Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

News

NICE recommend all women should be able to have a cs

999 replies

LoveBeingAWitch · 29/10/2011 22:59

Just seen tomorrow's front page of the Sunday times saying that NICE are saying cd has become such a safe op that every woman should be able to have one if that's what they want. Im quite surprised by this.

OP posts:
jjkm · 31/10/2011 16:38

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

quietlyafraid · 31/10/2011 16:42

I've already said it doesn't take into account those figures. It should.

It should look at the number of children women having electives have, their age, and general health. All relevant factors. All information that we probably don't have at present anyway.

At which point, you start ending up with so many variable and factors that you get to the point where you might as well start pulling numbers out of your backside.

I actually think this is probably why NICE left it at just urinary incontinence to illustrate point it was so full of variables it was impossible to calculate but you shouldn't just do it on base cost as it was shortsighted, misleading and provided false figures. I think it was about proving that money wasn't as big a deal as many would believe.

I think it was about putting choice out there over cost with best interests of the women being the driving factor.

I could of course, be talking bollocks though. I wasn't on the panel and don't really know what their philosophy was overall. Just theorising based on whats in the report (and also what is not). My brain's fried.

Iggly · 31/10/2011 16:46

Sorry Bag but read my username. It's Iggly not iggly2. different poster.

jellybeans · 31/10/2011 16:48

I'm not sure. I have had 2 full term normal births and 3 c sections. One of those was planned and so different to emergency/crash. I would much rather have a natural birth as it is far better emotionally and recovery wise (but obviously that depends-some people have a horrible time) but for me as long as the baby is OK that is the main thing. I almost died (massive internal bleed) after my 2nd section which makes me wary of them. But with hindsight i should have hadmy twins by section as i had a horrible dual birth with them and almost lost one due to the delivery.

juuule · 31/10/2011 16:53

^£3,275 for vaginal
£3,359 for planned c-section
£84 difference.^

Does every vb cost 3,275 and every cs 3,359? Are these averaged out figures which include treatment for incontinence in both cases?

I'm trying to understand how an in/out same day no problem vb can cost almost as much as a cs requiring surgeons/theatres/anaesthesia.

MrsJRT · 31/10/2011 16:55

In my experience it is not a theoretical 'risk' that women require more care following section, it's a fact, I work on a busy postnatal ward and it is undeniable that following surgery women (quite rightly) need a lot more doing for them than women who are up and out of bed. You were the exception to the rule. On the campaign for better postnatal care thread how many women complained that they were left with catheters unemptied, soiled pads, no food, buzzers unanswered? That will not improve with an increased number of women on the ward who have had surgery, I welcome maternal choice but I do feel that for an operation there does need to be some medical basis, nowhere else would we be able to request an operation for a procedure that had a cheaper alternative without some kind of medical basis.

shagmundfreud · 31/10/2011 16:57

"I think it was about proving that money wasn't as big a deal as many would believe"

I think that's very disingenuous.

You have said that the cost of urinary incontinence was only included by way of illustration of the difficulties in calculating overall costs.

But then you've gone on to say many times on this thread that the differences in costs appear to be minimal, once treatment for urinary incontinence are taken into account.

To which I'd respond, if you're going to take the cost of treating urinary incontinence into account and use this figure as an illustration to prove a point, then you must also take into account the costs associated with repeat c/s, as this is likely to make a significant difference to the cost analysis in favour of vaginal birth.

quietlyafraid · 31/10/2011 17:00

juuule Its not JUST a vaginal birth with no problems.

Its a planned vaginal birth. So if you have a vaginal birth that ends up with an emergency section then all the associated costs with that are added to VB figures as its about the method of planning rather than the actual outcome of birth.

You have to factor in 24hr costs of delivering a baby naturally including extra costs out of hours staff for that. It has adverse outcomes factored in (which are most likely in emergency c-sections and instrumental deliveries).

Figures for incontinence including incontinence for c-sections as well as VB. But like I say, i think this is about illustrating a point rather than pinpointing an finite cost.

am988 · 31/10/2011 17:06

I'm very happy to hear this. I had EMCS as I was induced.. 22 hours of labour which got me nowhere plus I just HATED being induced - it was a nightmare. It tired my body out and it felt VERY wrong. The CS was a walk in the park compared to the 'torture' of induction. After this experience I won't want to have any other children unless I was promised a planned CS.

shagmundfreud · 31/10/2011 17:12

am988. I think many women will feel like you.

Which is why it's a bloody tragedy that one in five labours is induced in the UK. Actually one in three labours in some hospitals. Shock

Given that we know the vast majority of healthy mums who are induced for 'post dates' pregnancy would go on to deliver a healthy baby following a spontaneous onset of labour, something needs to be done to reduce the way this intervention is being used.

nancerama · 31/10/2011 17:13

I think this is great news. I was desperate to have a natural water birth at a midwife led birthing centre. Unfortunately DS had other ideas, and after going horribly overdue I was induced.

30 hours of contractions later, hooked up to monitors and the drip, I was only 4cm dilated and exhausted, so was whisked off for an EMCS.

If I were to have another DC, I would still prefer to try for a natural birth, but would never agree to another induction - I would definitely like to skip to the CS.

quietlyafraid · 31/10/2011 17:18

"I think that's very disingenuous"

I don't.

My point has been throughout that as soon as you add in complications its not a cut and dry £800 difference, the cost argument isn't relevant and the £800 thrown around in the press is bollocks and shows the poor reporting of the report, missing key arguments.

I've also pointed out other issues which you have ignored. But then we are never going to agree on this... done my best listening to your points, I do think some are very important - but I simply draw different conclusions and think differently overall.

GastroTurf · 31/10/2011 17:18

Fabulous news. I'm another one who would only get pregnant again if I could have a guaranteed ELCS.

I hated hated hated giving birth, I'm sure it was unremarkable to the delivery staff but it was a truly vile experience. The damage I was left with means I am incapable of having a meaningful sex life 16 months after DDs birth, and I don't know when I will recover physically or mentally.

I was terrified of giving birth and had it been possible to request a CS as a matter of course I would have, and would then not have sustained the birth injuries that I did.

reallytired · 31/10/2011 17:21

^£3,275 for vaginal
£3,359 for planned c-section
£84 difference.^

I think that these figures are academic I imagine the cost of a vaginal birth varies considerably depending on the length of labour, any complications or need of pain relief. I cannot believe that my home birth cost the nhs 3K. I only had one midwife for 1 hour of my labour and the time of 2 midwives for two hours afterwards. I had no pain relief other than tens which I provided myself. I believe that my midwife spent more time writing up the notes than actually providing care.

I suppose you need to factor in emergency services which I had used.

I suspect that when a vaginal birth goes wrong it is very expensive.These figures are averages. Also what treatment optimises the chance of a positive outcome.

Prehaps we need better research to indentify women who actually need a section.

With ds I had a lot more attention as I had a 33 hour labour in hospital. I also had flu which made the obstrictian anxious.

There is no easy way to know if a first time mum will have an easy time in labour or need every intervention going.

BagofHolly · 31/10/2011 17:28

Apologies Iggly, my mistake.

working9while5 · 31/10/2011 17:40

MrsJRT, I think you are missing the point. The care needs there but they are not always met. Many women are forced out of bed because staff feel under pressure to do it, but they are traumatised by the results. For those women with CS's, my colleague often talks of how she couldn't get over the difference between aftercare post-appendicitis and birth, when she had to try to get a baby out of a cot while catheterised with no help or support and was chastised for not getting up and going to the toilet within hours when she had been scolded for trying after "major surgery" for her appendix.

After my vaginal birth (with Kielland's forceps, so catheterised/spinal block etc), my experience of postnatal care was being roared at by a very unsympathetic midwife because I had dropped wipes on the floor. "I'm not here to clean up after you! Get out of bed!". I had no feeling in my legs FFS! I was told I couldn't change my baby on the bed, but was supposed to do this on the tiny leaf of the cot stand when I couldn't get out of bed. I was told that I needed to sit up to feed and when I complained that I couldn't, was barked at some more because I should have realised it would hurt Hmm. I was treated like a piece of shit by people working on busy postnatal wards and I have no sympathy for the view that the "pressures" they faced allowed this appalling behaviour to be manifest.

It was degrading and humiliating and when I finally plucked up the courage to complain after reading the post-natal thread on here and so many similar experiences from so many women, I was told that as 12 months had passed it was tough luck, they didn't even want to know but I could have someone to "debrief" with. Yes, because that would make substandard care better next time? What about all that NHS bumph about "learning"? Yeah, right, they couldn't give two shits about how poorly I'd been treated, they simply knew I couldn't sue so there was no consequent need for "learning".

MrsJRT, yes, departments are squeezed but the NHS needs to get a GRIP, you can't dictate what the evidence says because people are "overstretched". And, let's face it, anyone who works in the NHS knows that a great deal of wastage is caused by the significant proportion of inefficient, bored, lazy and downright cruel staff who do everything slowly and think that patients owe them a favour just for needing care. Propped up by managers who talk nothing but jargon and sit in lengthy meetings about NHS brand nonsense and are paid more than medical and frontline staff to do so, making decisions on what glossy leaflet to print next. We know these people exist, I have seen plenty of them on wards and on Trust corridors, and yet what is at question here is denying women a choice which might save endless psychological trauma - I would rather see the dead wood of the NHS trimmed than see this cost argument rage.

The evidence says it is warranted, the evidence says that it should be allowed. That is a health basis for this decision in the limited cases it would apply wrt mental health concerns and previous traumatic experiences not alleviated by counselling. The evidence takes precedence over how hard staff find it in squeezed departments, frankly. The NHS needs to find a way to give good care and not create moral issues because of poor standards being allowed to flourish and staff pressures are NO EXCUSE for allowing women to be degraded and demoralised because it is seen as women being too posh to push!

Iggly · 31/10/2011 17:45

Grin that's ok Bag, I spotted that poster earlier and was a bit Hmm about their name being so close to mine.

MrsJRT · 31/10/2011 17:49

Don't shout at me. Am I excusing the treatment? No, I am also not a lazy midwife, in fact I break my back for each and every woman in my care, all I'm saying is If you think it's bad now then if you increase the number of surgical deliveries then under the current system it will get worse. The wards are not built for women and babies to have lengthy stays and there are not enough staff to carry out all the care required. You don't have to like it, you don't even have to believe me if you don't want but it's true. And the only way that will change is a complete overhaul of the way the NHS works, or more likely the NHS will cease to exist.

working9while5 · 31/10/2011 17:59

Good for you that you are so hardworking, although personally it makes me see red when HCPs use emotive lines like "I break my back for each and every woman in your care" - caring for clients is what we are paid to do, it is not something you get a medal for.

However, whether you personally are hardworking or not is irrelevant to my point really. It is not about me "liking" it, it is about HCPs not excusing poor and substandard care that doesn't meet best evidence because of current resourcing issues. Care is going going to get worse one way or the other but the answer isn't to deny the evidence because it is inconvenient.

Throughout this thread, it has been stated that the current system is in dire need of overhaul but really, if y ou feel that you will be understaffed and unable to carry out your duties safely it is your legal, moral and ethical responsibility as a HCP to speak out about that, not decide that because you personally believe that non-medical birth is not warranted that the evidence isn't important.

I wasn't shouting at you anyway, I was emphasising. And my point was quite generic and one I made earlier on this thread but you chose to take it personally.

fruitybread · 31/10/2011 18:00

Just a small, common sense aside here -

A couple of posters seem to say that nowhere else in the NHS would you be offered a 'choice' of procedures where there was a cheaper alternative on the table. They are trying to make a comparison between 'expensive' CS and 'cheap' VB.

leaving aside all of the very interesting and about-bloody-time info here about the real costs of VB and subsequent care -

There are plenty of instances where patients are given a choice of procedure, and not simply ordered to have the 'cheapest on the day' option.

With many operative procedures (major dental work, for example), it is possible to have either local or general anaesthetic. Individual patient information AND preference is taken into consideration. I can think of friends who have had bilateral eye surgery and wrist surgery on the NHS who have been given the option of 'both at the same time' or 'one at a time' operations - and who have been allowed a choice because of their life circumstances (or 'lifeSTYLE', if you want a more tabloid and dismissive term), and how they are able to manage post operatively.

It is plainly nonsense to tell a mother of 3 with limited help available that it would be 'best' for her to have carpal tunnel surgery on both hands at the same time, leaving her barely able to use either hand afterwards, because it was the cheapest option on the balance sheet for that hospital, on the day.

There are plenty of NHS procedures where choice is limited due to lack of resources. But is is NOT true that every NHS procedure is dictated to the patient purely on the grounds of 'on the day' costs to the hospital. I also suspect that those peddling this argument would not actually be happy to told they were having a specific kind of maternity care and birth, totally regardless of what they wanted, purely on the grounds that it was the cheapest option.

working9while5 · 31/10/2011 18:02

Sorry that should have read that "because you personally believe that non-medical reasons for a Caesarean birth are not justifiable

juuule · 31/10/2011 18:04

Reallytired - I can't see how me turning up at the maternity ward already pushing and delivering within half an hour of arriving, then going home at the first opportunity could have cost 3k. Unless there are hidden costs that I'm unaware of. Or it is averaged. In which case vb that goes wrong must cost considerably more than cs.
Are emcs not counted in the cs figures, then, quietly

Ryoko · 31/10/2011 18:18

I had an emergency C-Section, if I every got pregnant again I would never go for a natural birth no matter what.

quietlyafraid · 31/10/2011 18:26

Its an average cost which includes all outcomes.

EMCS are not in the CS figures, because it is about the PLANNED method of delivery, not the ACTUAL method of delivery.

You EITHER
plan a VB (which can end up with an EMCS in some cases)
OR
you plan a elective c-section.

Therefore, EMCS costs are included in the planned VB costs and not in the Elective CS figures. You can not just have a VB cost which doesn't include all the outcomes for that decision, whether intended or not - they are still a consequence of that decision.

Hence costs for a planned VB on average are higher than you might expect as you have to also take into account when things don't go to plan.

reallytired · 31/10/2011 18:27

juuule I agree with you completely. I had a really easy homebirth with dd and I doult I used 3K worth of services. I didn't spend any time on the postnatal ward. I was exceptionally lucky.

I suppose with ds I might have used more than 3K of services as I stayed in hospital 7 days and he had jaundice. However I think he woud have had jaundice however he had been born. He had an excellent apgar score when he was born, he was just very small.

I suppose that the infrastructure which caters for emergencies need to be paid for whether we use it or not. Ambulance crews have to be paid for even if they aren't used. I suppose that if all babies were born by planned c section then there would be no need for so many obstrictians to do shift work. The operations would be carried out at a civilised time of day. No baby would be born on Christmas day or other inconvient times.

What I would like is better prediction to tell which vb are lightly to go wrong. A good natural birth is very cheap. A hideous natural birth can leave the mother with a life long physical and mental disablity.

I know a poor lady who struggles to walk because she had SPD and forceps were used. I think its reasonable to choose a c section over forceps if at all possible.