Ombudsman finds King's Lynn guilty of maladministration

ISSN 0256-5004 (Print)

Ombudsman finds King's Lynn guilty of maladministration

AIMS Journal, 2016, Vol 28 No 2

Queen Elizabeth Hospital (QEH), King's Lynn is notorious for refusing to provide a home birth service. Any woman unfortunate enough to want a home birth within its area has an uphill battle. In 2012 Jeanette Stevens gave birth to her first son at home and described her experience as 'magical'. By 2014, when she was 32 weeks pregnant with her second baby, QEH unilaterally withdrew its home birth service 'temporarily'. Right up to the birth Jeanette fought the Trust and the Care Commissioning Group (CCG), desperately trying to get an agreement that a midwife would attend when called. In the end she had no choice but to engage an independent midwife. (Read her account in the next journal.)

Jeanette was not alone in her experience. Jane Reeve was also fighting to have a midwife attend the home birth of her second daughter; her story 'The battle for Cordelia' is published in AIMS Journal 28(1). Jane's first baby was born 12 minutes after her arrival at hospital, giving her no time to enjoy her planned water birth. It was sensible, and safer, therefore, for her to birth her second baby at home. She too was faced with QEH's intransigence and they justified their refusal to provide midwifery cover on the grounds that the 'temporary' closure of the home birth service was, allegedly, due to staff shortages. A 'temporary' closure that had been in place for the past three years. Jane Reeve complained to the Ombudsman that as a result of the Trust's decision she had to pay for a private midwife. The Ombudsman upheld her complaint and found that 'the length of time the Trust's Home Birth Service has been suspended without any alternative home birth provision being offered or explored amounts to maladministration.'

He went on to state that:

'We accept that Mrs Reeve was not denied adequate maternity care as the Trust explained that she could use their Central Delivery Suite and we have taken this into account when considering our recommendations. Additionally, had the Trust explored the possible alternative arrangements to assist Mrs Reeve with her home birth request we may have arrived at a different view on her complaint. However it is due to the fact that no alternative home birth options were considered by the Trust despite Mrs Reeve's repeated requests that we have decided to uphold this complaint.

'We recommend the Trust pay Mrs Reeve £1000 as a consolatory payment in recognition of the failings we have identified.'

For more information see Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman Case Reference: HS-242121

AIMS Comment

Perhaps now QEH will properly provide an effective and efficient home birth service?

While the Ombudsman's ruling is welcome, his view that Mrs Reeve could use QEH's Central Delivery Suite is questionable. Research clearly shows that had Mrs Reeve given up and birthed in the delivery suite she would have been putting herself, and her baby, at increased risk, not only from the real possibility of giving birth in an ambulance on the way to the unit, but also from the risks in the delivery suite.

It is clear from recent research, and the BirthPlace study in particular, that low risk women birthing in an obstetric unit have worse outcomes that will have an effect on them for the rest of their lives: on their ability to feed and look after their babies, on their ability to become pregnant again, to have another safe and low risk pregnancy and birth. These outcomes include not just instrumental, surgical births and episiotomies, but blood transfusions and general anaesthetics. If care is to be provided on the basis of good research then it is time that the risks of fit and healthy women giving birth in obstetric units are properly addressed.


AIMS supports all maternity service users to navigate the system as it exists, and campaigns for a system which truly meets the needs of all.

The AIMS Journal spearheads discussions about change and development in the maternity services. From the beginning of 2018, the journal has been published online and is freely available to anyone with an interest in pregnancy and birth issues. Membership of AIMS continues to support and fund our ability to create the online journal, as well as supporting our other work, including campaigning and our Helpline. To contact the editors, please email: editor@aims.org.uk

Latest Content

Journal

« »

What has the AIMS campaigns team be…

AIMS Journal, 2021, Vol 33, No 4 By the AIMS Campaigns Team Covid-19: With other members of the But Not Maternity Alliance [1] we wrote to all Trusts and boards that were…

Read more

Aims Editorial December 2021: What…

AIMS Journal, 2021, Vol 33, No 4 Alex Smith The title of the editorial for this issue of the journal is, ‘What just happened?’ I feel a little bit like ‘baby bear’ from G…

Read more

How does BMI influence maternity ca…

AIMS Journal, 2021, Vol 33, No 4 [ All charts are taken from or adapted from the report ] By the AIMS Campaigns Team The National Maternity and Perinatal Audit (NMPA) is…

Read more

Events

« »

AIMS 60th Anniversary Event - Confe…

POSTPONED FROM JUNE 2020 Making a difference past and future The purpose of the day is to celebrate what Birth Activists in general and AIMS in particular have achieved,…

Read more

Latest Campaigns

« »

AIMS Campaigns Update, December 202…

AIMS supports the Government's ongoing commitment to the implementation of relational care - the Continuity of Carer model of care - in the maternity services across Engl…

Read more

Response to the RCOG Consent Advice…

The draft document can be found here General comments: The comments form is online only and cannot be downloaded. This makes it very difficult for considered responses to…

Read more

AIMS Position Papers

AIMS is pleased to announce the publication of the first of our new position papers. Over the years, AIMS has developed a reputation for taking a position on a wide range…

Read more