Maternity Services: Gloucestershire
Bobby Dean Excerpts(2 months, 1 week ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson) for introducing this debate. The experiences that he and others have shared about maternity services in Gloucestershire are similar to those in my constituency.
In Carshalton and Wallington, the Epsom and St Helier trust has an overall good rating from CQC. However, its maternity services have recently been downgraded to requires improvement, and, more worryingly, the safety element of those services was downgraded from good to inadequate following the inspection. A critical reason for the downgrade was the state of the building, which makes it hard for staff to perform their jobs efficiently and for patients to have the comfort of quality services. Some examples highlighted in the report were that the bereavement room was not soundproofed, the ensuite facilities had a shower curtain instead of a door, and, at the time of inspection, the two operating theatres opened directly on to the delivery suite corridor and were not secured, allowing anybody using the service to gain access to potential deliveries and surgeries.
A hospital that is crumbling, where three quarters of the building is not up to standard and where infection control is tricky because of the cramped conditions, risks tragic consequences for maternity care. It is an exhausting atmosphere for staff to work in and has led to low morale. What we need is urgent investment in the hospital’s infrastructure. A new building was promised by the previous Conservative Government, but so far it has turned out to be unfunded and we are waiting to see what happens with the forthcoming review. I am due to meet the Health Secretary in the next couple of weeks, and I will make it clear that it is essential to deliver a new building for both A&E and maternity services. Preferably that site will be at St Helier, which serves a densely populated area with greater deprivation levels and higher health inequalities, which are particularly pertinent to maternity care.
The building is not the only issue; the phoneline is also an issue. I have noted other hon. Members’ remarks, and as one Member mentioned, having the ability to pick up the phone and speak to somebody to get simple advice after a baby is born is critical, and that is not functioning properly in our hospital either. Another point I wish to make, on staff retention and recruitment levels, has been well made already. Our staff, too, are hard-working, dedicated and doing their best, but they are under immense pressure, which is leaving them feeling burnt out and fatigued. The bottom line is that there are simply not enough staff members to go around.
The CQC report for the St Helier trust highlighted a shortage of midwifery staff with the necessary qualifications in lots of critical areas, and it further noted that not all staff had completed all the mandatory training. We have spoken to the chief executive officer of the trust about that, and he explained that it is not because staff are unaware of the problem, but because they are simply so stretched that getting them through those courses while trying to maintain a minimum level of care for people coming through the hospital has proved impossible. Childbirth, of course, waits for no one, and in that high pressure, life and death situation, it is a matter of working with the available staff or having no staff at all. If we can get the recruitment and training of midwives right, we can go a long way towards solving the conundrum.
The consequences of understaffed and underfunded maternity care are dire. In recent years, there has been a stark increase in maternal mortality, rising from around eight deaths per 100,000 to over 13 per 100,000. Women from lower socioeconomic and ethnic minority backgrounds are disproportionately affected, being twice and three times more likely to experience maternal mortality, respectively. Those last statistics are particularly harrowing in constituencies such as mine. It is an urban constituency, and we have a higher than average number of women from both ethnic minority backgrounds and more deprived areas.
Improving maternity care must be a key priority for this new Government as they seek to address the overall crisis in our healthcare system. Giving birth has been one of the most dangerous medical procedures for women throughout history and nobody wants to give birth in a crumbling and potentially unsafe hospital where there are not enough qualified staff to help them.
If the Government are serious about improving women’s equality and closing the gender healthcare gap, the UK’s serious decline in maternity care needs to be addressed. That is why the Liberal Democrats have called for the UK Government to ensure that the commitments made in the NHS workforce plan are backed by adequate funding and include the expansion of the wider maternity and neonatal workforce. In the meantime, I will continue to fight for the upgrade in maternity services that my area so desperately needs.
Medicines
Bobby Dean Excerpts(3 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
It is good to a hear consensus building across the House on naloxone because, as we have heard from other Members, it is a lifesaver. Since its roll-out in the UK, that highly effective antidote to opioid intoxication has doubtlessly saved hundreds of lives and prevented many more harmful overdoses, as organisations working in my community have known for some time.
On the day that my local branch of Cranstoun—the harm reduction charity—received its first supply of naloxone, staff members noticed that someone was overdosing in the reception area. They were still unpacking the pallet, but they were able to get access to the medicine, administer it, bring the person back around, and then help them further. Within an hour after that vital medication was received, it potentially saved a life in my borough. The local staff describe naloxone as a game changer. That is why I and the Liberal Democrats welcome this motion to expand access to that vital treatment.
Naloxone is not a difficult drug to administer: just 30 minutes of training can be enough to equip somebody to treat a person in need. Naloxone is also low-risk. The person administering it does not need to know for sure what drug someone is on: if they have taken an opioid, Naloxone will help; if they have taken something else, it will likely do no harm. The combination of it being easy and safe to use, along with its life-saving potential, means that, as long as the correct training is given, it is common sense to get naloxone into as many hands as possible. That is particularly true given the frightening rise of the use of synthetic opioids, such as nitazenes, in our country. Most people are aware of the dangers of one particular opioid—heroin—but the crackdown on supply in Afghanistan means that a new synthetic alternative is rapidly taking its place in the market. Nitazenes are estimated to be anywhere between 30 and 500 times as potent as heroin. That is scary. If we do not act fast, we could be dealing with a national emergency comparable to the fentanyl crisis sweeping across the United States. Although I welcome the measures, this urgency means that I must encourage the Government to think quickly about going further.
The expanded roll-out of naloxone to police, prison, probation and youth justice services is welcome, but I ask the Minister to monitor the success of that expansion closely, to listen to the organisations on the ground, and to keep under review whether it is practical and desirable to expand access even further. For instance, some charities have called for taxi drivers and nightclub door staff to be able to access if they want it. That would have to go alongside the appropriate training, so that they can recognise the effects wearing off in 30 minutes. If that training is in place, we should expand access further still. If we build the evidence base, we can be led by it and ensure that harm reduction measures reach as many people as possible.
Going further also means taking a whole-system approach to drugs policy—from appropriate sentencing to investment in addiction services and other specialist support for users. We have tried the tough talk and the war-on-drugs route in this country, but they have left us with one of Europe’s worst drug-related death rates. If we transferred the departmental lead on drugs policy from the Home Office to the Department of Health and Social Care, it would go a long way towards our recognising that our drugs policy should ultimately be driven by the desire to reduce harm and save lives. The Liberal Democrats support this measure to improve access to naloxone, and I thank the Minister for bringing it forward.