NHS In The Corridor

[R. Richard]

This is from the Daily Mail UK.

The babies born in hospital corridors: Bed shortage forces 4,000 mothers to give birth in lifts, offices and hospital toilets

Maternity crisis: Women are giving birth in lifts and even toilets

Thousands of women are having to give birth outside maternity wards because of a lack of midwives and hospital beds.

The lives of mothers and babies are being put at risk as births in locations ranging from lifts to toilets - even a caravan - went up 15 per cent last year to almost 4,000.

Health chiefs admit a lack of maternity beds is partly to blame for the crisis, with hundreds of women in labour being turned away from hospitals because they are full.

Latest figures show that over the past two years there were at least:

63 births in ambulances and 608 in transit to hospitals;

117 births in A&E departments, four in minor injury units and two in medical assessment areas;

115 births on other hospital wards and 36 in other unspecified areas including corridors;

399 in parts of maternity units other than labour beds, including postnatal and antenatal wards and reception areas.

Additionally, overstretched maternity units shut their doors to any more women in labour on 553 occasions last year.

Babies were born in offices, lifts, toilets and a caravan, according to the Freedom of Information data for 2007 and 2008 from 117 out of 147 trusts which provide maternity services.

One woman gave birth in a lift while being transferred to a labour ward from A&E while another gave birth in a corridor, said East Cheshire NHS Trust.
Others said women had to give birth on the wards - rather than in their own maternity room - because the delivery suites were full.

Tory health spokesman Andrew Lansley, who obtained the figures, said Labour had cut maternity beds by 2,340, or 22 per cent, since 1997. At the same time birth rates have been rising sharply - up 20 per cent in some areas.
Mr Lansley said: 'New mothers should not be being put through the trauma of having to give birth in such inappropriate places.

More...Woman gives birth on pavement 'after being refused ambulance and told to walk'

Father turned away from hospital with pregnant wife delivers baby on bathroom floor - and saves his daughter's life

'While some will be unavoidable emergencies, it is extremely distressing for them and their families to be denied a labour bed because their maternity unit is full.

'It shows the incredible waste that has taken place that mothers are getting this sort of sub-standard treatment despite Gordon Brown's tripling of spending on the NHS.

'Labour have let down mothers by cutting the number of maternity beds and by shutting down maternity units.'

The NHS employs the equivalent of around 25,000 full-time midwives in England, but the Government has promised to recruit 3,400 more.
However, the Royal College of Midwives estimates at least 5,000 more are needed to provide the quality of service pledged in the Government's blueprint for maternity services, Maternity Matters.

At the same time almost half of all midwives are set to retire in the next decade.

Jon Skewes, a director at the Royal College of Midwives, said: 'The rise in the number of births in other than a designated labour bed is a concern. We would want to see the detail behind these figures to look at why this is happening.
'There is no doubt that maternity services are stretched, and that midwives are working harder and harder to provide good quality care. However, we know the Government is putting more money into the service.

'The key now is to make sure this money is spent by the people controlling the purse strings at a local level.'

Care services minister Phil Hope said: 'The number of maternity beds in the NHS reflects the number of women wanting to give birth in hospital. Giving birth can be unpredictableand it is difficult to plan for the exact time and place of every birth.

'Local health services have plans to ensure high quality, personal care with greater choice over place of birth and care provided by a named midwife.
'We recognise that some parts of the country face particular challenges due to the rising birth rate and that is why last year we pledged to increase funding for maternity by £330million over three years.
'We now have more maternity staff than ever before and we have already met our target to recruit 1,000 extra midwives by September.'

 

[freshface]

Do you have a point, or are you just going to keep reposting random news articles? Have you looked recently at Emergency Room boarding in the US? This will get you started - read about emergency patients who should be admitted living places like shower stalls instead. http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/554196_2

 

[R. Richard]

Do you have a point, or are you just going to keep reposting random news articles? Have you looked recently at Emergency Room boarding in the US? This will get you started - read about emergency patients who should be admitted living places like shower stalls instead. http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/554196_2

Do you have a point, posting URLs that require a membership I don't have?

 

[TheEarl]

And those mothers who have given birth and are having to deal with the stress of a newborn and the financial drain which that places on them, are then handed a bill for the ambulance, treatment and hospital room.

No... wait, that's not the NHS.

The Earl

 

[R. Richard]

And those mothers who have given birth and are having to deal with the stress of a newborn and the financial drain which that places on them, are then handed a bill for the ambulance, treatment and hospital room.

No... wait, that's not the NHS.

The Earl

I see. Tell me, who does pay for the NHS? Somebody pays.

 

[Aimii]

Guys! Guys! Guys!

ITS THE UK PRESS!

A pirate stole a boat on the other side of the world and the Daily Star posted "THE REAL THREAT A FLOATING BOMB"

I'm sure the NHS are just as bad as the whinny Poms make them out to be <3.

Seriously though, the British press give the impression that Australia's A Current Affair seem centre, or FOX News left wing.

 

[Liar]

I see. Tell me, who does pay for the NHS? Somebody pays.

You mean you don't know, or are you just being flippant?

 

[freshface]

Do you have a point, posting URLs that require a membership I don't have?

Funny. I found it with a quick Google search and did a copy/paste. When I click on the link, it doesn't open for me either. Try following from Google. It's the first one.

 

[R. Richard]

You mean you don't know, or are you just being flippant?

Neither. What I'm trying to point out is that the NHS isn't free. It's paid for by the taxpayers. In the UK, the taxpayers are all forced to pay for the 'free' healthcare. In the US, the taxpayers again pay for their healthcare, on a per visit/procedure basis. However, at least in the US, the taxpayer can plan to get the healthcare at a facility where the service matches the cost. [If a taxpayer gets scraped off the pavement after an auto accident, the 'choice' may disappear.]

 

[Liar]

Neither. What I'm trying to point out is that the NHS isn't free. It's paid for by the taxpayers.

Yes.

We know. We all know that.

There's absolutely no need whatsoever to point that out.

Which makes insisiting on pointing it out, nothing but flippant.

 

[freshface]

Neither. What I'm trying to point out is that the NHS isn't free. It's paid for by the taxpayers. In the UK, the taxpayers are all forced to pay for the 'free' healthcare. In the US, the taxpayers again pay for their healthcare, on a per visit/procedure basis. However, at least in the US, the taxpayer can plan to get the healthcare at a facility where the service matches the cost. [If a taxpayer gets scraped off the pavement after an auto accident, the 'choice' may disappear.]

Are you kidding? In the US, taxpayers can go where their insurance providers say they can go, when their insurance providers says they can go there. Only the independently wealthy can choose where they go. The 45 million taxpayers who don't have insurance are in the scraped off the pavement category.

 

[Boxlicker101]

To be honest, in the US, it is not unusual for babies to be born enroute to birthing facilities. It's not a matter of shortages; it's just a matter of the babies not being willing to wait or the mothers getting started too late.

As TheEarl rather snidely intimated, sometimes the facilities will try to charge for use of the maternity room even when that happens. It's always up to customers to scrutinize bills very closely.

 

[oggbashan]

The English taxpayer has been paying for health care for those too poor to afford it for themselves since the Elizabethan Poor Law of 1601.

Being taxed for health care is not a novelty.

The UK's NHS system is supported by ALL three main political parties.

We know it is flawed but it is much better than not being able to afford health care.

The total cost of all UK health care - NHS, insurance, privately funded and charitable - is significantly lower than in the US yet it covers everyone.

Og

 

[Boxlicker101]

Are you kidding? In the US, taxpayers can go where their insurance providers say they can go, when their insurance providers says they can go there. Only the independently wealthy can choose where they go. The 45 million taxpayers who don't have insurance are in the scraped off the pavement category.

They are not 45 million taxpayers. Almost half of them are illegal aliens who do not pay taxes but use public services anyhow. Many of the others are people, possibly self-employed, who could buy insurance but decide not to, and gamble that they will not have any major medical expenses.

In all honestly, the odds tend to favor them, although sometimes things do not work out in their favor.

 

[Boxlicker101]

The English taxpayer has been paying for health care for those too poor to afford it for themselves since the Elizabethan Poor Law of 1601.

Being taxed for health care is not a novelty.

The UK's NHS system is supported by ALL three main political parties.

We know it is flawed but it is much better than not being able to afford health care.

The total cost of all UK health care - NHS, insurance, privately funded and charitable - is significantly lower than in the US yet it covers everyone.

Og

Og, you must be aware that the population of the UK is less than one fourth that of the US. Of course total cost of health care is less.

 

[freshface]

They are not 45 million taxpayers. Almost half of them are illegal aliens who do not pay taxes but use public services anyhow. Many of the others are people, possibly self-employed, who could buy insurance but decide not to, and gamble that they will not have any major medical expenses.

In all honestly, the odds tend to favor them, although sometimes things do not work out in their favor.

Everyone pays taxes. Income is just one type. You also pay sales, gasoline, and property (either direct or in the rent) at a minimum.

Sorry, but your numbers are wrong.The Census Bureau estimates that in 2006 there were 47 million Americans without insurance. Of those 34.4 million were US born residents. (Not only citizens but born in the US. It doesn't discuss how many naturalized citizens, permanent residents etc. are in the roughly 12 million non-native born.) The percentage covered by their employers in 2006 was roughly 59.7%. I've no data to back up my supposition, but 2006 was a good year economically. Given the current state of unemployment, I would guess that the number with employer provided insurance has decreased. Note also that Medicaid recipients are counted in the ranks of the insured. Among the ranks of the uninsured, families making $25,000-$75,000 were hardest hit. Have you priced health insurance recently? Is it a choice when your choices are to feed your children or pay for health insurance? I know how you like to cling to your comfortable assumptions, but the information's out there. I would challenge you to go look for this sort of data yourself.

 

[freshface]

Og, you must be aware that the population of the UK is less than one fourth that of the US. Of course total cost of health care is less.

Og was talking about the per capita total cost of US health care. As in, the amount we spend in the US on health care, divided by the total number of people in the United States.

In the UK, the per capita total cost of UK health care is thousands of dollars, per person, less than it is in the United States.

From personal experience, I can tell you that when stray tourists require unexpected health care in the UK and most of Scandinavia, there's no bill. There's no talk about billing someone's health insurance. In fact, there's no mention of health insurance at all. Not when the ambulance comes and gets you, not when it drops you off at the hospital, not when they check you in in the ER, not when they discuss diagnosis and treatment, not even when they wave goodbye as you get into the taxi. No request for payment, no insurance card required. And they do all of that for thousands of dollars per person less than we manage to spend per person in the US.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Og was talking about the per capita total cost of US health care. As in, the amount we spend in the US on health care, divided by the total number of people in the United States.

In the UK, the per capita total cost of UK health care is thousands of dollars, per person, less than it is in the United States.

From personal experience, I can tell you that when stray tourists require unexpected health care in the UK and most of Scandinavia, there's no bill. There's no talk about billing someone's health insurance. In fact, there's no mention of health insurance at all. Not when the ambulance comes and gets you, not when it drops you off at the hospital, not when they check you in in the ER, not when they discuss diagnosis and treatment, not even when they wave goodbye as you get into the taxi. No request for payment, no insurance card required. And they do all of that for thousands of dollars per person less than we manage to spend per person in the US.

It's interesting that you can read the man's mind. All I can do is go by what he said, which is this, except that I have done the bolding:

The English taxpayer has been paying for health care for those too poor to afford it for themselves since the Elizabethan Poor Law of 1601.

Being taxed for health care is not a novelty.

The UK's NHS system is supported by ALL three main political parties.

We know it is flawed but it is much better than not being able to afford health care.

The total cost of all UK health care - NHS, insurance, privately funded and charitable - is significantly lower than in the US yet it covers everyone.
Og
__________________

 

[freshface]

It's interesting that you can read the man's mind. All I can do is go by what he said, which is this, except that I have done the bolding:

The English taxpayer has been paying for health care for those too poor to afford it for themselves since the Elizabethan Poor Law of 1601.

Being taxed for health care is not a novelty.

The UK's NHS system is supported by ALL three main political parties.

We know it is flawed but it is much better than not being able to afford health care.

The total cost of all UK health care - NHS, insurance, privately funded and charitable - is significantly lower than in the US yet it covers everyone.
Og
__________________

I've no idea what's in Og's mind. The article comparing health care costs, both as a percentage of GDP and on a per capita basis, came out in May. It was pretty widely reported at the time. You may have even heard mention of it. I responded because I knew the answer and you were doing your normal ostrich imitation. The info is here-see for yourself.

 

[Pure]

keeping perspective:

let's remember the "advanced" nation --among others--where the most newborns die: the US.

to put a number on it, about 10,000 extra babies die in the US, as compared with the rates reported, for instance, in Japan or Norway. (and at a far higher rate than the UK, the subject of the OP.)

U.S. has second worst newborn death rate in modern world, report says

Research: 2 million babies die in first 24 hours each year worldwide

By Jeff Green
CNN



Wednesday, May 10, 2006; Posted: 12:02 p.m. EDT (16:02 GMT)


(CNN) -- An estimated 2 million babies die within their first 24 hours each year worldwide and the United States has the second worst newborn mortality rate in the developed world, according to a new report.

American babies are three times more likely to die in their first month as children born in Japan, and newborn mortality is 2.5 times higher in the United States than in Finland, Iceland or Norway, Save the Children researchers found.

Only Latvia, with six deaths per 1,000 live births, has a higher death rate for newborns than the United States, which is tied near the bottom of industrialized nations with Hungary, Malta, Poland and Slovakia with five deaths per 1,000 births.


"The United States has more neonatologists and neonatal intensive care beds per person than Australia, Canada and the United Kingdom, but its newborn rate is higher than any of those countries," said the annual State of the World's Mothers report.

 

[Boxlicker101]

let's remember the "advanced" nation --among others--where the most newborns die: the US.

to put a number on it, about 10,000 extra babies die in the US, as compared with the rates reported, for instance, in Japan or Norway. (and at a far higher rate than the UK, the subject of the OP.)

U.S. has second worst newborn death rate in modern world, report says

Research: 2 million babies die in first 24 hours each year worldwide

By Jeff Green
CNN

Wednesday, May 10, 2006; Posted: 12:02 p.m. EDT (16:02 GMT)


(CNN) -- An estimated 2 million babies die within their first 24 hours each year worldwide and the United States has the second worst newborn mortality rate in the developed world, according to a new report.

American babies are three times more likely to die in their first month as children born in Japan, and newborn mortality is 2.5 times higher in the United States than in Finland, Iceland or Norway, Save the Children researchers found.

Only Latvia, with six deaths per 1,000 live births, has a higher death rate for newborns than the United States, which is tied near the bottom of industrialized nations with Hungary, Malta, Poland and Slovakia with five deaths per 1,000 births.


"The United States has more neonatologists and neonatal intensive care beds per person than Australia, Canada and the United Kingdom, but its newborn rate is higher than any of those countries," said the annual State of the World's Mothers report.

I'm not questioning the accuracy of the statistics but, before I can attach any importance to it, I would want to see a further breakdown by age of mother and personal habits.

For instance, a 12 year old mother who smoked during pregnancy is much more likely to have her baby born dead or die shortly after birth than a 20 year who took care of herself. Do you happen to have figures with breakdowns such as that? If not, we may be comparing tangerines to grapefruits.

 

[oggbashan]

I've no idea what's in Og's mind. The article comparing health care costs, both as a percentage of GDP and on a per capita basis, came out in May. It was pretty widely reported at the time. You may have even heard mention of it. I responded because I knew the answer and you were doing your normal ostrich imitation. The info is here-see for yourself.

I should have added either "per capita" or "as a percentage of GDP".

I know that the US has a significantly larger population. I made the mistake of assuming that people would know the statistics. Mea Culpa.

Og

 

[Handley_Page]

One thought occurred to me.
Recall SSSarah's recent harrowing tale about her husband's surgery and how the Bill was $80 grand if I recall and whilst many of the costs were met by the Insurance, they'd have to fork out a bit more. Had they lived in the UK, there would have been no problems.

Our system is FREE at the point of use.

 

[oggbashan]

...

Our system is FREE at the point of use.

Except dentistry. We have to pay a contribution for dental work.

Our teeth are a national scandal because the politicians still haven't managed to make their minds up between remedial and preventative dentistry. They pay reasonably for remedial work but prevention of dental problems is overfunded.

As a result it is still difficult to find a local dentist who will take on NHS patients. When my daughter moved house she enquired through the NHS website for the nearest dentist taking NHS patients. The "nearest" was 25 miles away.

That might have been OK, but it was 25 miles as a crow flies. The Thames Estuary is in the way. By car it would be over 100 miles.

She is now with an NHS dentist less than a mile from her home. She finally thought to ask Dad.

Og

 

[R. Richard]

From Wiki:
UNICEF uses a statistical methodology to account for reporting differences among countries. "UNICEF compiles infant mortality country estimates derived from all sources and methods of estimation obtained either from standard reports, direct estimation from micro data sets, or from UNICEF’s yearly exercise. In order to sort out differences between estimates produced from different sources, with different methods, UNICEF developed, in coordination with WHO, the WB and UNSD, an estimation methodology that minimizes the errors embodied in each estimate and harmonize trends along time. Since the estimates are not necessarily the exact values used as input for the model, they are often not recognized as the official IMR estimates used at the country level. However, as mentioned before, these estimates minimize errors and maximize the consistency of trends along time."[4]

While the United States reports every case of infant mortality, it has been suggested that some other developed countries do not. A 2006 article in U.S. News & World Report claims that "First, it's shaky ground to compare U.S. infant mortality with reports from other countries. The United States counts all births as live if they show any sign of life, regardless of prematurity or size. This includes what many other countries report as stillbirths. In Austria and Germany, fetal weight must be at least 500 grams (1 pound) to count as a live birth; in other parts of Europe, such as Switzerland, the fetus must be at least 30 centimeters (12 inches) long. In Belgium and France, births at less than 26 weeks of pregnancy are registered as lifeless.[5] And some countries don't reliably register babies who die within the first 24 hours of birth. Thus, the United States is sure to report higher infant mortality rates. For this very reason, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, which collects the European numbers, warns of head-to-head comparisons by country."[6] However, all of the countries named adopted the WHO definition in the late 1980s or early 1990s.[7]

Historically, until the 1990s Russia and other countries of the former Soviet Union did not count as a live birth or as an infant death extremely premature infants (less than 1,000 g, less than 28 weeks gestational age, or less than 35 cm in length) that were born alive (breathed, had a heartbeat, or exhibited voluntary muscle movement) but failed to survive for at least 7 days.[8] Although such extremely premature infants typically accounted for only about 0.005 of all live-born children, their exclusion from both the numerator and the denominator in the reported IMR led to an estimated 22%-25% lower reported IMR.[9] In some cases, too, perhaps because hospitals or regional health departments were held accountable for lowering the IMR in their catchment area, infant deaths that occurred in the 12th month were "transferred" statistically to the 13th month (i.e., the second year of life), and thus no longer classified as an infant death.[10]

Another challenge to comparability is the practice of counting frail or premature infants who die before the normal due date as miscarriages (spontaneous abortions) or those who die during or immediately after childbirth as stillborn. Therefore, the quality of a country's documentation of perinatal mortality can matter greatly to the accuracy of its infant mortality statistics. This point is reinforced by the demographer Ansley Coale, who finds dubiously high ratios of reported stillbirths to infant deaths in Hong Kong and Japan in the first 24 hours after birth, a pattern that is consistent with the high recorded sex ratios at birth in those countries and suggests not only that many female infants who die in the first 24 hours are misreported as stillbirths rather than infant deaths but also that those countries do not follow WHO recommendations for the reporting of live births and infant deaths.[11]

Another seemingly paradoxical finding is that when countries with poor medical services introduce new medical centers and services, instead of declining the reported IMRs often increase for a time. The main cause of this is that improvement in access to medical care is often accompanied by improvement in the registration of births and deaths. Deaths that might have occurred in a remote or rural area and not been reported to the government might now be reported by the new medical personnel or facilities. Thus, even if the new health services reduce the actual IMR, the reported IMR may increase.