NHS trusts could be risking the safety of mothers and babies by using maternity support workers to do the work of trained midwives, according to a report. An independent study for the Department of Health found that a number of trusts across England were converting midwife positions into posts for lesser-qualified maternity support workers.
When challenged by midwives, Patricia Hewitt, the Health Secretary, has always insisted that support workers would not be used as substitutes for professionally qualified midwives. The report found, however, that in some places they were doing tasks deemed to be within the role of midwives and requiring specialist knowledge and training. The report said that a lack of consistency in the training and role of support workers had the potential to leave midwives and hospital managers uncertain about their competence, and placed patients at risk from a low standard of care.
King's College London, which surveyed trust managers in England, noted that there was no statutory requirement for support workers to undergo training, nor any regulation to ensure public protection. Midwives have legal responsibility for the work of their support workers, but systems to enable them to fulfil this task were variable, the report said. It recommends a national framework to set training and standards and said that the tasks that could be delegated needed to be identified urgently.
The NHS collected little data on support workers' cost-effectiveness and the report called for scrutiny where they were being trained to take on complex new roles. It found that they made an important contribution to maternity care and managers were enthusiastic about their role, reporting that they freed midwives to spend more time with women and babies. Their role included breastfeeding advice and support; outreach services to vulnerable women; running antenatal and postnatal groups; assisting midwives at home births and in birth centres; and working in operating theatres.
Ms Hewitt promised last month that support workers would not act as a substitute for qualified midwives, as she outlined plans to guarantee expectant mothers a "full range of birthing choices" by 2009. She described reports to the contrary as completely untrue: "They are there to support the midwife and free up a midwife's time for the work that only she can do. They are not a substitute for a midwife."
Professor Jane Sandall, who led today's research, said: "There is a danger that support workers could cease to become `another pair of hands', freeing the midwife and other members of the maternity team from administrative and routine duties in order to look after women. Instead, they may be called upon to substitute care provided by midwives, without sufficient investment in their training or development."
A Department of Health spokeswoman said: "This study shows that in only a tiny proportion of trusts were inappropriate tasks such as minor examinations being undertaken by maternity support workers. It is completely unacceptable if a hospital is using a maternity support worker as a substitute for a midwife and the Chief Nursing Officer has written out to all trusts to clarify this and asked that they review the working practices of all support workers, ensuring maternity services are provided safely.
"We are very clear about what the role of a maternity support worker is: to support the maternity team in their day-to-day duties, such as clerical work, supporting women with breastfeeding, increasing access for vulnerable women and enhancing the quality of care. In trusts where maternity support workers have been introduced, up to 64 per cent of midwifery time was saved each week and new mothers gained greater choice over where to give birth. This means that midwives have more time to undertake tasks that only they are trained to do. "Every baby must be delivered by a registered midwife or a doctor. This is a legal requirement not an option."
Jon Skewes, director of employment relations at the Royal College of Midwives, welcomed the report, saying: "It identifies some major problems regarding the introduction of support workers in England. "Chief among those is the uncertainty about what support workers can and cannot do, and what a midwife can delegate to them. There is a need for greater control, and the report suggests there needs to be better standardisation of training."
Source
Australia: Gross public hospital negligence
A WOMAN claims emergency doctors at The Alfred hospital told her to go home and take a Panadol after she had a mussel shell wedged in her throat. Experienced nurse Bernadette Ireland, 56, said she endured four days of excruciating pain and edged perilously close to death before medics finally took an X-ray. It revealed the razor-sharp shell lodged in her oesophagus at the base of her neck.
Ms Ireland said she was shocked when doctors in the hospital's emergency department suggested she had only imagined her problem. "They said, 'You only think it's in your throat -- it's only scratched your throat when it went down'," she claimed. Ms Ireland, a nurse of 35 years, said her protests fell on deaf ears. She said she told them: "I'm a registered nurse and I'm pretty sure it's in my throat."
The aged care nurse had been dining at Albert Park's Misuzu Japanese restaurant on April 27 when the shell piece -- bigger than a 20c coin -- lodged in her throat. Ms Ireland kept her composure and called for an ambulance but was told her case was not urgent enough, so she drove to The Alfred.
After she waited 45 minutes, a doctor said she would not be X-rayed as it would probably not reveal any shell fragment. "Nobody would listen to me, that's the worst part," Ms Ireland said.
She said she could not swallow after the ordeal but was instructed to down pain-killers. "They said, 'Take two Panadol and go home and the pain will go'," Ms Ireland claimed, so she took soluble Panadol every two hours overnight and into the weekend. Weak and unable to eat, she visited a GP on Monday morning who told her to get back to the hospital urgently.
Ms Ireland said she arrived with a fever of 38C and X-rays finally revealed the shell. It was surgically removed under anaesthetic about 11pm that day. Ms Ireland stayed in hospital for the next three days on an intravenous drip of antibiotics.
She said the hospital offered no explanation. "I didn't even get a sorry," Ms Ireland said. She said she went public because she feared her case would not be taken seriously if she went back to the hospital.
An Alfred hospital spokeswoman said it was looking into the claims. Ms Ireland's is the latest horror story to emerge since Health Minister Bronwyn Pike was forced to defend claims hospital were taking drastic steps to cut costs as the financial year ends.
A great-grandmother, 91, died from heart disease 15 hours after she was discharged from the Royal Melbourne Hospital in April. A memo, published in the Herald Sun, revealed that the Royal Melbourne Hospital has set discharge quotas ahead of July 1. The Monash Medical Centre has blacked out most elective surgery procedures this week, leaving doctors idle and patients waiting.
Source
***************************
For greatest efficiency, lowest cost and maximum choice, ALL hospitals and health insurance schemes should be privately owned and run -- with government-paid vouchers for the very poor and minimal regulation. Both Australia and Sweden have large private sector health systems with government reimbursement for privately-provided services so can a purely private system with some level of government reimbursement or insurance for the poor be so hard to do?
For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, EDUCATION WATCH, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, DISSECTING LEFTISM, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL and EYE ON BRITAIN. My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here. For times when blogger.com is playing up, there are mirrors of this site here and here.
***************************
No comments:
Post a Comment