Aim Feticide is the practice of inducing fetal demise before termination of pregnancy. In England and Wales, it is recommended for terminations of pregnancy beyond 21 + 6 weeks of gestation. This project analyses the trends in feticide in singleton pregnancy in England and Wales between 2012 and 2020. Methods This project was a retrospective study that analysed data extracted from the Health and Social Act 4 (HSA4) forms submitted to the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC). The data extracted by the DHSC included the prevalence of feticide, methods of feticide and termination, statutory grounds, gestation, service provider, maternal age, ethnicity, and obstetric history. In addition, data analysis was carried out to identify trends. Results Between 2012 and 2020, there were 9310 feticides in England and Wales, used in 0.5% of all abortions. The prevalence of feticide fluctuated however, there was an overall decrease from 1084 cases in 2012 to 1000 cases in 2020. The most common method was intracardiac injection of potassium chloride (67.2%). Most feticides were performed before medical abortions (58.0%). 55.8% of feticides took place under Ground E of the Abortion Act 1967, and the main indication was congenital malformations of the nervous system. Most feticides occurred at 23 weeks gestation (40.2%) and in NHS hospitals (60.3%). Women undergoing feticide were mostly aged 30–34 years (38.3%) and of White ethnicity (78.6%). Conclusion Feticide is an essential component of comprehensive abortion care for women undergoing late second and third-trimester abortions. This study provides insight into how feticide is carried out in England and Wales and demonstrates the effect of the Covid-19 pandemic on feticide prevalence. Future research should analyse in more detail the use of the different methods of feticide.

Background Limited research suggests that non-occupational health doctors rarely discuss occupation with their patients. There is a gap in research regarding the attitudes and practices of doctors towards discussing patient occupation and return to work. The aim of this work was to explore the attitudes of ophthalmology doctors towards work as a clinical outcome and assess the need for occupational health training among participants (doctors). Methods A cross-sectional survey among doctors working in ophthalmology in two London teaching hospitals. The survey focused on the attitudes of doctors towards ‘work’ as a clinical outcome, their practices of asking patients about occupation, their perceived level of competency in this area of clinical practice and the level of training doctors had received in this field. Descriptive data analysis was undertaken and results presented as frequencies and proportions. Results The response rate was 30/72 (42%). Approximately a quarter (8/30;27%) of doctors ‘always’ discussed return to work during care planning whilst the majority (25/30;87%) of doctors agreed or strongly agreed that this should always be the case. Over half of the doctors had received no formal OH training on how to discuss or assess the impact of health on work and only 17/30 (57%) considered themselves competent in discussing these work outcomes with patients. Over half agreed that additional training would be useful, with the majority believing that it would be most useful at all stages of medical training. Conclusion We found the majority of ophthalmology doctors regard ‘return to work’ as an important clinical outcome yet most do not routinely discuss work outcomes with patients to inform care planning. Majority of doctors lack training in how to discuss issues relating to work and would benefit from additional OH training.