The Jerusalem PostLegendary Jewish actor Walter Koenig, 'Star Trek's' plucky Chekov, dies at 90ESPN🧌 'End Game': Seahawks troll Taylor Swift, Travis KelceESPN DeportesFin al boicot de Real Madrid: Mbappé lidera viaje al Balón de OroDaily MaverickCOLLISION COURSE: Parliament summons SAA, demanding answers to deepening financial turmoil and turbulent governanceZDF heuteEntdecken Sie das ZDF-NachrichtenstudioCollider‘Cyberpunk 2077’ and ‘Witcher 3’ Are Officially Crossing Over Right NowBillboardMeg Stalter Shares the Ella Langley Song That ‘Made Me Cry’ & Teases What’s Next for Her Music CareerRai NewsPallone d'Oro. Inizia la sfilata a Londra in attesa della cerimonia. Messi assenten-tvMehr Geld, mehr Posten: Frankreich macht Zugeständnisse nach SchulprotestenGMA News3 persons injured after dump truck with sand overturns in QCسكاي نيوز عربيةيتزلج بكرسي متحرك.. صيني يحول التدريب إلى أرقام قياسيةBBC News BrasilQuem é quem no palanque de Lula durante discurso da vitória
The Daily Newsstand · Free, Always
Monday, October 26, 2026

Bigger does not always mean better in hospital care | Letter

Translate

The closure of maternity units is always a temptation when the NHS runs into staffing problems, largely of its own making (Up to 20 maternity units in England may have to shut, NHS leader warns, 19 October).

In my area the quality of care has already been called into question at the largest local unit, and directing mothers to chance their luck there seems to be an undeserved reward. Likewise a nearby large trust has had the quality of its neonatal care called into question. Closing small units is unlikely to provide the quality gain that is sought.

The problem for the NHS is that there is a freedom of ability to employ consultant staff. If you have the money, get on and advertise. This means that the supposedly better, larger units will be able to hoover up all the people they want. The smaller units don’t get a chance.

The reason people want to work at big centres is because for the same pay they don’t have to work so hard, or have the same level of responsibility. Government policy has created specialist units in large centres with the belief, promulgated by the medical profession, that bigger means better.

When I was appointed as a consultant in 1988, before trusts were invented, the regional health authority made the appointments and made sure that senior medical staffing was fairly spread. You could not have 20 specialists in one district general hospital (DGH) and none in the next.

Centralising services on fewer sites is a disaster for local populations. If a DGH loses its obstetrics department, paediatrics would be immediately under threat. It would mean more children would have to travel. Accident and emergency departments would lose specialist support from paediatricians and gynaecologists. Fine if you have a broken arm, not so fine if you have meningitis etc.

So, when reviewing the future of obstetrics and midwifery, how about considering the people who live in the area and not just the needs of professors?

How about planning to relatively overstaff small units to make sure that they can provide for the needs of the population they serve, and ensuring that the newly qualified are directed towards these posts? After all, the NHS is paid for by everyone, so everyone should get a decent quality of care, without having to travel 50 miles in the dead of night.
Dr Paul Godwin
Keighley, West Yorkshire

View the original on The Guardian →

KioskNews shows a cleaned-up reading view extracted from the publisher’s page — the original always lives on their site, not ours.