World Class Maternity services, YEAH RIGHT!

NIMAN · 04-12-2013 01:27AM

Can I ask the OP have you had experience of Ireland's maternity services?

We have had 3 children in the last 4 years and received nothing but excellent, top quality care from everyone involved.

From my experience, I would rate our services as excellent, under very difficult conditions.

Of course these mentioned cases are sad, but these happen in every country.

MadsL · 04-12-2013 01:30AM

MadsL wrote: »

Imagine being 15% more likely to die because your hospital uses paper records. :eek:

I'm quoting myself because I want this statistic to sink in.

Imagine if your local garage failed to connect your brakes on average 15% more because they had no checklist. As a result of that they killed 15% more people than the state of art garage down the road that have a big sign that says "reconnect and test brakes before letting customers leave".

That would never, ever be tolerated in mechanics, yet the very same scenario, misprescription, misdiagnosis and malpractice happens EVERY day in healthcare.

I will campaign for an a Nobel Peace prize for the first doctor or surgeon who confronts the problem in the public eye.

MadsL · 04-12-2013 01:31AM

NIMAN wrote: »

Of course these mentioned cases are sad, but these happen in every country.

Every country also used to have TB and Cholera. We figured out how to fix that.

Hootanany · 04-12-2013 01:42AM

Morag wrote: »

Dhara Kivlehan, Savita Halappanavar & Bimbo Onanuga when will we start talking about migrant women dying in our hospitals due to medical staff ignoring and neglecting them?

http://www.thejournal.ie/dhara-kivlehan-hse-pregnancy-1204009-Dec2013/

Seriously WTF, I know our hospitals esp maternity ones have not enough staff and they are run off their feet, but in this day and age no one should die cos
no one checked the test results or checked the charts.

Over flow happens and often means patients are less checked on, but it should not be a bloody death sentence.

Looks like racism to me

Sauve · 04-12-2013 01:43AM

MadsL wrote: »

The Medical industry kills thousand if not millions each year.

How do you expect any of your post to be taken seriously when you post something so wildly inaccurate?!
Bit of a difference between a thousand and a million in fairness.

MadsL · 04-12-2013 01:59AM

Sauve wrote: »

How do you expect any of your post to be taken seriously when you post something so wildly inaccurate?!
Bit of a difference between a thousand and a million in fairness.

I think it is clearly a typo for thousands if not millions.

If 98,000 Americans are killed through malpractice and 106,000 Americans are killed through pharma f8ckups, what do you suppose the global figure is, and why would it be unreasonable to see globally a million a year at least dead?

We don't know the real figure because the medical profession hides it. But preventable medical deaths are the sixth largest killer in the US.

Now. Am I wrong?

Sauve · 04-12-2013 02:09AM

MadsL wrote: »

I think it is clearly a typo for thousands if not millions.

If 98,000 Americans are killed through malpractice and 106,000 Americans are killed through pharma f8ckups, what do you suppose the global figure is, and why would it be unreasonable to see globally a million a year at least dead?

We don't know the real figure because the medical profession hides it. But preventable medical deaths are the sixth largest killer in the US.

Now. Am I wrong?

I have no idea if you're right or wrong because as you said yourself, "we don't know the real figure".

dxhound2005 · 04-12-2013 02:10AM

MadsL wrote: »

I think it is clearly a typo for thousands if not millions.

If 98,000 Americans are killed through malpractice and 106,000 Americans are killed through pharma f8ckups, what do you suppose the global figure is, and why would it be unreasonable to see globally a million a year at least dead?

We don't know the real figure because the medical profession hides it. But preventable medical deaths are the sixth largest killer in the US.

Now. Am I wrong?

These people should definitely stay away from doctors and hospitals.

Taco Chips · 04-12-2013 02:15AM

MadsL wrote: »

A friend of mine had treatment for hairy cell leukaemia at Tallagh Hosp. - during his first round of treatment he was given a drug that caused all his skin to de-laminate. He suffered terribly but was eventually give the all-clear to go home. A year and half later his remission reversed and he had to go back in.

They gave him the same drug again. His skin fell off, again.

Tell me that wasn't preventable either through pharmacy IT programs or reading his medical notes beyond a cursory glance. Had his adverse reaction been different to the drug he could have died.

Cause of death? Chalk one up for hairy cell leukaemia, none for medical incompetence.

Loaded? Not a bit of it, medical incompetence is unbelievably tolerated.

Obviously you don't have much background knowledge of pharmacology and disease but rather a side effect like the one you described than death from the leukaemia? Thats one of the pillars of medicine, weight of the adverse effects of a drug versus the positive.

Jimoslimos · 04-12-2013 02:22AM

MadsL wrote: »

Proper investment in state of the art medical technology could save 100,000 lives a year.

Imagine being 15% more likely to die because your hospital uses paper records. :eek:

Relative risk percentages are meaningless without the absolute numbers to back them up

XxMCRxBabyxX · 04-12-2013 02:23AM

Morag wrote: »

http://www.mdeireland.com/pub/MDE_report_w_2012.pdf

So you're only bothered with the women who aren't Irish then? Are you trying to claim that the hospitals are biased or racist or why focus on them?

I'd imagine that the background of some of those women may have played a part. Culture, many have different and traditional birthing methods, they could have possibly Ben previously ill when they came over. Not that it's Irish are just trying to kill those foreign women.

gctest50 · 04-12-2013 02:25AM

MadsL wrote: »

........
Now. Am I wrong?

nope .... here's another one (

http://98000reasons.org/

Jimoslimos · 04-12-2013 02:30AM

gctest50 wrote: »

nope .... here's another one (

http://98000reasons.org/

Hmm...a website by the American Association for Justice, alternatively known as the Association of Trial Lawyers of America. No conflict of interest here.

cuckoo · 04-12-2013 02:36AM

I think we do have good maternity services, but not as good as people like to say. As mentioned upthread, different countries had been using different criteria to record maternal mortality - some countries include deaths due to traffic accident of pregnant women in those stats.

Describing it as 'world class' and 'one of the best places in the world to give birth' is papering over the lack of investment in infrastructure - for example, women and babies are getting great care in Holles Street, but they and staff are in a building that reminds me of Hogwarts; cramped, not enough lifts, ancient toilet and shower facilities, etc.

I really don't think racism is a factor for higher maternal morbidity for non-Irish nationality women - our hospitals have more multinational staff then anywhere else I can think of in Ireland (bar facebook or multilingual tech support centres maybe). Complicated contributing factors in this situation - socioeconomic status, access to antenatal care, religion (e.g. Jehovah's witness), underlying disease, etc.

gctest50 · 04-12-2013 02:37AM

Jimoslimos wrote: »

Hmm...a website by the American Association for Justice, alternatively known as the Association of Trial Lawyers of America. No conflict of interest here.

i know

Five years ago, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) galvanized the U.S. public and medical community with To Err is Human, its report on medical errors. The report's now-famous finding, that 44,000 to 98,000 Americans die each year as a result of medical mistakes,

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Publications/In-the-Literature/2004/Nov/The-End-of-the-Beginning--Patient-Safety-Five-Years-After--To-Err-Is-Human--em.aspx

gctest50 · 04-12-2013 02:55AM

Ireland :

MORE than €60 million will be paid out to patients who have suffered from serious medical errors in the health service this year

“A study in US hospitals has reported that only 2% of negligent adverse events lead to clinical malpractice claims, and the same is true here,” said the senior SCA official

Among the most troubling mistakes recorded last year were patients receiving the wrong medication (6,785 cases), incorrect diagnoses (2,051), blood transfusions incidents (824), and mistakes in medical records (5,070)

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/health/60m-to-be-paid-out-for-medical-errors-102582.html

.

Daqster · 04-12-2013 04:02AM

between 2009 and 2011, roughly 25% of maternities in Ireland were women of non-Irish nationality

Sweet marie. Is that true?

What % of women in Ireland are in fact non-nationals, out of interest, cause that sounds mighty bloody high.

kc90 · 04-12-2013 04:43AM

MadsL wrote: »

I promise you there are a plenty of unreported negligent deaths, and the older you are the less likely it will be reported.

Hospitals kill people that they could have easily not killed every single day.

Would these people have died anyway, without intervention?

MadsL · 04-12-2013 06:29AM

Taco Chips wrote: »

Obviously you don't have much background knowledge of pharmacology and disease but rather a side effect like the one you described than death from the leukaemia? Thats one of the pillars of medicine, weight of the adverse effects of a drug versus the positive.

Are you honestly suggesting that that drug was the only option for treatment despite the known adverse side effect reaction in this particular patient? As I recall staff admitted they fcuked up.

04-12-2013 06:33AM

Daqster wrote: »

Sweet marie. Is that true?

What % of women in Ireland are in fact non-nationals, out of interest, cause that sounds mighty bloody high.

Around 16% of the population was foreign-born. Factor in how few of them are over 45 and therefore how many are of child-bearing age and the stats aren't too shocking.

Cliona99 · 04-12-2013 06:53AM

Did I read that right? This 2007 report on improving maternal healthcare in Ireland recommends one midwife for every 28 women in labour.

One midwife: TWENTY-EIGHT labouring women. And 28-32 extra patients arriving at random times, maybe needing extra care.

THIS was the recommendation six years ago? This might be selfish, but if I'm pushing an entire person out of my vagina, I'd like someone who knows what they're doing to be paying attention.

Also, slight tangent, but wouldn't home birth be safer choice by default for most low risk pregnant women? that way the midwife to woman ratio is 1:1 or 2:1 rather than 1:28....

04-12-2013 06:59AM

Cliona99 wrote: »

Did I read that right? This 2007 report on improving maternal healthcare in Ireland recommends one midwife for every 28 women in labour.

One midwife: TWENTY-EIGHT labouring women. And 28-32 extra patients arriving at random times, maybe needing extra care.

THIS was the recommendation six years ago? This might be selfish, but if I'm pushing an entire person out of my vagina, I'd like someone who knows what they're doing to be paying attention.

Also, slight tangent, but wouldn't home birth be safer choice by default for most low risk pregnant women? that way the midwife to woman ratio is 1:1 or 2:1 rather than 1:28....

I'm guessing the number of labouring women is the average number over a period of time. It's about playing odds to some extent, a 1:25 ratio could mean <1% of cases won't have a dedicated midwife while a 1:28 ratio could mean <5% won't have a dedicated midwife. There'll always be variance in how often women go into hospital in labour. To ensure that literally 0 women don't have a dedicated midwife would require 90% of midwives sitting around doing nothing for the majority of the time, something which also isn't sustainable.

Cliona99 · 04-12-2013 07:06AM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I'm guessing the number of labouring women is the average number over a period of time. It's about playing odds to some extent, a 1:25 ratio could mean <1% of cases won't have a dedicated midwife while a 1:28 ratio could mean <5% won't have a dedicated midwife. There'll always be variance in how often women go into hospital in labour. To ensure that literally 0 women don't have a dedicated midwife would require 90% of midwives sitting around doing nothing for the majority of the time, something which also isn't sustainable.

Statistics are my nemesis, but I think I understand now. (and feel slightly less panicky about going into labour too

Thanks! (that looks sarcastic, but I mean it)

04-12-2013 07:10AM

Cliona99 wrote: »

Statistics are my nemesis, but I think I understand now. (and feel slightly less panicky about going into labour too

Thanks! (that looks sarcastic, but I mean it)

I'm good at maths but it's only in the last few years I've started understanding statistics and probabilities. Hint: don't take anything you read in the media at face value!

Sir Humphrey Appleby · 04-12-2013 10:17AM

The HSE response to Killing this woman? ""The HSE confirms that lessons have been learned from the tragic outcome."
If lessons were learned then why did they kill Savita two years later?

Wibbs · 04-12-2013 10:30AM

MadsL wrote: »

I promise you there are a plenty of unreported negligent deaths, and the older you are the less likely it will be reported.

I have personal experience of this here. Serious screwups that involved legal teams.

The US model is a unique one. It's a very medicalised and medical industry led society and the money being made from it is huge. The "pill for every ill" notion is strong, so you're going to see more fallout from adverse effects and more industry fudging of the figures. We're not nearly that bad here. Take something like pain relief. In an Irish hospital, the morphiate based big guns are wheeled out last, whereas in the US getting a script for morphiates is scarily easy. Twisted ankle? Oh right have some vicodin.

ruthloss · 04-12-2013 10:39AM

Wibbs wrote: »

I have personal experience of this here. Serious screwups that involved legal teams.

The US model is a unique one. It's a very medicalised and medical industry led society and the money being made from it is huge. The "pill for every ill" notion is strong, so you're going to see more fallout from adverse effects and more industry fudging of the figures. We're not nearly that bad here. Take something like pain relief. In an Irish hospital,( the morphiate based big guns are wheeled out last), whereas in the US getting a script for morphiates is scarily easy. Twisted ankle? Oh right have some vicodin.

I can confirm this, I was left writhing in agony with a Kidney Stone for 2 days here.

I refer you to your Sig.

osarusan · 04-12-2013 10:48AM

kc90 wrote: »

Would these people have died anyway, without intervention?

Already commented on it here:

MadsL wrote: »

Cause of death? Chalk one up for hairy cell leukaemia, none for medical incompetence.

Loaded? Not a bit of it, medical incompetence is unbelievably tolerated.

MadsL, are you saying it was the drug that killed him, not the leukemia?

notnumber · 04-12-2013 10:49AM

Bah Feckin Humbug! wrote: »

The HSE response to Killing this woman? ""The HSE confirms that lessons have been learned from the tragic outcome."
If lessons were learned then why did they kill Savita two years later?

I dont think anyone is suggesting they killed her and who knows she may have a similar outcome in India.

SEPT 23 1989 · 04-12-2013 10:56AM

Went through the public health system for both of my kids in two different Dublin
maternity hospitals,my missus received excellent care in both,yes things are very stretched but when it came down to the actual birth i could not fault the care she received

World Class Maternity services, YEAH RIGHT!

Comments