'Botched maternity care almost killed me and my baby, I'm traumatised for life'
A mum of one said giving birth to her son was an 'absolutely awful' experience amid concerns over UK maternity care.
This week, Health Secretary Wes Streeting announced a "rapid national investigation" after it was found that poor care may have contributed to the loss of babies or life-changing injuries in some UK maternity units. During a speech at the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, Mr Streeting announced the inquiry would "address systemic problems dating back over 15 years".
He also said: "I know nobody wants better for women and babies than the thousands of NHS midwives, obstetricians, maternity and neonatal staff, and that the vast majority of births are safe and without incident, but it's clear something is going wrong."
One parent who suffered a traumatic birth and felt the impact of maternity care in the UK is Rachel Coles, 30, from Essex. "My birth experience was absolutely awful", Rachel exclusively told the Mirror. "My waters broke naturally on September 20 at 1am in the morning, but I didn't give birth until 54 hours later on September 23 2021.
READ MORE: Major UK-wide probe into NHS maternity services - what happens next
She explained: "They tell you after 24 hours of your waters breaking to go back to the hospital. As I was not progressing and had not reached 4cm dilation, they placed me on the antenatal ward whilst I was experiencing severe contractions. My husband was sent home and was told he could only come back when I was going to be admitted to the labour ward, thanks to Covid.
"At 8am on the morning of September 22, I was still on the antenatal unit and given a sweep, which I did not consent to and should not have been done as my waters had broken."
Rachel, who is the CEO of marketing agency, Conv3rt (https://conv3rt.co.uk/), continued: "Thanks to one lovely midwife, I got moved into a private room, and they called my husband to come and stay with me as they were waiting for a bed on the labour ward, as they then knew I needed to be induced with pitocin. After six hours of labouring that day, we finally got our bed. Bear in mind that all I had up until this point was gas and air.
"They finally gave me an epidural after several pleas, and I finally got some sleep as the pitocin drip started to work. My epidural failed twice and had to be redone, and the contractions on the pitocin drip were, quite frankly, the most horrific pain I have ever experienced."
Things started to progress for Rachel, but the birth came with severe complications. She shared: "Finally, after what felt like forever, I got told I was ready to push.
"At this point, the epidural had completely worn off, and I could feel the pressure. It took two hours of pushing to get my son out, with several doctors in the room as they were concerned he was going to get stuck - I was too exhausted to keep going.
"I heard one doctor say, 'We should have given her a C-section hours ago.' Hearing this gave me a final bout of energy, and I finally pushed my son out, hearing the most amazing cry and having him handed to me.
"That feeling is like nothing else. However, because I had been contracting for over 50 hours and had been on the pitocin drip for longer than recommended, my placenta had started to disintegrate inside me and when they gave me the injection to birth the placenta, it broke up and had left a small tear in my uterus which caused me to lose almost 4L of blood."
Rachel harrowingly recalled: "All I remember as I was losing blood is my son being whisked off me and handed to my husband, about 20 doctors running into the room trying to stop the bleeding and being handed a form that I needed to sign to consent to surgery where it could end in a full hysterectomy if they could not stop the bleeding.
"I remember being exhausted and feeling incredibly sleepy, and I knew at that moment, if I died, then at least my son was healthy, and he would live a good life with his dad. I didn't even get a chance to say bye to my husband or son.
"I have since found out that my blood pressure had spiked and there were several touch-and-go moments. They administered a medicine that could have caused catastrophic effects due to my blood pressure in a last-minute attempt to stop the bleeding before a hysterectomy would have happened."
Three hours later, Rachel woke up in the "high dependency unit" to her husband whispering into her ear. "They needed to give my son formula, and if I wanted to breastfeed, which he knew I did, then I needed to wake up.
"I breastfed my son for the first time whilst in and out of consciousness, knowing that somehow I was still alive. I then haemorrhaged again at home four weeks post-birth due to retained placenta, which angered me as during my haemorrhage post-birth, they said they had removed it all. All of the above had a lasting impact. I was diagnosed with depression, anxiety and PTSD."
Nic Kane, Chief Nurse, Barking, Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust, told the Mirror: "We're so sorry Rachel had such a bad experience giving birth which has had a lasting impact on her health.
"We're always trying to learn when things go wrong and improve our care. Since 2021, we've recruited 35 more midwives with a further 12 due to join us in the coming weeks."
In response to the Health Secretary announcing a national investigation into NHS maternity services, Rachel shared: "Whilst I am glad the government are acknowledging that there are problems with maternity, it feels like this delays action when there are already recommendations."
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
6 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Shower gel advert banned for depicting black skin as 'problematic' and white skin as 'superior' by advertising watchdog
A shower gel advert has been banned for depicting black skin as 'problematic' and white skin as 'superior', the advertising watchdog has said. The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) banned the ad after investigating complaints that it perpetuated a 'negative and offensive racial stereotype'. The Sanex shower gel ad, broadcast in June, depicted a black woman with red scratch marks and another covered with a cracked clay-like material. Over this, a voiceover said: 'To those who might scratch day and night. To those whose skin will feel dried out even by water.' Over scenes of a white woman the ad stated: 'Try to take a shower with the new Sanex skin therapy and its patented amino acid complex. For 24 hour hydration feel.' The ad ended with on-screen text and the voiceover adding: 'Relief could be as simple as a shower.' Colgate-Palmolive, which owns the Sanex brand, argued the depiction of diverse models in the ad was shown in a 'before and after' scenario to demonstrate their product was suitable for all, rather than as a comparison based on race or ethnicity. On that basis, it believed the ad did not perpetuate negative racial stereotypes and was not likely to cause serious or widespread offence. Clearcast, which approves or rejects ads for television broadcast, said the ad did not perpetuate negative racial stereotypes and instead demonstrated the product's inclusivity. The agency said one model with darker skin was depicted in a 'stylised and unrealistic way' to demonstrate dryness, but her skin tone was otherwise not a focal point. However the ASA said the use of different skin colours created a juxtaposition of black skin shown as itchy and dry in the 'before' scenes, and white skin shown as smoother in the 'after' scenes. The watchdog said: 'The ad was therefore structured in such a way that it was the black skin, depicted in association with itchy and dry skin, which was shown to be problematic and uncomfortable, whereas the white skin, depicted as smoother and clean after using the product, was shown successfully changed and resolved. 'We considered that could be interpreted as suggesting that white skin was superior to black skin.' The ASA added: 'Although we understood that this message was not the one intended and might appear coincidental or pass unnoticed by some viewers, we considered that the ad was likely to reinforce the negative and offensive racial stereotype that black skin was problematic and that white skin was superior. 'We concluded that the ad included a racial stereotype and was therefore likely to cause serious offence.' Colgate-Palmolive was approached for comment.
The Independent
8 minutes ago
- The Independent
Major brand has advert banned for suggesting black skin is ‘problematic'
A Sanex shower gel television advertisement has been banned by the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) for reinforcing an offensive racial stereotype. The watchdog ruled the ad, which suggested black skin was "problematic" and white skin "superior", must not air again. This followed two complaints that it perpetuated negative stereotypes about darker skin tones. The ad, seen in June, included a voiceover that said: 'To those who might scratch day and night. To those whose skin will feel dried out even by water,' alongside scenes of a black woman with red scratch marks and another covered with a cracked clay-like material. Alongside scenes of a white woman taking a shower with the product, the ad then stated: 'Try to take a shower with the new Sanex skin therapy and its patented amino acid complex. For 24 hour hydration feel.' The ad ended with on-screen text and the voiceover stating: 'Relief could be as simple as a shower.' Colgate-Palmolive, which owns the Sanex brand, said the depiction of diverse models in the ad, either experiencing skin discomfort or post-product relief, was shown in a 'before and after' scenario to show their product was suitable and effective for all, rather than as a comparison based on race or ethnicity. On that basis, it believed the ad did not perpetuate negative racial stereotypes and was not likely to cause serious or widespread offence. Clearcast, which approves or rejects ads for broadcast on television, said the ad did not perpetuate negative racial stereotypes and instead demonstrated the product's inclusivity. The agency said one model with darker skin was depicted in a 'stylised and unrealistic way' to demonstrate dryness, but her skin tone was otherwise not a focal point. A second model, also with darker skin, was shown with itchy skin, but this was portrayed through scratching visibly healthy skin and the resulting marks, and was therefore more about sensation than any visible skin condition. The ASA said the use of different skin colours was a means of portraying a 'before and after' of the product's use, which created a juxtaposition of black skin shown as itchy, dry and cracked in the 'before' scenes, and white skin shown as smoother skin in the 'after' scenes. The watchdog said: 'The ad was therefore structured in such a way that it was the black skin, depicted in association with itchy and dry skin, which was shown to be problematic and uncomfortable, whereas the white skin, depicted as smoother and clean after using the product, was shown successfully changed and resolved. 'We considered that could be interpreted as suggesting that white skin was superior to black skin.' The ASA added: 'Although we understood that this message was not the one intended and might appear coincidental or pass unnoticed by some viewers, we considered that the ad was likely to reinforce the negative and offensive racial stereotype that black skin was problematic and that white skin was superior. 'We concluded that the ad included a racial stereotype and was therefore likely to cause serious offence.' It further told Colgate-Palmolive 'to ensure they avoided causing serious offence on the grounds of race'.
The Independent
8 minutes ago
- The Independent
Diabetes patients could be offered weight loss jabs sooner in major shake-up
People with type 2 diabetes in England could be offered treatments, including weight loss jabs, sooner in the biggest shake-up of care in a decade. New draft guidance from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (Nice) recommends a shift from a one-size-fits-all approach of starting everyone on the same medication to more personalised care that aims to prevent complications like heart failure and heart attacks. Newer type 2 diabetes drugs, known as SGLT-2 inhibitors, would be made a first-line treatment option in a move that could eventually help save tens of thousands of lives. SGLT-2 inhibitors, which include canagliflozin, dapagliflozin, empagliflozin, and ertugliflozin, are once-a-day tablets that reduce blood sugar levels by helping the kidneys remove glucose, which is passed from the body through urine. However, analysis by Nice found these drugs are under-prescribed. The new guidelines recommend patients who cannot tolerate metformin – the first-choice in type 2 diabetes medication – should start with an SGLT-2 inhibitor on its own. The decision comes after evidence suggested these drugs protect the heart and kidneys as well as control blood sugar, Nice said. It is estimated that the change could save almost 22,000 lives once uptake reaches 90 per cent of the population. Nice also suggests some groups of patients would also benefit from GLP-1 receptor agonists such as liraglutide or semaglutide sooner, rather than keeping them for the later stages of treatment. Semaglutide, sold under the brand name Ozempic, is licensed in the UK to treat type 2 diabetes, while its other brand – Wegovy – is also used by the NHS to help obese people lose weight. Professor Jonathan Benger, deputy chief executive and chief medical officer at Nice, said: 'This guidance means more people will be offered medicines where it is right to do so to reduce their future risk of ill health. This represents a significant evolution in how we approach type 2 diabetes treatment. 'We're moving beyond simply managing blood sugar to taking a holistic view of a person's health, particularly their cardiovascular and kidney health. 'The evidence shows that certain medicines can provide important cardiovascular benefits, and by recommending them as part of initial treatment, we could help prevent heart attacks, strokes and other serious complications before they occur. 'This is particularly important given that cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death in people with type 2 diabetes.' Around 4.6 million people in the UK are living with diabetes, with nine in 10 of those having type 2. However, it is estimated that a further 1.3 million people may have undiagnosed type 2 diabetes. Nice analysed the records of 590,000 people and found SGLT-2 inhibitors are under-prescribed, particularly to women, older people, and black patients. Prof Benger added: 'The evidence from our analysis is clear. There are prescribing gaps that need to be addressed. 'The guideline update published today will help to increase equitable uptake of SGLT-2 inhibitors, which we know can prevent serious health complications.' Dr Waqaar Shah, chairman of the guideline committee, added: 'We know that SGLT-2 inhibitors are currently under-prescribed, and our health economics analysis shows that people living in the most deprived areas would particularly benefit from universal access to these treatments. 'These recommendations could help reduce health inequalities while providing better outcomes for everyone.' Elsewhere, the draft guidance suggests different treatments for diabetes patients with certain characteristics or health conditions. These include adults with cardiovascular disease, who should be offered a triple therapy including a GLP-1 receptor agonist. Meanwhile, adults diagnosed with type 2 diabetes before 40 should be offered dual therapy before a GLP-1 receptor agonist is considered, while patients with chronic kidney disease should have tailored recommendations based on their kidney function. A public consultation on the new Nice guidelines is open until October 2. Douglas Twenefour, head of clinical at Diabetes UK, said: 'This long-awaited announcement propels type 2 diabetes treatment into the 21st century. 'Boosting access to newer treatments will be transformative for people with type 2 diabetes, while ensuring the UK keeps pace with the global momentum in treating the condition. 'The majority of people with type 2 diabetes are not currently taking the most effective medication for them, putting them at risk of devastating diabetes-related complications. 'Diabetes is a leading cause of cardiovascular disease, and tailoring treatment based on individual risk could protect thousands against heart attacks and kidney disease. 'These guidelines could go a long way to easing the burden of living with this relentless condition, as well as helping to address inequities in type 2 diabetes treatments and outcomes.'
