43% of First Time Kilkenny Mums will have a Caesarean ..

SanFran07

Not great statistics out of the Dublin units either especially episiotomies ( 43.5% in NMH)....and induction for first time Mums in the Coombe (36.9%)


http://www.bump2babe.ie/

MLU rates are far more encouraging.

January

MLU rates may be far more encouraging but there are only two of them in the country and until such a time as there is more in the country they shouldn't be compared to hospital led care because, to be fair, that's all a lot of women have the option of using.

liliq

January wrote: »

MLU rates may be far more encouraging but there are only two of them in the country and until such a time as there is more in the country they shouldn't be compared to hospital led care because, to be fair, that's all a lot of women have the option of using.

Statistics like these may encourage more pregnant women to push for MLUs or a similar service to be made available in their area though. And although that will hardly happen in recessionary times, women pushing for these choices to be made available as a result of the stats can only be a good thing in the long run.

SanFran07

Although there are only 2 MLUs there are several Midwife Led services around the country - Wexford, Waterford, Cork, NMH and the Coombe.

Even comparing episiotomy rates between 2 hospitals - Wexford's rate is only 8%..... There are no National Guidelines in Ireland so polices and practice vary widely unfortunately.


Let's hope the HSE takes the advice of KPMG who recommended MLUs be set up nationwide. It's cheaper than consultant led care and women are more satisfied with their experiences. The majority of Irish women are low risk and should have access to evidence based care - even if it's not in an MLU.

cbyrd

You'd be surprised how little it takes to be excluded from the MLU's. I've had 3 very straightforward and uneventful births, but i'm excluded from the MLU cos i have an allergy to paracetamol. :rolleyes: Now of course i'm over 35 so that rules me out too. .

SanFran07

I hadn't heard about the paracetamol allergy - seeing as it's available in the CLU maybe they should have recommended you have a homebirth :rolleyes: You can always appeal an MLU decision - decisions have been reversed for other exclusion criteria.

The cut off age is 40 in the MLU.

January

I'd also be excluded from an MLU because of previous c section, I was excluded from the midwives in the Coombe because of it

Although, the only time the consultant came near me at the end of my vaginal birth on number two was to stitch my tear up

Lola92

I cant believe how high that rate for Cesarean Sections is...shocking.

I agree though, I think a lot more mothers would prefer having the option of a MLU or similar type of facilities.

SanFran07

January wrote: »

I'd also be excluded from an MLU because of previous c section, I was excluded from the midwives in the Coombe because of it

The Coombe Community Midwives do take on VBAC Mums but the Mums have to push for it. If anything comes up then you are reviewed by an Ob.

I agree the MLU criteria needs to be revised. Studies show Midwife led care outcomes just as good as CLUs for VBAC Mums. In the UK if a Mum opts to go to an MLU as long as the Midwives go through all the pros and cons with the Mum - the Mum makes the final decision not the consultant - even Mums considered high risk. This is what true informed consent is. In the UK VBAC Mums have the option of labouring in water and waterbirth too....:)

Cat Melodeon

Guess I slipped through the cracks! 1st time mum at St Luke's in Kilkenny, 35, induced but still managed to have a natural birth with only midwives in attendance. Can't fault my labour experience but had numerous battles with the antenatal doctors to avoid early induction and other interventions. I was pretty well informed, had a birth plan and was fairly confident in myself and my body's ability to get the job done. Whether that affected my outcome or it was just chance I don't know. It might have been down to the fact that it was a Saturday night in August with very few doctors about! Whatever, I feel I've proven myself now and hope to be left to my own devices on this pregnancy and birth.

GoerGirl

The first time mother stats are very concerning. ANd not just the high c-section rates either.

First time mothers that go into spontaneous labour at NMH have 50% ARM and 47% syntocinon! Add the 43% episiotomy rates....

Coombe ARM rates for first time mums in spontaneous labour is over 51% (!)

Instrumental birth rate for first time mothers 32/33% in Rotunda, Galway, Coombe, Portiuncula ....

Its just not acceptable!

Interesting that NMH has lowest section rates but yet the lowest success rate for VBAC. You would think as they are trying to keep section rates down by using more intervention in vaginal birth then the VBAC success rate would be better.

The MLU criteria is a joke - totally agree. In Ireland its not evidence based in many instances and is more about excluding women than finding a way to include women.

In Ireland a woman with BMI of 30 is excluded from midwife led care...in UK...women have home birth and midwife led care up to BMI 40+. I know a mum who was excluded as she turned 40 a month before her EDD.....:rolleyes:

Thanks for posting.

How Strange

What's ARM?

SanFran07

It's artificial rupture of membranes (breaking the waters) - rarely necessary but policy in H.Street on admission in labour and during labour in Coombe.

liliq

SanFran07 wrote: »

It's artificial rupture of membranes (breaking the waters) - rarely necessary but policy in H.Street on admission in labour and during labour in Coombe.

Sorry for off- topic, but it having membranes ruptured on admission in Holles st can be refused right?

embee

liliq wrote: »

Sorry for off- topic, but it having membranes ruptured on admission in Holles st can be refused right?

Of course, liliq. Any procedure has to be done only after consent is given by the woman. If you say you don't want it, they can't do it.

mariaf24

Are those generally elective or emergency c-sections? 43% is very alarming, i hope that is investigated further.

I agree that the mlu service criteria is far too strict...surely the purpose of such service is to offer a more natural approach to childbirth and pregnancy. By excluding so many women because of age, weight, allergies etc they are only damaging their own very purpose and placing more emphasis on the medicalisation of childbirth....

seamus

mariaf24 wrote: »

Are those generally elective or emergency c-sections? 43% is very alarming, i hope that is investigated further.

The statistics don't seem to mention whether a c-section is necessary or precautionary. They suggest that the vast majority of c-sections are elective.

However I know for example, one woman whose first child was born by emergency c-section, and the two children after that were then born by "elective" c-section as it was deemed necessary to avoid the same complications as the first child.

I imagine many of the "elective" c-sections are in a similar vein, where a c-section is advised by the consultant before the birth due to possible complications of a vaginal birth.

As such, they should be distinguishing "elective" c-sections from "medically advised" c-sections.

Hannibal Smith

January wrote: »

I'd also be excluded from an MLU because of previous c section, I was excluded from the midwives in the Coombe because of it

Although, the only time the consultant came near me at the end of my vaginal birth on number two was to stitch my tear up

Were you induced on the second one? Can you be induced once you've had a section? Were you treated any differently in the second one when it came to labour, or where you the same as everyone else?

January

Hannibal Smith wrote: »

Were you induced on the second one? Can you be induced once you've had a section? Were you treated any differently in the second one when it came to labour, or where you the same as everyone else?

Not induced no, although they did use ARM once I was in established labour. I had my emergency c section in the Rotunda and decided on the Coombe because I had heard stories of the Rotunda being a bit c section happy if the mother had been a previous c section...

I had gone into hospital the night before with pains, and although I wasn't in labour they kept me in to observe me because of the previous c section... I went into proper labour at around 4am the next morning and asked for pain relief (was just thinking gas and air) so they brought me to the labour ward, there were four beds, and for about 5 minutes I was the only one there! I don't think I was treated any differently, but I'm not sure about that,

I felt they never left me alone, kept poking and prodding me, taking my blood pressure and temperature etc... I hadn't slept since the morning before and when I got the epidural I thought they'd let me sleep for a little while, like they did in the Rotunda when I got my epidural! But no such thing, I wasn't given a minute to myself...

My consultant had discussed induction with me and told me that he wouldn't consider it and if I went too far overdue he would just book me in for the section.

Hannibal Smith

January wrote: »

Not induced no, although they did use ARM once I was in established labour. I had my emergency c section in the Rotunda and decided on the Coombe because I had heard stories of the Rotunda being a bit c section happy if the mother had been a previous c section...

I had gone into hospital the night before with pains, and although I wasn't in labour they kept me in to observe me because of the previous c section... I went into proper labour at around 4am the next morning and asked for pain relief (was just thinking gas and air) so they brought me to the labour ward, there were four beds, and for about 5 minutes I was the only one there! I don't think I was treated any differently, but I'm not sure about that,

I felt they never left me alone, kept poking and prodding me, taking my blood pressure and temperature etc... I hadn't slept since the morning before and when I got the epidural I thought they'd let me sleep for a little while, like they did in the Rotunda when I got my epidural! But no such thing, I wasn't given a minute to myself...

My consultant had discussed induction with me and told me that he wouldn't consider it and if I went too far overdue he would just book me in for the section.

That's what I'm concerned about....once you've had a section, they'll be a bit inclined to do another one. When I was in hosp the first time, the girl beside me had a section on her first and her next two normally and I think I remember her telling me, though I'm not too sure, that on the next baby, you're supposed to go into hospital as soon as your labour starts, so they can monitor you in case your section scar ruptures?

Now my recollection of things the days after the birth are all abit all over the place, so I wouldn't be surprised if I've got that completely wrong, but maybe that's why they were around you all the time?

Had you been induced at all on your first or was it an emergency section without any labour? Did you find the VBAC labour tough? I'm just wondering how worse the pain gets :D

January

I think it may have been to do with the risk of scar rupture, my scar was only 14 months old at the time too... they kept telling me to tell them if I felt any pain in the scar and at one point at the end of my labour, just before I felt like I needed to push (epidural wore off) I got an almighty stabbing pain but when I told them they quashed it and told me I was imagining it... didn't open my mouth again after that!

I was induced on number 1, my waters had broken 24 hours before hand, so they done ARM and then half an hour later hooked me up to the syntocin drip, I got the epidural at about 3pm (3 hours after drip went in) as the pains were becoming a bit unbearable and I was sectioned some time after 6 because of foetal distress (her heart beat was almost stopping with every contraction I was having).

I didn't find the VBAC tough at all, walk in the park compared to being induced on number 1, where the pains were coming almost on top of each other and I wasn't progressing either (only got to 3cm with the drip in over 6 hours whereas I went from 3cms to 10cms within 4 hours on number two). I was a bit reluctant to push and begged for a c section towards the end though but the great midwife just laughed and told me I was doing fine and was having the baby without c section.

Hannibal Smith

January wrote: »

I think it may have been to do with the risk of scar rupture, my scar was only 14 months old at the time too... they kept telling me to tell them if I felt any pain in the scar and at one point at the end of my labour, just before I felt like I needed to push (epidural wore off) I got an almighty stabbing pain but when I told them they quashed it and told me I was imagining it... didn't open my mouth again after that!

I was induced on number 1, my waters had broken 24 hours before hand, so they done ARM and then half an hour later hooked me up to the syntocin drip, I got the epidural at about 3pm (3 hours after drip went in) as the pains were becoming a bit unbearable and I was sectioned some time after 6 because of foetal distress (her heart beat was almost stopping with every contraction I was having).

I didn't find the VBAC tough at all, walk in the park compared to being induced on number 1, where the pains were coming almost on top of each other and I wasn't progressing either (only got to 3cm with the drip in over 6 hours whereas I went from 3cms to 10cms within 4 hours on number two). I was a bit reluctant to push and begged for a c section towards the end though but the great midwife just laughed and told me I was doing fine and was having the baby without c section.

omg that is brilliant to read (stabbing scar pain aside), I'm so glad you found it okay. It sounds exactly the same as me...waters were broken the day before...the next morning 8.30am I had the drip...by 1.30pm they decided fetal distress and I was brought down for the section. I was only 3cm at that stage.

The recovery after the second must have been a walk in the park was it?

SanFran07

An interesting take on what's going on in Kilkenny and Obs defending the practice. Same hospital that defended Neary's practices too.

http://www.kilkennypeople.ie/news/highest_percentage_of_caesarean_births_in_the_country_1_2730175


Nobody died - is that how we measure health in maternity services?


This article came out last month looking at 'tribal arrogance' amongst some obstetricians and Ireland was part of this paper.

http://www.smh.com.au/national/obstetricians-accused-of-tribal-arrogance-20110521-1exnn.html

metrovelvet

43% is disgraceful. That is nearly HALF of all women.

Smells like financial motivations to me.

Does anyone know if OBs are on a flat salary or or they get paid per procedure?

January

Hannibal Smith wrote: »

omg that is brilliant to read (stabbing scar pain aside), I'm so glad you found it okay. It sounds exactly the same as me...waters were broken the day before...the next morning 8.30am I had the drip...by 1.30pm they decided fetal distress and I was brought down for the section. I was only 3cm at that stage.

The recovery after the second must have been a walk in the park was it?

More or less! I had a slight tear (no episiotomy, although I don't think they do them as standard procedure in the Coombe? Just after looking at the stats and the rates for second and subsequent mothers who go into spontaneous labour is 1.8% for episiotomy... ) and that was a bit sore and looking after the newborn and the 14 month old at the time was tiring! But it was a piece of cake compared to the c section!

embee

SanFran07 wrote: »

An interesting take on what's going on in Kilkenny and Obs defending the practice. Same hospital that defended Neary's practices too.

http://www.kilkennypeople.ie/news/highest_percentage_of_caesarean_births_in_the_country_1_2730175


Nobody died - is that how we measure health in maternity services?


This article came out last month looking at 'tribal arrogance' amongst some obstetricians and Ireland was part of this paper.

http://www.smh.com.au/national/obstetricians-accused-of-tribal-arrogance-20110521-1exnn.html

Could we please endeavour not to villianise Obstetricians? That second article is so lobsided it's about to fall in on itself. It's all about the bad things doctors are purported to have done. Yes, some doctors have a questionable bedside manner but every birth I've attended thus far where a doctor has to be involved, the doctors are very very sure to gain consent from women. In fact, the presence of the doctor in the delivery suite is not necessary in a normal, low-risk labour and birth, but that doesn't mean that we should be villifying the medical profession. There are plenty of Obs out there who do fantastic work. They save the lives of babies and women alike... that article makes doctors sound like monsters and I think we all know that that just isn't the case.

metrovelvet wrote: »

43% is disgraceful. That is nearly HALF of all women.

Smells like financial motivations to me.

Does anyone know if OBs are on a flat salary or or they get paid per procedure?

http://www.dohc.ie/publications/pdf/salary_scales_jan10.pdf?direct=1

A comprehensive list of the pay scales of every HSE employee as at January 2010. As you will see, they are paid a flat salary and do not get paid per procedure. It's pretty dispicable to even suggest that, to be honest.

SanFran07

Embee I agree there are some fantastic Obs in Ireland and some not so fantastic ones. I don't believe this salary report includes consultant obstetricians' private practice income.

On the issue of consent I suggest you check out the AIMS Irelands survey on consent in maternity care. Consent is not always sought even in non-emergency situations.

embee

SanFran07 wrote: »

Embee I agree there are some fantastic Obs in Ireland and some not so fantastic ones. I don't believe this salary report includes consultant obstetricians' private practice income.

On the issue of consent I suggest you check out the AIMS Irelands survey on consent in maternity care. Consent is not always sought even in non-emergency situations.

SanFran,

With the greatest of respect, please do not talk to me as though I haven't a clue what I'm on about. I'm a student midwife, there is little currency in helpfully directing me to AIMS Ireland. Do you seriously think I haven't read any of the AIMS reports or findings? My point about consent is that, in my experience, I have never seen a woman having a procedure carried out without her consent. It is always expressly stated that she needs to consent to it (or not). I don't believe that procedures being carried out without consent is a widely spread situation, not by a long shot.

Of course, I'm only going on what I've seen. I'm a student midwife, not a qualified one, so I'm learning on the job. I would hope that in my practice I act as an advocate for womens wishes, no matter what my own beliefs are. We can all hold very strong views but as midwives we're there to be with the woman. Scaring women with all sorts of horror stories is not the sort of midwife that I want to be.

Orion

SanFran07 wrote: »

On the issue of consent I suggest you check out the AIMS Irelands survey on consent in maternity care.

Can someone point me in the direction of the number of births in Ireland in 2009? I think it was over 75000. Of that 75000, 367 people responded on a survey being held by a site which is already dissatisfied with maternity services. These basic premises already prejudice the independance and reliability of this survey and any other survey on that site. I do not doubt the sincerity of the operators of the site but their 'surveys' are compromised by this.

I have some serious reservations about your approach to this topic. Can you point to a single, objectively reported, case in Ireland where consent was not sought for a medical procedure during pregnancy? The Kilkenny People article does not imply that. Without some actual proof (not tabloid articles) I will insist that you desist with your scaremongering on this issue and in this forum. This forum is here to support pregnant women - not to scare them.

You may consider this a mod warning.

Cunning Stunt

My sister had her first baby in Kilkenny hospital.
She was a bit overdue and they said she should be induced. They brought her down, tried to bring on the labour - she was in pain but still no sign of the baby coming -- back up to the ward with her.
Back down again later for another attempt to induce - waters broke but still no baby.
Back up to the ward.
Back down again for inducing again. This all happened over the course of around 48 hours and eventually when her boyfriend protested that she couldn't take any more pain, they did a caesarean.
Not a great experience for her first birth.

metrovelvet

embee wrote: »

/pdf/salary_scales_jan10.pdf?direct=1[/url]

A comprehensive list of the pay scales of every HSE employee as at January 2010. As you will see, they are paid a flat salary and do not get paid per procedure. It's pretty dispicable to even suggest that, to be honest.

A 43% C section rate is what is pretty despicable.

Health providors are not above criticism.

The scales you provide do not show private earnings, of which they piggy back off public hospitals.

Orion

Nobody is suggesting that 43% is acceptable and if you want to discuss that then fine. But we will have no more insinuations that doctors and hospitals are performing sections for financial benefit.

metrovelvet

Orion wrote: »

Nobody is suggesting that 43% is acceptable and if you want to discuss that then fine. But we will have no more insinuations that doctors and hospitals are performing sections for financial benefit.

Can I ask why this is a taboo question?

Orion

Because you are implying unethical behaviour and possibly illegal collusion and that can be construed as defamation. Besides that, there has been no implication, apart from you mentioning it in a throwaway remark, that this is a potential reason for the number of sections. This is not up for negotiation on thread. If you want to discuss this further pm me or take it to Conspiracy Theories.

Little My

Just out of interest (and this might be better in its own thread - I don't want to derail this one) but why does UCH Galway have such a good record on breastfeeding within the first hour (59.9%) but such a low rate of exclusively breastfeeding on discharge (31.7%).

Basically roughly half of all mothers who start breastfeeding are exclusively breastfeeding when leaving hospital?

The thing that concerns me is that I am having my baby there in a few weeks - and have heard from friends who have just had babies that they really had to fight to continue breastfeeding.

My friend specifically said that the nurses will try and force you to give your baby a bottle and you really have to be firm if its not what you want.

She said she found it really hard as she was vulnerable, tired, her baby was crying and that she really felt backed into a corner over the whole thing. She went on to breastfeed for 6 weeks and then changed to bottle - and said that if she had of got more support to begin with she would probably still be breastfeeding.

Babyblessed

embee wrote: »

Of course, liliq. Any procedure has to be done only after consent is given by the woman. If you say you don't want it, they can't do it.

embee wrote: »

SanFran,

With the greatest of respect, please do not talk to me as though I haven't a clue what I'm on about. I'm a student midwife, there is little currency in helpfully directing me to AIMS Ireland. Do you seriously think I haven't read any of the AIMS reports or findings? My point about consent is that, in my experience, I have never seen a woman having a procedure carried out without her consent. It is always expressly stated that she needs to consent to it (or not). I don't believe that procedures being carried out without consent is a widely spread situation, not by a long shot.

Of course, I'm only going on what I've seen. I'm a student midwife, not a qualified one, so I'm learning on the job. I would hope that in my practice I act as an advocate for womens wishes, no matter what my own beliefs are. We can all hold very strong views but as midwives we're there to be with the woman. Scaring women with all sorts of horror stories is not the sort of midwife that I want to be.

Just realised I have 2 of embees comments on the multi-quote..... in answer....... I cant believe you havent seen women who have cried when ve's are done and said the doc is hurting?? Thats not informed consent, thats removed consent. How many women get synt/epidurals/etc and arent told the *bad* side effects? Or women that come in at 40 weeks and have ve's and are told, 'while I was there I did a sweep, hopefully it will get things going'...... I have felt I couldnt act as a proper advocate because I felt intimidated, God only knows what the women thought because they were convinced it was neccessary.

Orion wrote: »

Can someone point me in the direction of the number of births in Ireland in 2009? I think it was over 75000. Of that 75000, 367 people responded on a survey being held by a site which is already dissatisfied with maternity services. These basic premises already prejudice the independance and reliability of this survey and any other survey on that site. I do not doubt the sincerity of the operators of the site but their 'surveys' are compromised by this.

I have some serious reservations about your approach to this topic. Can you point to a single, objectively reported, case in Ireland where consent was not sought for a medical procedure during pregnancy? The Kilkenny People article does not imply that. Without some actual proof (not tabloid articles) I will insist that you desist with your scaremongering on this issue and in this forum. This forum is here to support pregnant women - not to scare them.

You may consider this a mod warning.

The AIMS survey was only women who responded.
The latest Cuidui information was from stats handed over by the hospitals about their own figures.
The only questions might be how the hospitals collated their figures and why some declined to hand them over.........so much for freedom of information.

Little My wrote: »

Just out of interest (and this might be better in its own thread - I don't want to derail this one) but why does UCH Galway have such a good record on breastfeeding within the first hour (59.9%) but such a low rate of exclusively breastfeeding on discharge (31.7%).

Basically roughly half of all mothers who start breastfeeding are exclusively breastfeeding when leaving hospital?

The thing that concerns me is that I am having my baby there in a few weeks - and have heard from friends who have just had babies that they really had to fight to continue breastfeeding.

My friend specifically said that the nurses will try and force you to give your baby a bottle and you really have to be firm if its not what you want.

She said she found it really hard as she was vulnerable, tired, her baby was crying and that she really felt backed into a corner over the whole thing. She went on to breastfeed for 6 weeks and then changed to bottle - and said that if she had of got more support to begin with she would probably still be breastfeeding.

Sadly this seems to be common. BF babies dont generally follow a 'routine' in the 1st few weeks. They feed on demand. This might mean they feed every 2 hours then go 6 hours. This doesnt go down to well in a hospital that likes to see 3-4hour feeding patterns. Be firm, demand skin-2-skin immediately after birth, then feed on LW. On the ward keep yourself well hydrated and feed as much as poss, go home as soon as you feel able and get in contact with LLL or another bf specialist to get support. Good luck, oh and ensure your birthing partner is supportive and will stand your ground so to speak!

embee

Look folks, don't start attacking me. I've only said what I've seen in my experience so far. Stop talking to me as though I'm an idiot - I'm far from it but will not be drawn into this any further.

Babyblessed

embee wrote: »

Look folks, don't start attacking me. I've only said what I've seen in my experience so far. Stop talking to me as though I'm an idiot - I'm far from it but will not be drawn into this any further.

embee, NO-ONE is suggesting you are an idiot. However your experience is not everyone elses. I am a tad jealous if what you have see thoughout your training is completely 'with woman' and family focused. For most of us its not.

Orion

Mod response

Babyblessed wrote: »

Just realised I have 2 of embees comments on the multi-quote..... in answer....... I cant believe you havent seen women who have cried when ve's are done and said the doc is hurting??

You should be able to make your point without drawing on anything embee has seen or not seen. Do not get personal with any poster, mod or otherwise, on this forum.

Babyblessed wrote:

... How many women get synt/epidurals/etc and arent told the *bad* side effects? Or women that come in at 40 weeks and have ve's and are told, 'while I was there I did a sweep, hopefully it will get things ...

Would you care to answer your own questions? How many? These type of comments actually reduce your argument rather than adding to it.

Babyblessed

Orion wrote: »

Mod response


You should be able to make your point without drawing on anything embee has seen or not seen. Do not get personal with any poster, mod or otherwise, on this forum.


Would you care to answer your own questions? How many? These type of comments actually reduce your argument rather than adding to it.

There was NO 'getting personal', it was an observation. Once I had chance to realise I had requoted someone twice, I simply stated it. Is embee a mod? Gotta say I look at the comments rather than the poster and I comment on the post rather than the poster.

It was a rhetorical question. I have seen many such circumstances.

The debate was over the massive level of CS at Kilkenny hospital, a fact not a speculation.

Orion

Non-mod response

Babyblessed wrote:

Thats not informed consent, thats removed consent ... God only knows what the women thought because they were convinced it was neccessary.

Certainly when we went through own experience certain things were not explained fully and looking back certain things would have been dealt with differently if we had some more knowledge but most prospective parents do not have the specialised knowledge that you seem to have.

Babyblessed wrote: »

The AIMS survey was only women who responded.
The latest Cuidui information was from stats handed over by the hospitals about their own figures.
The only questions might be how the hospitals collated their figures and why some declined to hand them over.........so much for freedom of information.

The AIMS survey is invalid imo based on the premises I mentioned earlier. You cannot compare the two at all. They have different collection methods, different sources and different starting points. How was the information requested? I cannot find on the site what the requests for information were. It is possible that the hospitals did not have the information in the format requested. While there should be common recording structure for just this reason this is not the case and must be reflected in the report.

Babyblessed wrote: »

Sadly this seems to be common. BF babies dont generally follow a 'routine' in the 1st few weeks. They feed on demand. This might mean they feed every 2 hours then go 6 hours. This doesnt go down to well in a hospital that likes to see 3-4hour feeding patterns. Be firm, demand skin-2-skin immediately after birth, then feed on LW. On the ward keep yourself well hydrated and feed as much as poss, go home as soon as you feel able and get in contact with LLL or another bf specialist to get support. Good luck, oh and ensure your birthing partner is supportive and will stand your ground so to speak!

We had the twins in Holles St and it was immediate skin-to-skin. They actively encouraged breast feeding also at whatever routine was necessary. I would hope that would be the norm. The health benefits gained from natural feeding is immense and I've never spoken to a nurse who would recommend anything but breastfeeding.

[mod note - I might split this particular discussion out into it's own thread.]

Babyblessed

NB...........
Orion, nowhere in your title it says your a 'mod'. Like I say I rarely look, I comment on the post not the poster.

Orion

Babyblessed wrote: »

Gotta say I look at the comments rather than the poster and I comment on the post rather than the poster.

If that's the case then fine. It read differently but I'm happy with that clarification.

LegacyUser

It is great that AIMS give women who have had difficult experiences a voice. Also advancing MLU's is a very worthy cause. It's good to have someone advocating for more choice.

But shouldn't AIMS be able to advance the issues on their own merit and choice, than questioning other perspectives like obs led care, section rates etc. Surely, the focus should be choice for mothers, and not setting one care setting against another?

It would worry me that by being so negative about other methods that choice or access to these could be removed? Wouldn't it be terrible if women had reduced access to 'medicalised birth' such as epidurals, pain relief and sections because of a dominance of one perspective- isn't that what AIMS is fighting at the moment ironically?
It may not be what is happening at the moment, but I am aware that there are more radical advocates who would move the whole system towards a natural birth centering than a choice based centre for everyone.

Hannibal Smith

Little My wrote: »

Just out of interest (and this might be better in its own thread - I don't want to derail this one) but why does UCH Galway have such a good record on breastfeeding within the first hour (59.9%) but such a low rate of exclusively breastfeeding on discharge (31.7%).

Basically roughly half of all mothers who start breastfeeding are exclusively breastfeeding when leaving hospital?

The thing that concerns me is that I am having my baby there in a few weeks - and have heard from friends who have just had babies that they really had to fight to continue breastfeeding.

My friend specifically said that the nurses will try and force you to give your baby a bottle and you really have to be firm if its not what you want.

She said she found it really hard as she was vulnerable, tired, her baby was crying and that she really felt backed into a corner over the whole thing. She went on to breastfeed for 6 weeks and then changed to bottle - and said that if she had of got more support to begin with she would probably still be breastfeeding.

Holles Street are almost intrusive with their breastfeeding policy If you have a normal birth you get skin to skin straight away, if you get a c section, as soon as you're brought out of recovery, you get skin to skin, and they're almost hopping on you trying to get the baby to latch on :D If the baby latches on and is fine, you continue as you are. If the baby isn't latching on and therefore isn't feeding, you can consider giving them preprepared stuff, though it's not advisable because apparently the different sucking actions required confuses them. Unfortunately my lad, never latched on and then was formula fed, topped up with expressed milk.

The only thing I would say is (1) read up on breastfeeding and what is involved, it's not just a case of putting your baby up to you and away you go, it is tough to get started. (2) When you're in there, don't wait for the nurses to help you, especially if it doesn't work straight away, try try and try again with yourself and baby, until you get there.

I hope there's something of assistance to you in all that waffle

Raybells

I had my baby in cumh and had decided to breastfeed, unfortunately I had not researchd enough and on the first night when DD was feeding constantly I was told she probably wasnt getting enough and was given a bottle of formula. I luckily received fantastic advice from a breastfeeding forum once I came home and dropped the formula and DD has been ebf since
For many others though the introduction of formula in hospital is the beginning of the end for breastfeeding

SanFran07

Happybirth wrote: »

Wouldn't it be terrible if women had reduced access to 'medicalised birth' such as epidurals, pain relief and sections because of a dominance of one perspective- isn't that what AIMS is fighting at the moment ironically?

It may not be what is happening at the moment, but I am aware that there are more radical advocates who would move the whole system towards a natural birth centering than a choice based centre for everyone.

From another perspective...

Isn't it terrible that women have reduced access to 'natural birth' such as baths, waterbirth, no time limits etc because of a dominance of one perspective?

Medicalised birth is the norm in Ireland as the Cuidiu statistics have shown. As far as I can see AIMS are trying to level the playing field so that Mums who prefer not to have a medicalised birth (unless necessary) have more options - other than an epidural. Choice based maternity care is exactly what AIMS are lobbying for but at the moment depending on where you live many Mums have no choice but medicalised birth. There is no fear of anyone taking epidurals away from women they do have a place in maternity care as do caesarean sections. AIMS wants choices expanded not restricted.

Orion - the only other studies I've come across around consent in maternity services was the 2010 Trinity College collaboration with the National Disability Association and National Womens' Council. It's available on the NDA.ie site as a fairly large Word doc.

taz70

I had my son in Holles Street and was already planning to breastfeed so availed of the advice from the lactation consultant. My son however was premature and taken to NICU and two days later was moved to Special Care. So much for an "intrusive" breastfeeding policy - they shoved formula down his throat DESPITE my insistence that he only receive milk from me directly or expressed milk. This continued for several days and caused a huge amount of distress to me. Even when I did feed him, they immediately gave him a "top up". I was so upset and angry at this, as it was explicitly against my wishes. I was even asked to STOP breastfeeding so that the doctors could do their rounds. Seriously? You want me to stop feeding my little premmie baby? I was digusted.

Hannibal Smith

taz70 wrote: »

I had my son in Holles Street and was already planning to breastfeed so availed of the advice from the lactation consultant. My son however was premature and taken to NICU and two days later was moved to Special Care. So much for an "intrusive" breastfeeding policy - they shoved formula down his throat DESPITE my insistence that he only receive milk from me directly or expressed milk. This continued for several days and caused a huge amount of distress to me. Even when I did feed him, they immediately gave him a "top up". I was so upset and angry at this, as it was explicitly against my wishes. I was even asked to STOP breastfeeding so that the doctors could do their rounds. Seriously? You want me to stop feeding my little premmie baby? I was digusted.

I don't know much about how they treat premature babies, my boy was 4 weeks early, but was perfectly fine so needed no special care, other than he was cold so needed to be put in an incubator for a bit. As soon as I came out of recovery and he was out of the incubator the midwives were hopping all over me trying to get him to feed. For all the other women who were wheeled in after me, they were brought up to the ward after delivery, moved onto the bed, and they too got the same treatment as we did, straight away. There was a lactation consultant who was fantastic and with her help I actually got my boy to latch on for a good hour, and that was the only time we managed to properly feed. She even offered to call to my house after we were discharged.

taz70

I have to agree that the lactation consultant in Holles St was spectacularly good - but even she couldn't get the midwives in NICU/Special Care to stop giving my son formula! And they couldn't explain from a clinical standpoint why giving my son an inferior, non-sterile powdered milk of another species was preferable to the milk his own mother was producing. Their only reason was that they could write down a specific amount on his chart. So great - his virgin gut is contaminated just so they can write down a number.

Hannibal Smith

taz70 wrote: »

I have to agree that the lactation consultant in Holles St was spectacularly good - but even she couldn't get the midwives in NICU/Special Care to stop giving my son formula! And they couldn't explain from a clinical standpoint why giving my son an inferior, non-sterile powdered milk of another species was preferable to the milk his own mother was producing. Their only reason was that they could write down a specific amount on his chart. So great - his virgin gut is contaminated just so they can write down a number.

If they had enough machines you could even have expressed it and they could have given him that instead of the formula, but those machines are like gold dust! Did you manage to bf in the end?

I did notice though that if the bf worked for you, away you went, but if it didn't work that's when the support fell.