Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

Shrewsbury and Telford Hospital Trust with significantly lower CS rate in scandal.

39 replies

RedToothBrush · 19/09/2018 23:30

Shrewsbury and Telford NHS Trust has got themselves embroiled in a huge scandal over their maternity unit. It now seems that 100 deaths are under review.

Why does this concern me particularly?

The main reason is because there is only now stuff coming out questioning this.

You see in 2016 the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists published a report on regional variation on outcomes in childbirth based on information relating to 3rd / 4th degree tears and CS rates. This was based on data from 2013/14.

From this data it was glaringly obvious from the data that questions should have been raised.

Shrewsbury and Telford not only had one of the lowest CS rates:

Proportion of deliveries by caesarean section (ALL CS)
National average Primiparous deliveries: 22.1%
The Shrewsbury and Telford NHS Trust: 12.8%

But it also had one of the lowest levels of CS rates from induced labour:
Proportion of induced labours resulting in emergency caesarean section
National average Primiparous deliveries: 29.9%
The Shrewsbury and Telford NHS Trust: 15.1%

Annoyingly the site that had all this data has been taken down, so it can't be compared easily but its out there. (And I'm glad I took the time to make a note of this at the time).

Shrewsbury's rates were abnormally low against other Trusts. It immediately begged a simple key point;

Either they were doing something amazing that other hospitals should be following to improve their own outcomes
or
They were doing something VERY wrong

(It also raised the question of whether they had a population which was particularly low risk but there isn't really anything about the area in terms of demographics which makes it distinct from other areas, so its relatively easy to dismiss).

If this data was like this for a single year, it looks bad. If its part of a similar pattern, its worse.

Its the type of stat that you look at going WHY? What ARE they doing there.

And here we are:
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6186371/Shrewsbury-baby-scandal-covers-100-deaths-Probe-NHS-trust-grows.html

And the following lines immediately jump out at me.
Yet a number of families insist their babies died needlessly because midwives missed treatable infections or complications.

Other women claim they were forced to have natural labours without the use of caesareans or forceps.

Telford CCG has also recently introduced a blanket ban on maternal request CS against NICE guidance. The CCG are a separate body to the Trust, but my question here in the context of things going on, is to ask whether the CCG introduced this after a steep rise in requests in the area - following traumic births or women hearing particularly troubling stories?

This stinks to high heaven, and I hope that if there are any lurking journalists out there, they look into this angle. If this pans out to show that there really is a scandal like Morecombe here, then there seems to be a case to answer by BigWigs higher up the NHS food chain. Did they ignore stats that jump out, shout and do a little dance whilst they invite some attention.

I really hope this inquiry does not turn out the way I fear it is.

I know this message perhaps should be in another section, and maybe its just shouting into the abyss. But it is relevant to feminism and frankly I'm sick to death of maternity services being one of the sections of the NHS which is most neglected in terms of political interest, in part because women have been so conditioned into accepting sub standard care and new mothers being one of the groups least able to advocate/raise a complaint at the time.

I am maybe just hoping that a lurking journalist bumps into this one, and keeps an eye on it, cos if this does turn out to be another Morecambe, the story isn't about individual midwives and managers.

It would seriously suggest that this would be about something very much bigger, indicating a systematic failure to ask simple questions at the highest levels of the NHS. I want to make damn sure that there something out there posing those particular questions whilst hoping that these cases are properly reviewed.

I hope to god, I'm wrong about this and my spidey senses are just malfunctioning.

OP posts:
New posts on this thread. Refresh page
Scout1774 · 27/09/2018 09:50

I used to live in this area. A number of work colleagues had babies at Telford Princess Royal hospital. I was quite young so not really paying attention to baby stuff at that point, but I remember several colleagues complaining that they were completely refused epidurals despite repeated requests.

Obviously this is not anywhere near the same league as being denied a CS and your child dying (I cannot imagine anything worse) but the general feeling was that the midwives were extremely unsympathetic.

One of my friends could afford to go private, and she did without even considering the NHS route.

basbousa · 21/09/2018 01:03

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

RhymesWithOrange · 21/09/2018 00:26

I had my baby at Shrewsbury in 2007. Forceps birth. We were both injured but thankfully no major lasting effects, just scars. No question it should have been a c section. I'm going to write to the enquiry

My heart goes out to those poor parents and babies who have suffered and died.

sleepsleepandmoresleep · 20/09/2018 21:06

@placemats I've had one high forceps delivery and one elective CS delivery (because of the previous issues). I would rather have 10 ELCS deliveries than another high forceps one. For info (my CS was only 2 weeks ago) I was given antibiotics via IV during the surgery and was told that it's standard to give them to everyone now as a preventative measure.

Thanks for this thread OP. I don't normally post on this board but this is quite close to my heart given my personal experiences. I'm finding myself more and more disgusted at the way pregnant women are treated with regard to their birth choices.

hellotoyellow · 20/09/2018 19:50

The RCOG's data has been replaced by the NMPA. See www.maternityaudit.org.uk .

LassWiADelicateAir · 20/09/2018 19:44

What point were you trying to make in a thread about the risks to mothers and babies when a cs is not offered?

What point were you trying to make by stating , incorrectly, that antibiotics are always necessary in a cs- when that is not the case?

placemats · 20/09/2018 17:43

It is good practice to be given antibiotics before the operation.

And here we go - some one talking up the dangers of CS and ignoring the fact all of these things can happen with a natural birth.

I'm not 'talking up the dangers' nor was I ignoring that these things happen with a vaginal birth. Stop twisting my words.

AndhowcouldIeverrefuse · 20/09/2018 17:35

It's an added complication in childbirth that always requires antibiotics as well even if elective.
I didn't have antibiotics with my elective section - but I did with my VB.

Thank you for this thread Red.

crossparsley · 20/09/2018 17:18

It's a very long time since I had any contact with health policy, but one measure in the 90s for maternity units was called - and huge apologies for upsetting anyone - the 'take home baby rate'. That is, the baby should be well enough to go home, and the mother should be well enough to cope at home with her or him.

Clearly, some horrible things happen that even modern Western medicine can't always manage. But the PP who said that outcomes matter, not processes (we used to call that an 'input standard') is absolutely right. Why isn't every labour ruled by the absolute priority of two living humans?

BitchyHen · 20/09/2018 17:00

Shrewsbury has had a low rate of CS births for a very long time. It was one of the lowest in the UK in 1998 when my DD1 was born. This is not because of a high level of care. I don't think I saw the same midwife or doctor twice in my three pregnancies. Shrewsbury and Telford hospitals trust have made a conscious decision to dissuade women from requesting C sections and this has been happening for at least 20 years.

randomsabreuse · 20/09/2018 16:55

SATH is my local trust. There are lots of local debates about cuts - merging the 2 A&Es, consultant led births all at Telford in the new unit, local MLUs shut down with long journeys to hospital.

I was happy enough with my experience at the consultant led unit in Telford, Telford MLU perhaps a little overstretched and in hindsight was sent home inappropriately as "not in labour". Was in pushing stage 2 hours later... particularly annoying was the 20 minute plus wait to be reassessed when I got back there because the midwife clearly thought I was being wet and not in labour- the change in attitude when she examined me and found I was 7+ cm!

LassWiADelicateAir · 20/09/2018 16:40

The narrative in the media, , for as long as I can remember has been the aim to reduce the number of CS births

That is my impression- and almost always pushed by women.

LassWiADelicateAir · 20/09/2018 16:38

CS can lead to complications such as loss of bladder and bowel control, adhesions, uterine prolapse. It's an added complication in childbirth that always requires antibiotics as well even if elective

And here we go - some one talking up the dangers of CS and ignoring the fact all of these things can happen with a natural birth.

I don't recall getting antibiotics after my elective cs.

hackmum · 20/09/2018 11:03

Sloth: "My understanding is that many women whose vaginal births have resulted in life-limiting injuries such as serious sexual dysfunction or incontinence are often recorded as having had successful births, merely because they didn’t die."

Absolutely - these kinds of outcomes must be recorded.

What's interesting is that Shropshire's low caesarean rate wasn't driven by women demanding natural births in some kind of misguided belief that if they had scented candles and the rest, all would be OK. It was clearly a trust policy, and one not based on medical evidence. Whether it's because an ideological belief in natural birth was overriding appropriate decision-making during labour, or whether it was simply the result of a desire to save money by having fewer caesareans, is hard to say.

placemats · 20/09/2018 10:59

CS can lead to complications such as loss of bladder and bowel control, adhesions, uterine prolapse. It's an added complication in childbirth that always requires antibiotics as well even if elective.

Personally, I would rather a CS than a high forceps delivery.

Original poster
RedToothBrush · 20/09/2018 10:58

Strongly agree, but this also means having honest criteria for what constitutes “well”. My understanding is that many women whose vaginal births have resulted in life-limiting injuries such as serious sexual dysfunction or incontinence are often recorded as having had successful births, merely because they didn’t die. It’s a disgrace.

This is why I was pleasantly surpised when the RCOG produced the data set in 2016 that those figures above came from.

It covered a lot of things that have not previously been covered in other publically available data - things that should be, as they cover a number of different definitions of 'harm', that I'd argue are more in line with women's concerns.

  • All data split down into first time mothers and mothers who have previously had children (which is particularly useful)
  • Data regarding 3rd and 4th degree tears.
  • Data split into EMCS and pre-labour CS
  • Data regarding induction
  • Data regarding VBAC
  • Data regarding instruments
  • Data regarding episiotomy
  • Data regarding unplanned readmission to hospital

RCOG had an interactive tool about it all, but they removed it! Its incredibly frustrating (especially since I can't find the raw data it used). It wasn't perfect but it did raise questions, which needed following up.

I started a thread at the time, and listed some of the 'outliers' - figures that suggest the possible of an unusal demographic (thus a particular reason for unusual figures), really good practice which others should be encouraged to follow or the possibility of really bad practice.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/childbirth/2598442-New-Data-Comparing-Hospitals-and-Outcomes-in-Childbirth

OP posts:
SlothSlothSloth · 20/09/2018 10:49

Note that my post above is talking on an individual level - women I personally know or have seen talking about their natural birth experiences online. At an institutional level, I of course don’t lay the blame for these kinds of shameful situations at the door of women in particular, but at the door of the systems which paternalistically ignore women’s needs and self-knowledge in order to make some kind of scanty (and false) savings.

SlothSlothSloth · 20/09/2018 10:45

Because for so long certain groups, often women's groups , have been banging on about natural births ; midwife led births; midwife only units ; the need to demedicalise birth; articles about "failed birth experience" because there was intervention; talking up how awful c-sections are; denigration of women who choose c-sections

Yes lass, you are right. It is always really interesting to me the extent to which this sneering about sections/evangelism regarding painkiller-free birth etc is led by women. I honestly think most men would be happier if c-sections were the default - less likely to mess up their sex lives. Some women do really seem to want other women to suffer, whether it’s necessary or not - and take great pride in having gone through avoidable/reducible suffering themselves.

SlothSlothSloth · 20/09/2018 10:41

You shouldn't set targets that measure the number of caesareans you have; you should set targets for the number of mothers and babies who are alive and well after childbirth

Strongly agree, but this also means having honest criteria for what constitutes “well”. My understanding is that many women whose vaginal births have resulted in life-limiting injuries such as serious sexual dysfunction or incontinence are often recorded as having had successful births, merely because they didn’t die. It’s a disgrace.

placemats · 20/09/2018 10:26

Such an interesting thread. The evidence is clear that those figures are shockingly below the national average and that there is a clear correlation to horrendous medical sequelae.

Common sense seems to be overtaken by candles, mood music, water baths, doulas and hypnotherapy.

hackmum · 20/09/2018 10:18

Thanks very much for bringing this up, RedToothBrush. The problem can be simply summarised as prioritising process over outcome. You shouldn't set targets that measure the number of caesareans you have; you should set targets for the number of mothers and babies who are alive and well after childbirth. Sometimes a caesarean section is the only intervention that will save a baby's life or prevent it from long-term disability. Every single case is different and must be assessed on its own merits.

UpstartCrow · 20/09/2018 10:07

The all natural Earth Mother movement is a middle class movement. I've always been suspicious of it because the outcome is so much like the puritanical Biblical idea that women should suffer in labour.

Original poster
RedToothBrush · 20/09/2018 10:01

The problem is the dominance of ideology in medicine.

Women's groups are pushing the overly simplist ideological message that CS = bad.

CS ARE a harm and undesirable outcome compared to a natural birth. BUT and this is the point they are a more desirable outcome than other injuries and death. And this seems to have got lost in the establishment of CS target rates. Its a fundamental point that has been totally overlooked.

I've been keeping an eye on how this is playing out in the NHS for a very long time, as its given me a lot of concern. I do think there is a MASSIVE political blind spot here. I noted the RCOG figures back in 2016 for a reason.

We KNOW that the scientific data supports the point that women NEED to give birth in an environment that they are comfortable in. This is why home births work for low risk births despite being counter intutitiave about being away from a medical setting. Because of the role of anxiety inhibiting the natural birthing process.

That would suggest that how you manage anxiety and how you listen to ALL women - not just a select group who are able to advocate - should be your number one top priority. Its not. And the reason its not, is a hugely political one.

If you are setting a very low CS target AND you are running your hospital on low staff, its a recipe for disaster. Not only do you have fewer staff to spot problems but you also are potentially making the environment more stressful for both women and staff. Which in theory, based on the evidence about anxiety levels and hormones, means you are much more likely to produce more difficult results as a direct result. Its exactly the opposite thing to do, if you know that anxiety inhibits the natural birthing process and is more likely to cause adverse outcomes. If you have women coming to you saying that they are too afraid to give birth, you don't increase that anxiety with beaucracy and hoop jumping. You work with them to decrease that anxiety in whatever way works best for them. Which requires contact time.

This isn't rocket science.

Its another one of these where austerity crosses over with feminism and produces actual harm. You CAN NOT reduce costs in maternity without there being the potential for HUGE adverse consequences - which are both health related and cost related. It is not cost effective to reduce staffing nor to aggressively try to reduce CS rates by gatekeeping alone. Especially when you consider the percentage of NHS negligance claims that originate from maternity departments. (And don't get me started on how maternity department with a poor record, end up with higher insurance premiums which mean they have less money to invest in actually improving care).

If you want to reduce CS rates you have to invest in staffing and the enviroment women are giving birth. You have to work on HCP relationships an trust.

Again we have this narrative appearing about women being too scared to give birth because of social media. Its been in the press this week a huge amount this week. It sets women up as infantile and pathetic sharing horror stories rather than women talking to each other and building up a picture of institutional failures and the consquences of austerity. Women are not allowed to talk.

Its interesting that tokophobia has appeared at the exact same time as austerity - its not just occurred at the same time as social media. The whole media narrative that seems to have developed this week is an exercise in correlation being used in a way that suggests causation rather than considering whether that the correlation is a sympton of another problem (austerity and ideological preferences) at root cause. Because people in power don't want to delve deeper into this - because it would require them to take action.

The role of science has gone out the window. Data is being used in a misleading way without questions being asked when they perhaps should be. Often against women to try and silence them. And women are not being listened to and are being shut out of the picture, which is leading to harm being done to them. Not only that, but women who are most able to advocate for themselves (or have someone who is able to advocate for them) and navigate through the system in a way that is good for them and prevents harm, tend to be middle class older, educated women. (Which has in part led to the term 'too posh to push' - ironically in every other area of healthcare this group are known to have better health outcomes and this is seen as a positive thing. In the case of child birth, because it harms the narrative of cs = bad, these women are being smeared by other highly motived and able activists) Younger, working class or ethnic minorities tend to have greater problems getting their concerns listened to and strangely enough have worse outcomes.

And yes, I do think the CQC has some questions to answer. MN did a thing a couple of years ago on post-natal care and I trawelled through a whole bunch of CQC reports. What jumped out at me, was how inconsistent they were, how there seemed to be things that were omitted and how as long as you ticked the right boxes the CQC would say 'yes', when there were other niggling things in the details, that made me go hmmmm in a big way. So I am very interested in what the CQC have to say over Shrewsbury and Telford and I'm very interested to see how this pans out.

Its funny how this pattern of power of groups, ideology over science, the role of the media, failure of institutions to do what they are supposed to and money that is present in trans politics and is present in wider populist politics is very much being replicated in maternity care.

And no I don't believe its a coincedence.

People do not want to see a problem and they do what they can to deny its existance, because acknowledging a problem properly means admitting failure and taking difficult (and often expensive) measures to rectify that problem. And politicially women are not deemed worth that.

OP posts:
PerkingFaintly · 20/09/2018 08:12

Diane Taylor writing in the Guardian seems to have been looking at processes which affect patient safety at Shrewsbury, last year, though not Caesarian rates. So might also be interested in the CS data.

www.theguardian.com/society/2017/apr/21/nhs-maternity-units-testing-shrewsbury-telford-trust-hopeless

A senior figure in an NHS trust’s maternity unit under investigation over avoidable baby deaths has admitted that some practices in the unit were “hopeless”.

Andrew Tapp, medical director of women and children’s services at Shrewsbury and Telford hospital NHS trust, said in an email to a GP: “I think there are real problems here.” The GP had raised concerns about the maternity’s unit’s communication of test results.

The emails, seen by the Guardian, were sent in May 2016. The GP says his concerns about the safety of patients persist, citing a recent incident he was involved in that could have risked the life of an unborn baby.

PerkingFaintly · 20/09/2018 07:58

In fact NHS Improvement plugs its project "Making Data Count" on its front page, so you may be pushing at an open door there. Maybe.

improvement.nhs.uk

Swipe left for the next trending thread