Maternity's flaw is not midwives or quality, but economics

Maternity care is much in the news.  Many of MM's readers would have followed the BBC Panorama report on London's maternity care.  The programme concludes that 17 deaths could have been "avoided" in London in 2009.   Yet, this is not new.  There have been stories about the difficulties faced in and by maternity departments for a long time.  The question is why so much attention and is it deserved?  Is there something underlying that is at work and needs fixing, or can it not be avoided?

It could be because of a number of unavoidable reasons.  It could be related to the primordial nature of maternity.  It is when a new life emerges into the world; where our urge to procreate bears fruit.  The attention could be a result of the scale of loss when obstetrics goes wrong.  After all, nobody is “ill.”  And both mother and baby are relatively young.  If these were the reasons why maternity gets so much attention, then there is not much you can do to avoid it.

But MM thinks there is an avoidable problem that underlies these issues.  It is not easily seen, but lies there and manifests itself in poor staffing ratios; lack of doctors on the ward; high rates of vacancy and agency; poor infrastructure and so on.  All of these issues then give rise to problems and incidents.  This fundamental problem is economics; money; lucre - whatever you term it.  Maternity care does not pay for itself in the NHS. 

That may be a bald statement to make, but can be backed up by a detailed review of the economics of maternity.  Militant Manager has built an economic model of a maternity department to illustrate this economic problem (available on request).  At 4,000 births, the model concludes a Trustwill lose c. £2.8m pa, and £3.7m at 6,000 births.

The model was built using publicly available staffing and productivity guidelines.  Many of these are from the Royal College of Midwives (RCM) and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG).

Some of you may be thinking that the sums do not work because MM has taken the guidelines from those with a vested interest.  The Royal Colleges are hardly going to suggest meagre staffing.

MM would, however, disagree that this is a fundamental problem – partly because some of the numbers makes broad sense; and partly because the producers also have interests which moderate the financial call.  For example, the RCOG guidelines suggest that units with 4,000 births should have a consultant on the labour ward for at least 40 hours per week and those with 6,000 should have one for 60 hours.  This is ludicrous.  Firstly, it shows an attempt at reflecting the economics, and moderating the call for the number of consultants by paying attention to activity.  If such an attempt was made, then they should have gone the whole and way, and modelled it out.  They would then have realised the parlous state of maternity finances. 

Secondly, and more importantly, each birth is a birth. Should the RCOG not focus on the care given to each birth, and treat it equally?  Why should some babies have a better chance of obstetrician cover?  It is a bit like when a job applicant answers the question “why should we hire you?” with an answer that talks about what they can get out of the job, and how they will enjoy it.  To be frank, that is not very relevant to the company doing the hiring.  The question is how will the company benefit - and in this case, the baby.

Lastly, and most importantly, how can a clinical (not managerial, efficiency or productivity) standard be any different from either zero or 168 hours cover a week?  Births do not follow time patterns, so if a clinically safe birth can happen without an obstetrician on the labour ward, then it is safe that all births happen that way.  Conversely, if a clinically safe birth cannot happen without an obstetrician on the ward, then no births should happen without that.  There is no space for a fudge. 

MM believes that the issue is that people like the RCOG try and solve the fundamental problem of economics in other ways.   The economics does not support great consultant cover; but rather than recognise this fundamental fact, these bodies try and nudge up standards a little at a time, and put the pressure on Trusts to solve it.  Other attempts act in a similar way: for example, the CQC’s publication "Towards Better Births" which aimed to show the distribution of maternity provision, and nudge up standards.  And another is the BBC's Panorama survey.

Fundamentally, however, the issue is that the economics do not add up.  No private provider is working hard to become an elective or AQP provider of maternity care - they are for orthopaedics and other areas.  No Foundation Trust is building spanking new maternity wings - they are building Cancer Centres.  Lots of Trusts are rationing care, and closing their list to non-local geographies.  The numbers do not work.

When the economics do not add up, Trusts do not invest in staff and resources to give good care.  As all good economists know, economics drives our behaviour - even when we do not realise it.  Trusts do not mean to do it; but they do it subconsciously.  The end result is that care suffers, and we get headlines.

The best solution would be to drive up tariffs.