The scandal of stillbirths

In 2011, 2412 children died in road accidents in the UK.

If 1500 children were killed on the roads each year there would be a public outcry.

I think jess and others who've mentioned smoking are blaming smoking, anya, not the young women who smoke. Subtle difference but it is there, I think. jess will perhaps confirm this.

Yes Jess it is obviously the case sadly. What can be done now at little extra cost, using simple techniques, in the first instance, could save the life of half of the 3000+ babies that are stillborn every year.

It's all very well blaming mothers who smoke, don't attend clinic, drink, etc..(actually it isn't all right but....) but there are those who do all the 'right' things and still lose their babies because the slowed growth in the womb wasn't recognised

Even in the best organised country there will be some babies that die in the womb or just after birth. You're never going to drive it down to zero. The number includes some who are born early or with serious birth defects.
I'm glad there are some top-down initiatives on this and hope that staff levels will enable them to be rolled out successfully.
There may be other things that might be done to reduce the numbers such as more research into helping young women and pregnant women to stop smoking (or better still, never start).

www.nhs.uk/news/2015/01January/Pages/Gift-vouchers-can-help-pregnant-smokers-quit.aspx

Fundamental scientific research is often the route to improved medical care. Deaths in the womb, I believe, are often down to a malfunctioning failing placenta, so funding research into the development, function and failure of the placenta might help.

Bags the 'nothing new' bit is the use of a measuring tape and scales to monitor the mothers abdominal growth which should be charted against the norm expected for her age and other known factors. The 50p bit, I tried to direct people's attention to at the end of my link.

Then the scan if results suggest further investigation. This is not routinely carried out, as the programme 'Born Asleep' made clear.

It's a shame that some posters who claim to be new, jump in with two feet and don't give a thought to those GNetters who have suffered the trauma of stillbirth and who, reading their comments, are upset by this issue being used as a political football. There but for the Grace of god go us as Gill says in her post.

The only person I know who had a stillbirth is middle class, professional, educated, attended NCT classes etc, so it would appear that this is not a simple case of targeting lower income groups/younger mothers etc.

I cannot do links but has anybody read Jeremy Hunts statement, made at the ' 'Tommy's Research Centre ' ,St Thomas' Hospital, London which carries out marvellous research work into pregnancy problems. (Huffington Post is a good link to look at)

Or has anybody interested watched the available to view debate in Parliament I mentioned previously which is still available to view? It is politicians debating at their best, they can do it you know.

This is not a particularly new report , there was a study carried out for the Lancet in 2011 (remember Labour were in government upto 2010 ) which put the UK 33 out of 35 out the high-income countries for still birth rates.

Jeremy Hunt made the statement last November . He doesn't fight shy of the fact we in the UK lag behind . He talks of more support and transparency in maternity services. He says the government are working with consultants and midwives across the country to ensure best practice is applied ' consistently ' across the country . NHS Trusts are to receive a share of 4 million pounds to buy equipment such as cardiotocography (CTG) and provide more training for staff.

A new system for staff to review and learn from every stillbirth and neo natal death will also be set up and over £1 million pound will be invested in rolling out training packages developed in agreement with The Royal College of Midwives and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gyneacologists.

I know this may sound like partisan politics coming from me but please before anybody judges look at the response from Judith Abela from the stillbirth and neonatal charity 'Sands'. Dr. David Richmond , President of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. and Jane Brewin CEO of Tommy's Charity and many others who welcome the governments stance.

Like all other GN's I hope in the future the UK can improve on it's ranking and I will be watching with interest , allowing time for improvements to filter down from the top.

Yes. Nothing on here has been very informative though.

Do you read other people's posts, Jingl?

Perhaps the women up there are fatter. Or smoke more. Perhaps women in the rest of Europe look after their health better than British women.

Of course these problems are multi factorial, but the political aspect cannot be ignored. Up and down the country, maternity units are struggling to sustain their services because of the maternity tarrif. Successive governments have failed to grasp this particular nettle.

It is interesting too, to consider the effects of additional monitoring. Obviously there is a number of high risk groups, and these women do already benefit from additional screening. The trouble is that many still births occur in the low-risk group. Every woman - regardless of risk, would have to be closely monitored, scanned, Doppler-ed and examined throughout her pregnancy. This screening would mean medicalising large numbers of 'normal' pregnancies, which would bring its own problems. No easy answer.

So, why do you think there are more stillbirths in Yorkshire and Humberside than there are in the South-West? Fucked Blowed if I know.

Jingl there may be standardised care pathways laid down, but that doesn't mean that when concerns are raised by a mother, for example that the baby doesn't seem to be moving as much as usual, that intervention will be standardised.
That is far more dependent on the clinicians involved and how much time they have available, and indeed whether the woman feels confident about expressing those concerns.
If you look at Jess's link, you will see that in SW England the rate of stillbirths is 3.6 per 1000 live births. In Yorkshire & Humberside it is 5.1, far higher than France which has the highest rate in Europe at 4.5.
What that means is that for every 10,000 live births in Yorkshire, there will be 15 more stillbirths than there would be for the same number of live births in the Southwest.
I'm not a statistician but that seems to me rather a large discrepancy and whatever the reasons, there isn't room for complacency.

Perhaps all mothers don't want to have another scan. Of any kind.

" Why are some so intent on stifling that view? I'm truly puzzled."

Because some of 'em feel the need to show how much more they know about everything than lesser mortals do.

#Gransnet

It was just a suggestion, sadie. Doesn't bother me if you want to be an outspoken government-basher. I'm all for people speaking their minds. If it is the fault of several governments, then you are not criticising one political party aspect anyhow.

Moving on... while the UK's stillbirth rates are said to be worse than elsewhere in Europe, having looked at global figures, I'm less concerned about the UK rate than I was when I first read the OP. Globally the UK rate is not bad even though it's apparently not as good as it could be.

I still haven't really understood what would make the difference. The Doppler scan thing that janea mentioned sounds like a new technique, but the OP maintains nothing 'new' is needed, just "more monitoring and less complacency". Did you include the Doppler scans in that phraseology, anya? As to complacency, that could arise in pregnant women as well as in health care professionals. Which is it? Or is it both in the UK?

it's standardised janeainsworth

I'm new to Gransnet and so far I'm enjoying the chat and the discussion. However, I have a few things to say on this thread.

Within forum rules I see it as acceptable to post your point of view, which is what I've done on here. Some seem to take exception to someone else having a view that is different to theirs but surely if we all agreed with each other, it wouldn't be much of a discussion.

I've argued that some of the problems with NHS care is down to the government. Why are some so intent on stifling that view? I'm truly puzzled.

Tory bashing has been mentioned, but honestly if someone wants to bash the Tories, why shouldn't they? It's not insulting other forum members and doesn't involve being rude to each other.

My view is that successive governments, regardless of political persuasion, are guilty of mismanaging the NHS.

That's my point of view. I'm absolutely entitled to my point of view and other posters are entitled to theirs.

Thatbags posted "I've found your posts interesting, sadie. If it's possible to make the same points as you have made without apportioning blame, I think they would go down better".

I do blame the government, so how can I make a point without mentioning that? Anyway, I'm not interested in being everyone's friend. If you don't agree with me that's just fine.

I've looked back at my posts and I don't believe I have been confrontational. What I am guilty of is refusing to be told what I can post by Anya. Well tough Anya, I don't acknowledge that you can tell me what I can and cannot post.

jingl NHS care is not the same nationwide - how can it be, with different trusts and consultants running departments.
This is from the link that Anya posted
^Each year, more than 3,000 babies are stillborn in the UK, one of the worst rates in the developed world.
Prof Kypros Nicolaides says offering all women Doppler scans, which measure blood flow between the placenta and foetus, could save 1,500 babies a year.
The Department of Health said it has asked him to submit his research^

Prof Nicolaides has implemented the use of Doppler scans in his unit n London and reduced the number of stillbirths.
But the DOH has yet to recommend that they are used routinely within the NHS.

There's always going to be a time lag between someone discovering something that will make a difference, and that process or procedure being accepted as routine.
The question is whether things are not brought in because of cost(political) or whether there is bureaucratic delay (management) or non-acceptance if the evidence by other clinicians.

As is clear from the official statistics there has been a massive drop in stillbirths since the introduction of the NHS. Then it levelled off in the 1990s
But it is still one of the higher rates in Europe, along with France and Romania.
Other countries are doing a lot better. So there is scope for improvement. Monitoring in late pregnancy is often a two-way process with mothers flagging up to their midwives if the baby is moving less.
And there are still notable regional differences within UK.

www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/vsob1/characteristics-of-birth-1--england-and-wales/2013/sty-cb1-2013.html

RE the countryside there are two factors - one is getting access to antenatal care. The nearest consultant unit could be an hour or more from home by car.
Also - in some rural areas recruitment of consultants is more difficult than in cities.
As I've posted before, had a neighbour who was a young ob/gyn consultant. (N Wales) He was Romanian. He left to go and work in Australia. I think that highlights the problem in a nutshell.

I wonder if there is a different attitude to pregnancy these days. Has it been 'de-medicalised' too much? Or is it down to finance?

Surely NHS care is the same countrywide? Isn't it just a fact that all mothers get far fewer checks than we did? I was shocked that my DD wasn't invited for monthly checks, and didn't have that white record card that I remember so well.

Blimey! Just read this thread, and it's not sadiesnan who is being confrontational!

It would be helpful/interesting if we could know the statistics based on women who do/don't attend regular anti-natal appointments as it is entirely possible/probable that those who do not attend make up the highest percentage of stillbirth.