Agenda item

To receive the outcomes of Eastbourne Borough Council’s survey of Maternity Services in East Sussex.

The Committee considered the findings of the Maternity Services Survey which had been recently conducted by the Council under the ownership of the Monitoring Officer, in partnership with Councillor Robert Smart, and under the supervision of the Office for National Statistics.

Councillor Smart reported that the survey had identified the following key findings:

·       Most mothers believed the services to be excellent or good but 17% consider the post-natal services to be poor or very poor

·       78% of mothers would wish to give birth at a location with doctors on site

·       93% of mothers served by the Eastbourne, Hailsham, and Seaford CCG would choose to give birth at Eastbourne DGH if a full obstetric service were available

·       Of the 312 mothers who had a pre-natal appointment with a consultant in Eastbourne, 85% did not give birth at Eastbourne DGH

·       Of those mothers who started labour at Eastbourne DGH, 27% were transferred during labour, principally to Hastings

·       Mothers served by Eastbourne, Hailsham and Seaford CCG accounted for the vast majority of transfers during labour and after birth, with significantly fewer transfers of mothers from other CCGs

Honorary Freeman Liz Walke addressed the Committee in her capacity as the Council’s Hospitals Champion. She considered that, given the risks associated with childbirth exacerbated by in-labour transfers, and the increased frequency of these risks resulting from the previous decision to reduce services at the Eastbourne District General Hospital, the fact that the service providers had not undertaken such research was surprising.

Members’ discussion included:

·       Disappointment that no representatives of the East Sussex CCG’s or East Sussex Healthcare Trust had been able to attend the meeting to discuss the report findings.

·       Particular concern at the disparity across the county in respect of mothers being transferred during labour, noting that the occurrence of this for Eastbourne mothers being transferred during pregnancy from the Eastbourne District General Hospital to Hastings Conquest was greater than the total of all other transfers in East Sussex.

·       Recognition that this report would be considered at the next meeting of HOSC on which this Council is represented.

·       Despite being noted as not being a detailed part of the report, strong concern was expressed at the number of stillbirths in Eastbourne (around twice the national average) with an absence of information as to the causes.

·       An appreciation of the excellent response rate to the survey and gratitude to all mothers who took the time and effort to participate. Members also extended their gratitude to Councillor Smart for the comprehensive nature of the report, and to Council Officer, Devan Briggs, who had been responsible for inputting the vast amount of data received and constructing the final report document.

Resolved:

(1)  That the Scrutiny Committee noted and endorsed the key findings of the Maternity Research Survey.

(2)  That a further invitation be extended to the East Sussex CCG’s and the East Sussex Healthcare Trust to attend the next Scrutiny Committee meeting.

(3)  That HOSC be requested to recommend that an independent review should now be undertaken on the suitability and safety of current maternity services provision across the county, in particular at the inequalities arising from the locations and overall level of provision of obstetric led maternity services in relation to population distribution. 

(4)  That the Secretary of State for Health be lobbied via Eastbourne’s MP to launch an inquiry into the issue of stillbirths in this area, in order to identify the reasons for the high number and any potential preventative measures once the reasons are better understood.

Reason:

The Executive Decision of the Leader on 3 April 2017 to conduct the Maternity Survey provided for the Scrutiny Committee to receive and comment on the outcomes of the survey.

Notes:

1.            Councillor Smart declared a personal non-prejudicial interest in respect of this subject matter. However, he had previously applied for and been awarded a dispensation by the Monitoring Officer to enable him to participate in constructing, presenting and commenting on the report.

2.            Councillor Belsey, confirmed by advice from the Monitoring Officer, abstained from the vote on the resolutions on the basis that, as Chair of the Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee (HOSC) who would next be considering this report, he did not wish to fetter his position at this stage.