HEALTH bosses are considering possible cuts in hospital checks for pregnant women in an attempt to save cash.
It follows an Audit Commission report outlining savings by reducing the number of antenatal checks for women at low risk of complications in pregnancy. Blackburn, Hyndburn and Ribble Valley NHS Trust chiefs have pledged that any changes will lead to an improvement in care for mothers-to-be.
Only two months ago, a Blackburn couple threatened to take legal action against the trust after claiming medical staff failed to detect their son's rare heart condition during routine checks. Anthony Holt and his partner Anna Kellett's baby son Aaron (pictured) died 12 days after being born in Queen's Park Hospital.
The trust's director of corporate development, Simon Neville, said: "It is not necessarily reducing the number of checks but changing the places where they take place.
"However, because of the Audit Commission report, we will be reviewing the number of checks.
"At present it is between 10 and 12 for low-risk women.
"We are concerned that there must be good evidence that we could reduce numbers without affecting the level of care."
He stressed that the emphasis over the last three years had been to switch low-risk women from Queen's Park Hospital to midwives and GPs. The trust found many women having checks want them for reassurance and this could be offered outside the hospital clinics.
"Low-risk women can be seen in their homes and health centres instead of going unnecessarily to hospital for antenatal clinics," said Mr Neville
The aim is to free the hospital antenatal clinics for pregnant women with more complex needs, he added.
The Audit Commission report on improving maternity services found that unnecessary checks cost the NHS £10million last year. It recommended using the savings for improving information and support for women with complicated pregnancies.
The report also stated that the recommended number of checks for first-time mothers-to-be at low risk of complications is nine. The trust is to consult its own auditors on the issue.
Converted for the new archive on 14 July 2000. Some images and formatting may have been lost in the conversion.
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article