ok, how about St Mary's, Paddington?

[geranium]

any good (particularly for c-sections)? better or worse than UCH?!

I had an emergency c-section there, and to be fair, it went well, I recovered quickly and have not had any problems. I wouldn't recommend the post-natal care though - too hot, not clean, very mixed bag of staff. I know these things are not unusual but I will be going somewhere else next time!!!

Where are you? I seem to hear good things about Queen Charlottes?

i had ds there in 02. they looked after me well, & i have complicated pregnacies (diabetes), highly medicalised. post-natal care wasn't all that, but that's not at all unusual in london. the buildings are a bit decrepit, & the room where i gave birth had a pool in the corner piled with junk which was a bit weird. i chose to have dd last year at the homerton as it's our local hospital, but would have happily gone back to mary's. hth.

I've only used St Mary's, not UCH, so can't do a comparison: however: St Mary's medical care is very very good as you can imagine; post-natal (which you'll have to do if you have a section) is - if the unit is busy - Grim. Like a bus station.

If you strike lucky and it's not busy, it might be OK. When I had my tour it wasn't busy & so the bus station experience was a pretty nasty surprise.

oh, & i had a really lovely consultant, mr teoh.