So, here they are in all their glory, the latest NICE (National Institute for Clinical Excellence) guidelines regarding care in labour. Heavens, we are going to need an awful lot more midwives for the ‘ideal’ to become reality. What I would like everyone to bear in mind is that this publication has been produced by the same institute that has prevented some treatments being prescribed for cancer patients and people who are losing their sight.
So, we are going to get more midwives says Alan Johnson
‘The expertise and experience of midwives, for instance, can be utilised far more effectively. Let’s be clear: our shared vision for maternity services will require more midwives. We have initially planned an extra 1000 by 2009. If birth rates continue to rise we will need to train more.’
So over the next two years we are going to have 1000 new midwives, that’s 500 per year, roughly 2 per maternity unit. The problem is that he hasn’t been specific, are these training places, in which case those midwives won’t be in circulation for 3 years? Or are they actual posts, complete with the money for their salaries. If they are the posts plus money then why can’t we have them now, there are the midwives out there who would be only to happy to be employed. I suspect another delaying tactic, like our staged pay award which we are still waiting for.
But hey, he is saying that expertise and experience should be utilised far more effectively, that’s not what my Trust are doing because they are trying to balance the books in line with his governments budget. Right hand, left hand, neither knows what it’s doing. It’s like a weirdly corrupt filtration system where money and edicts are poured in from the top (government) and as it gradually goes down the filter paper (managers) absorb the money and the edicts are allowed on to the beaker (practitioners). It’s a wonder the edicts ever reach the recipients in any form. Must be the bunson burner ( expectations ) flaming away that cause some kind of energy release from the exhausted contents of the beaker.