commitment to health. But as ministers finalise their 10-year plan for the NHS, which is expected to place a strong emphasis on prevention, they have an opportunity to build on, and shape, the way that exercise is offered and experienced. That being physically active is good for you is reinforced by the latest cancer study. But a preoccupation with personal appearance can be debilitating. A public health approach to exercise should seek to maximise the gains and minimise the harms associated with fitness culture.
BBC News
21 minutes ago
- BBC News
Martha Mills doctor's failings 'particularly grave'
The failings of a doctor responsible for Martha Mills' care, who died from sepsis, amounted to "gross negligence" and were "particularly grave", a medical tribunal death gave rise to Martha's Rule in hundreds of hospitals in England, giving parents the right to an urgent second tribunal found consultant Prof Richard Thompson failed to appreciate how seriously ill 13-year-old Martha had become in the summer of 2021, following a bike the crucial afternoon, he did not examine her in person or send her to intensive tribunal concluded Prof Thompson's fitness to practise is impaired, but whether he will be sanctioned is still to be decided. Martha was transferred to King's College Hospital in London in 2021, one of three specialist treatment centres in the UK, after a holiday bike accident left her with serious injuries to her pancreas. Her parents, Merope Mills and Paul Laity, wrote about their pain and anger over their daughter's treatment following her a family holiday, Martha had skidded on some sand and fell heavily on to the handlebars."It was a difficult, tricky injury, but it did not have to be a fatal one," Merope has she stayed in the hospital for the next developed an infection and then signs of sepsis - when the body's response to an infection is overwhelming and ends up injuring its own tissues and organs - but this was not managed inquest found that she could have survived her injuries if she'd been referred to the specialist children's intensive care in the hospital promptly, and received better on BBC Radio 4's Today programme in 2023, Merope Mills said her family were not listened to by senior doctors on several occasions and were "not given the full picture" about Martha's deteriorating condition. Over the past few weeks, the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service has heard allegations from the doctors' regulator, the General Medical Council (GMC), that Prof Thompson failed on several counts over his care of was the consultant on call on her ward on 29 August 2021 - two days before she tribunal said it was "evident" that by around 17:00 that day Martha had "several high risk indicators" including her heart rate, blood pressure, breathing and a rising temperature, which "indicated a sudden and significant deterioration".It said Martha's condition, which included a new rash, justified her being moved to intensive care but "this opportunity was not taken".Later that evening, Prof Thompson was called at home by a colleague about Martha's continued fever. He had already seen her on his morning ward round, but did not return to the hospital to examine her in Thompson has said one of the reasons he wanted to keep Martha on his ward was not to distress her parents, but the tribunal said this did not justify withholding or delaying her move to intensive Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service has now decided that Prof Richard Thompson's fitness to practise had been tribunal said this would reassure the public and send a message to doctors about the importance of following the fundamental principles of good care. Martha's parents raised concerns about their daughter's care to the regulator, the General Medical Council, in to the tribunal's findings Martha's parents said: "It is important to us that allegations denied have been found proved and the gravity of mistakes that led to our daughter's preventable death has been recognised. "We will always have in our minds the failures of culture, training and policy on Rays of Sunshine Ward at King's College Hospital, as well as the responsibility of individuals. "We'd like to thank all the thoughtful doctors who have helped us to understand what happened to Martha."The hospital that looked after Martha has admitted mistakes were made, and the trust said previously in a statement that it "remains deeply sorry that we failed Martha when she needed us most".
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
Nottingham attack families ask Streeting for names of staff who treated killer
The families of the Nottingham attack victims said they have told the Health Secretary they want the names of staff involved in treating killer Valdo Calocane to be made public. A February report into the care received by Calocane detailed how he was not forced to have long-lasting antipsychotic medication because he did not like needles, and how other patients at Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust also went on to commit 'extremely serious' acts of violence. The relatives of 19-year-old students Grace O'Malley-Kumar and Barnaby Webber, and 65-year-old caretaker Ian Coates, met with Wes Streeting on Monday and asked for those responsible to be held accountable. After the meeting, Dr Sanjoy Kumar, Grace's father, said: 'It was the actions of a few people that put a dangerous man out in the community'. Calocane, who had been diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia, killed three people and attempted to kill three more in Nottingham in June 2023. He was sentenced to an indefinite hospital order in January 2024 after admitting manslaughter by diminished responsibility and attempted murder. Calocane was admitted to hospital and sectioned under the Mental Health Act four times between 2020 and 2022 because of his violent behaviour and refusal to take his medication, before NHS services lost track of him and discharged him in the months before the attacks. Three reports: including one by the Care Quality Commission (CQC); described failings in his care but none included practitioners' names, Dr Kumar said with copies of the documents in-hand. Speaking outside the Department for Health and Social Care (DHSC), he told reporters: 'We'd like to know who was involved in the care of this person who committed all this harm. Why aren't there any names? 'He was sectioned four times – was it four different consultants? Was it one consultant? Who were the teams who didn't do their jobs?' He said: 'I think we deserve to know the detail – everyone in the country who has suffered the way we have through mental health-related homicide deserves to have the detail. 'When an operation goes wrong, someone gets named.' Dr Kumar added: 'We want people to just know, if they did wrong, what is it they need to do to be put right? Whether it's retraining, whether it's … doing the professional development again. 'The point is that you just can't have people who are providing a risky service even now.' He added that the Health Secretary was 'very much on our side, he very much wants to see a way through' and that Mr Streeting has promised 'he's going to work hard at it'. Prior to the meeting, the families said in a statement that their correspondence with the mental health trust's chief executive, Ifti Majid, had been 'light on detail, vague, evasive, defensive and contradictory'. They added that he failed to answer Dr Kumar's questions. Dr Kumar said he has given Mr Streeting the questions he put to the chief executive. He said the Health Secretary 'has promised to do his best to get us all the answers', adding that he has confidence in Mr Streeting because he has 'taken a personal interest in this case' and likewise 'wants to end homicide by mental health'. Their meeting also follows a complaint lodged with the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) by the families regarding an 'offensive' encounter with one of the watchdog's regional directors. Dr Kumar told The Sunday Times newspaper that their meeting with the IOPC, nine months after the attacks, began with a prayer, which he found 'patronising'. The issue was not discussed with Mr Streeting on Monday and would require a different meeting, he told reporters. A DHSC spokesperson said: 'Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust and NHS England have accepted all the recommendations made in both the CQC and NHS England-commissioned reviews into the care and treatment received by Valdo Calocane. 'The Health and Social Care Secretary has called for recommendations from both reviews to be implemented as soon as possible and met with the bereaved families today to discuss the NHS England-commissioned Independent Homicide Review. 'As part of this work, NHS England has developed and is actively implementing evidence-based national guidance, so that all trusts are clear on the standards of care expected for patients with serious mental illnesses. 'We remain committed to delivering the fundamental changes needed to mental health services to prevent similar tragedies from occurring in the future.'
