Mobius Forum Archive

Maternity Meltdown ...
 
Notifications
Clear all

Maternity Meltdown (How's that free healthcare working out?)

27 Posts
13 Users
0 Reactions
78 Views
(@ultra-sonic-007)
Posts: 4336
Famed Member
Topic starter
 

Daily Mail (UK)

Quote:


At first Annette Armstrong wasn't planning to have her mother present at her baby's birth. But she came round to the idea - after all it would be nice to hold her hand during the labour.

It turned out to be the 'best decision' of Annette's life. For it was her mother who ended up having to deliver the baby - without her, says Annette, there is a chance her baby could have died.

Annette's ordeal began after her waters broke and she was admitted to a large maternity hospital near her home in Birmingham.

When the 28-year-old went into labour, she experienced the alarming consequences of the chronic midwife shortages in Britain's maternity wards.

"There were ten women, all at various stages of pregnancy and labour - five who had already given birth and one inconsolable woman who had just had a stillbirth - but only two midwives to look after us all.

"The midwives were rushed off their feet and clearly couldn't meet the needs of all their patients. I got the feeling I was just a number, an item on a conveyor belt.

"After I was admitted I saw the midwife just once over the next three hours when she popped her head round the door to check on me." Three hours later, a different midwife started her shift.

"After a quick check she told me I wasn't progressing that quickly and it could be a while yet," says Annette. "Before I could ask any questions she was gone."

With Annette screaming that she With the midwife absent, Annette's husband Daniel, 29, had to find an anaesthetist to give Annette an epidural - a form of pain relief that numbs the lower half of the body.

But the injection was put in the wrong place, leaving Annette still able to feel every contraction.

When the midwife finally reappeared, Annette told her she was ready to push the baby out. "But the midwife told me there was no way my baby was coming yet and I should try to stay calm. She didn't even check how dilated I was.

"I'll leave my assistant with you," she said, and a girl who looked no more than 20 appeared at the door. "She's a trainee, but she can come and get me if you really need me," the midwife said. "I'm just popping out, but I'll be straight back after that."" The trainee was unable to check how dilated Annette was because she wasn't sure if she'd enough experience to tell.

With Annette screaming that she was about to give birth, her mother had no choice but to roll up her sleeves and deliver the baby herself.

"My mum is not a midwife and I couldn't believe she was about to deliver my baby. Daniel shouted at the trainee to get help, but she just stood in the corner looking petrified.

"Twenty minutes after the midwife had left, the baby was crowning - the top of its head had appeared. My mum said: "This is your little girl and we have to get her out safely. There is no one else here to do this, so you have to trust me. Now start pushing."

"When the head was out, she told me not to push so hard till each shoulder was out so that I didn't tear - she remembered being told this when she she was having me and my siblings." Minutes later, Harriet was born weighing 8lb 9oz and in good health.

"My mum and I burst into tears. She had helped me at a time when I needed her most, but I couldn't believe the NHS staff had put us in that position.

"Were it not for my mum's advice and calm attitude, my child could have been starved of oxygen or had a whole host of other complications from not being delivered in time - she might even have died."

Annette is one of thousands of women each year whose care during childbirth is being put at risk by the current crisis in NHS maternity services.

A shortage of midwives, coupled with budget cuts, means that overstretched units are struggling to cope, let alone provide the personal care pregnant women want and need.

It makes the Government's promise that all women will have continuous care by 2009 seem, at best, wildly optimistic.

Only last week a study revealed that thousands of women find themselves isolated and frightened during labour because they do not get the care they need.

Over half were left alone at times during labour. Just 19 per cent had one midwife providing continuity of care during their labour and while giving birth, with over half of firsttime mums having a stream of three or more midwives see them through the experience.

The poll - funded by the Department of Health - also uncovered complaints about unsympathetic staff, who were too busy to give women the care they need.

Campaigners say that poor care during childbirth is leaving 30 per cent of women traumatised - that's around 200,000 women a year, says Maureen Treadwell of the Birth Trauma Association.

She describes one alarming case where a woman who arrived on a maternity ward was asked to remove her underwear for an internal examination in the corridor - in front of cleaners.

In another, cleaners were sent to clean up a room where a woman had been left naked.

More worryingly, there is the potential risk to health. Experts warned that many of the 60,000 reported maternity ward errors between 2003 and 2006 were due to staff shortages, inadequate experience, lack of consultant involvement and equipment problems.

While deaths linked to pregnancy are rare, the latest figures show the number or women dying from pregnancy-related problems is rising, despite advances in medicine.

Two thirds of the 261 women who died from pregnancy complications between 200 and 2002 (the latest figures available) had 'some form of sub-optimal clinical care'. (In the previous three years, 242 were reported).

Medical experts are concerned that the next report on maternal and child health, released at the end of the year, will show a further increase in maternal deaths.

Maureen Treadwell said: "Women's experiences on maternity wards vary from utterly superb to appalling and unacceptable. The appalling end is leaving hundreds of thousands of women suffering from some kind of trauma."

At the heart of this national problem is a severe shortage of midwives.

According to the Royal College of Midwives, 10,000 more are required to ensure women get the care they need throughout childbirth.

The shortage is due to an increasing number of midwives reaching retirement age and cuts in government funding for maternity units, meaning that newly-qualified midwives find it harder to get jobs.

At present midwives have to work longer hours under greater stress, causing more of them to leave the profession.

Melanie Every, of the Royal College of Midwives, said: "Maternity care has become more involved, more invasive and the expectations of mothers are much greater than they were ten or 20 years ago. We have also seen a rise in the birth rate by around 50,000.

"Women should have one-to-one care during labour." She added that one midwife should have a caseload of 28 to 35 mothers, depending on the kind of care the woman needs. However, there are hospital trusts where there is just one midwife for every 41 mothers.

She says: "Shortages could jeopardise the standard of care in some services, but that doesn't mean every maternity unit is a dangerous place to be. The UK is still a very safe place to have a baby."

The crisis in maternity care is being exacerbated by falling numbers of experienced senior doctors, again due to funding cuts.

The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists estimates there needs to be a 5 per cent annual increase in the number of consultant obstetricians to meet the demands of maternity units.

Yet since 2004, there has been a 17 per cent fall in the number of consultants being employed.

This means that maternity units are routinely left without a senior doctor on the wards in the evenings and at weekends to deal with complications.

Some 64 per cent of average-sized maternity units (ones where 3,000 to 4,000 babies are born a year) have a consultant on the wards only between 9am and 5pm, Monday to Friday. At other times, units are forced to rely on senior doctors who are on call from home.

The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists has set a target that all units of this size should have consultant cover from 9am to 9pm on weekdays by 2009.

Professor Shaughn O'Brien, vicepresident of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, said: "Maternity care is very safe but it could be safer if there was one-toone midwifery care available and there was consultant presence on the labour ward.

"But the Government has never provided the funding for significant numbers of consultants to give this level of round-the-clock care on maternity wards, as there is in Europe.

"If we could prevent one medical legal case for brain damage - which would receive a payout of around 3.5 million - it would pay for one consultant obstetrician for the whole of his obstetric career."

Ministers desperate to limit the political furore sparked by the maternity crisis insist that services will improve.

By 2009, they are promising that all women will be able to choose whether they want to give birth at home, in a midwife-led unit or in hospital, and will have access to continuous care during childbirth.

To achieve this, the Government is planning to 'reconfigure' maternity services, merging some hospitals to make 'super-units', while opening a number of smaller midwifery-led units.

However, critics claim the restructuring process means 43 existing maternity units have closed or are under threat - a move which they say will restrict women's choices.

They also point out that continuity of care is less likely in big regional birth centres as opposed to smaller local centres.

Any improvements in maternity care will come too late for Annette, who has been left to reflect on her ordeal last April.

She feels the NHS failed her and her baby because there weren't enough staff on the maternity ward and the midwives who were assigned to her didn't give her enough attention.

"Were it not for my mother, I dread to think what would have happened," she says. "Harriet is a happy, healthy little girl, but it could have been so different.

"What worries me is that many women won't be lucky enough to have their mums by their sides and will be left at the mercy of medical professionals who don't have the time or the inclination to look after them properly.

"The Government needs to increase funding for midwives or I will certainly not be the last woman to have a terrible experience of birth."


I am reminded of this PJ O'Rourke quote.

If you think healthcare is expensive, wait until it is free.

 
(@sandygunfox)
Posts: 3468
Famed Member
 

At least in America, the doctors tend to care about you, because you're their paycheck.

 
 THS
(@ths)
Posts: 3666
Famed Member
 

Everyone in the UK knows the NHS is arse Oo heck, a lot of the public sector is falling apart lately. this only seems extraordinary as an outsider, anyone in Britain should know that for anything other than emergencies you're better off going private overall.

 
(@trudi-speed)
Posts: 841
Prominent Member
 

This is highly insurprising. Before we went private my Mum developed bladder stones. The waiting time for the routine operation to remove them on NHS? Eight years. The waiting time to remove the stones she later developed in her lymph nodes in her neck by Bupa? One month.

Anyone who moves to the UK for their free healthcare has a nasty suprise coming up.

 
(@veckums)
Posts: 1758
Noble Member
 

At least in Britain you have a choice of which healthcare to use, and note the article suggested Europe has better public alternatives. Do you have a problem with that choice Ultra and SX? If you don't want to use public healthcare, you don't have to. So to try to deny it to others who have NO option otherwise is ridiculous.

 
(@sandygunfox)
Posts: 3468
Famed Member
 

If nothing, it's worse, because the British replies are all, "Oh, this is typical."

 
(@ultra-sonic-007)
Posts: 4336
Famed Member
Topic starter
 

Quote:


So to try to deny it to others who have NO option otherwise is ridiculous.


Who said I advocated that?

It's more of a look at how bloody inefficient universal healthcare can be.

 
(@sandygunfox)
Posts: 3468
Famed Member
 

It leaves me to wonder if this is even better than staying home. It's just not worth it for some giant lie that there is healthcare. Our government does NOT have an infinite amount of money.

 
(@Anonymous)
Posts: 0
New Member Guest
 

Quote:


Our government does NOT have an infinite amount of money.


Although you'd never think it from the sheer amount of cash they've thrown at Iraq in an attempt to make terrorism magically go away.

 
 THS
(@ths)
Posts: 3666
Famed Member
 

To be perfectly fair, the British population is, in the words of the great Bill Bailey, 'infused with a wistful melancholy', and we 'love it when it all goes wrong' - as such, both mine and Susan's replies may not be an entirely accurate view of the NHS. My own personal experiences have been entirely satisfactory to my recollection, but it's just that there's regular disaster stories and our country isn't what it used to be, so this sort of thing isn't really 'outrageous' to the average, apathetic member of the British public.

 
(@nukeallthewhales_1722027993)
Posts: 1044
Noble Member
 

lol daily mail.

also lol @ the millions of americans that go fully without healthcare (i.e poor, elderly etc), and when they require treatment they will be left to die.

I've found that my experience of the nhs to be pretty good, so one example from a conservative paper ftl. And yes you'll always find other examples as it's the british past time to complain about the nhs.

 
 THS
(@ths)
Posts: 3666
Famed Member
 

Thatcher didn't have time to privatise the NHS along with everything else :crazy

 
(@trudi-speed)
Posts: 841
Prominent Member
 

My experiance with the NHS has been poor myself. I've had experiances where we've been waiting for appointments only to find that they forgot us and have closed the departments, and general ignorance towards my mum. But yet oh look I'm conservative and I read the Daily Mail! But yeah the Daily Mail often publishes grim stories about the NHS so I may be biased c.c

 
(@sandygunfox)
Posts: 3468
Famed Member
 

and when they require treatment they will be left to die.

...and a newborn wasn't left to die there?

 
 THS
(@ths)
Posts: 3666
Famed Member
 

Isolated incidents resulting from poor management in the NHS and widespread lack of health care for most everything due to financial implications are not one and the same.

 
(@thecycle)
Posts: 1818
Noble Member
 

Ultra, if you based your entire perception of Canadian healthcare on editorials in conservative newspapers, you'd think it was a completely dysfunctional string of disasters. I imagine the same is true with the UK's public healthcare system.

 
(@sandygunfox)
Posts: 3468
Famed Member
 

Use only liberal sources to ensure complete accuracy of information.

 
(@stumbleina)
Posts: 534
Honorable Member
 

A question for Ultra or SX: Do you have health insurance?

 
(@toby-underwood)
Posts: 2398
Noble Member
 

Don't remind me, I'm supposedly getting to the age where I need to seriously start thinking about healthcare. Fortunately I think the craptastic free healthcare Native Americans get will do me for awhile longer.

~Tobe

 
(@sandygunfox)
Posts: 3468
Famed Member
 

Yep! I think.

 
(@chibibecca_1722585688)
Posts: 3291
Famed Member
 

i've been lucky as of yet with the NHS, i can get a same-day doctors appointment if i phone up at 8am, or an appointment within a fortnight if i just walk into the clinic.
i was looked after really well when i had that emergancy op to remove my appendix.

on the flipside.. my grandpa contracted MRSA after one of his many hospital visits, which didn't really help with his cancer.
and you have to be careful not to fall ill on the weekends or after 5pm. theres after-hours clinics about, but i've no idea how to contact them or get to them.

still, if you want a non-emergancy operation that you still find rather urgent, it's best to go private.

 
(@sandygunfox)
Posts: 3468
Famed Member
 

Wait, if you walk in and request an appointment, you have to wait at least two weeks, and that's lucky?

 
(@rico-underwood)
Posts: 2928
Famed Member
 

Paid for a doctor lately? Last I went it was 150 bucks just to get told what was wrong with me and get equate meds. And that's in hickville with negative level QoL.

NDN's have free healthcare but they may misdiagnose blood poisoning as a mild allergy and hand you claritin.

~Tobe

 
(@Anonymous)
Posts: 0
New Member Guest
 

Last night on House they misdiagnosed a relatively minor infection as cancer and gave the patient radiation.

She died.

 
(@thecycle)
Posts: 1818
Noble Member
 

But that's House which, like most other hospital dramas, is a highly unrealistic portrayal of hospitals.

 
(@chibibecca_1722585688)
Posts: 3291
Famed Member
 

thanks for the spoilers. ^.x; *hasn't seen that episode yet, currently has been watching the ones with the angry cop in*

as for my two week wait, it's non-emergancy and it's a small doctors clinic. if i really needed to be seen, i'd call up first thing in the morning.

 
(@james-crownfur)
Posts: 18
Eminent Member
 

Members of the Cult of Single Payer! Let me tell you, your god is a false god in this place called the United States of America! We can talk about the magical lands of the UK and Canada, but for us Americans...they do not exist. Why is he false you may ask? Simple...

1) Defensive Medicine: This is the practice of ordering tests that have a low chance of catching or helping in the diagnosis of a desease. Why do Physicians order these then? Simple, to protect themselves from a lawsuit. I have heard it costs the US Healthcare system $500 Billion dollars a year.

2) Americans do not know when to die: European Public Healthcare systems make this an easy choice for most people with any age on them. You will die, you will not get any surgery/dialysis/<insert procedure here>. This goes for everyone.

Contray to popular belief, it's quite easy TO get medical care and good medical care in the United States uninsured. Need primary care? Go to the ER. Dying? Go to the ER, they'll transfer you to an ICU and you'll get dialysis. This goes back to the lawsuits. Your Doctor takes you off the Dialysis? Wrongful death lawsuit. Basicly, in the United States, if it's life threatening, it will be treated. If it's elective...well...we've seen the elective surgery waiting times in the United Kingdom now havn't we.

Now you say..."Well, they have to pay for these services...", once again, WRONG. Most people just ignore the bills...sure you MAY get the hospital suing you for it, but this is unlikely. Because they know they you can't pay it, thus making any lawsuit on their part fruitless.

3) There is a finite amount of Healthcare: Just like any other resource, gold, silver, or illicit drugs, there is only so much healthcare to go around. Anyone with a basic understanding of economics knows this.

And a little something that's more opinion...

Freedom of Speech and Healthcare: Some people imply that healthcare is a right. Well, if it were to become a right(I personally don't believe it is. NO non-academic physician would say it is a right either. They are in business after all. They have a family to feed and major debts to pay.) it would be a positive right. Meaning someone HAS to do something FOR you. Freedom of Speech is a negative right. Meaning, the Government, has no right to shut you up(within reason, can't yell fire in the movie theater).

As of right now, nobody, can force a physician(an individual) to take anyone on as a patient. It's there own free choice. If you had a gunshot wound and you went to a doctor on the street and asked him to remove it, he has EVERY right to say NO and render zero medical care. Morally, that's up to debate.

How do they get around this? Simple, Hospitals. A good majority of Doctors want admitting privillages to their local hospital. In return, the hospital...which is forced to take anyone who enters it's doors, unlike the individual physician...expects that the physician will take call.

Call? Call is basicly where the physician can be called up...or called in to render medical services to someone who needs it. Persay, someone got shot in the head. They'd call in a Neurosurgeon.

So this is how the government forces a physician to take on a patient.

Now...I explained why a single payer system wouldn't work in the United States(and would in fact be counter-productive to providing the most healthcare to the most people). I will see what everyone else has to say before I continue on with the solution to making healthcare in the United States better and around for more people.

 
Share: