Skip to main content

Fall in stillbirths in UK not due to new protocol?

A new study suggests that the dramatic fall in stillbirths is not due to the adoption of new growth assessement protocols in pregnancy.

In 2015, the Secretary of State for Health in the UK announced a national ambition to halve the rates of stillbirths, neonatal and maternal deaths and brain injuries at birth by 2030, with a 20% reduction by 2020.

The target is well on track to be met.  But what lies behind its success.  It was thought that it was the result of new protocols for assessing the growth of the baby in the womb.

By comparing the growth of the fetus with expected growth for gestational age can indicate if something is going wrong.  For this vital assessment, growth charts are used.  The problem with the older growth charts was that they took no account of heterogeneity in the population.  More accurate growth assessment could save the lives of babies if problems could be detected sufficiently early in pregnancy.

One approach in recent years has been the adoption of a Growth Assessment Protocol.  

The customised growth chart concept was developed initially in Nottingham in the early 1990s. While recognising the importance of growth for fetal well being, it had become increasingly clear that existing growth charts were not useful for clinical assessment in a heterogeneous maternity population.



Since the adoption of the Growth Assessment Protocol, stillbirths have been falling, but to what extent is this due to the new protocol? 

The adoption of the protocol was adopted later in Scotland than in England and Wales, and this has provided a unique opportunity to compare outcomes of the old versus the new protocol. 

In the UK, the promotion of customized centiles has been through a package of care known as the Growth Assessment Protocol (GAP) which trains midwives and healthcare professionals in fetal growth assessment and the use of customized centiles (those that take account of the mix in the population).

Now, a study published in Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology brings into question claims that the fall in stillbirths is due to the new protocol.

By studying more than 11 million singleton pregnancies in UK regions with similar healthcare systems, the study’s investigators demonstrated that the stillbirth rate in Scotland declined faster than in England and Wales between 2010 and 2015, despite a significantly lower uptake of the GAP program in Scotland.

The findings suggest that the reduction in stillbirth rate in England and Wales cannot be attributed solely to the implementation of the GAP program.

The greater decline in the stillbirth rate in Scotland, despite the low uptake of the programme, suggests that other beneficial public health measures common to both systems are responsible. 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Ian Duncan-Smith says he wants to make those on benefits 'better people'!

By any account, the government's austerity strategy is utilitarian. It justifies its approach by the presumed potential ends. It's objective is to cut the deficit, but it has also adopted another objective which is specifically targeted. It seeks to drive people off benefits and 'back to work'.  The two together are toxic to the poorest in society. Those least able to cope are the most affected by the cuts in benefits and the loss of services. It is the coupling of these two strategic aims that make their policies ethically questionable. For, by combining the two, slashing the value of benefits to make budget savings while also changing the benefits system, the highest burden falls on a specific group, those dependent on benefits. For the greater good of the majority, a minority group, those on benefits, are being sacrificed; sacrificed on the altar of austerity. And they are being sacrificed in part so that others may be spared. Utilitarian ethics considers the ba

His way or none? Why I can't vote for Jeremy

There is an assumption that all would be well with the Labour Party if people hadn't expressed their genuine concern with what they consider the inadequacies of Jeremy Corbyn's leadership. If only, it is said, the Parliamentary Labour Party and his Shadow Cabinet had supported him, instead of undermining him, all would have been fine. If they had been quiet and towed the line, then the party would not have been in the mess it is in. So, should they have stayed silent, or speak of their concerns? There comes a point when the cost of staying silent outweighs the cost of speaking out. This is a judgment. Many call it a coup by the PLP. They paint a picture of a right-wing PLP out of touch with the membership.  This is the narrative of the Corbyn camp. But Jeremy Corbyn, over the decades he has been in politics, showed the way.  It was Jeremy Corbyn who opposed almost all Labour leaders and rarely held back from speaking out, or voting time and again against the party line. As

Mr Duncan-Smith offers a disingenuous and divisive comparison

Some time ago, actually it was a long time ago when I was in my early teens, someone close to me bought a table. It was an early flat pack variety. It came with a top and four legs. He followed the instructions to the letter screwing the legs into the top. But when he had completed it the table wobbled. One leg he explained was shorter than the other three; so he sawed a bit from each of the other legs. The table wobbled. One leg, he explained, was longer than the other three. So, he sawed a bit off. The table wobbled. He went on cutting the legs, but the table continued to wobble. Cut, cut, cut! By this time he had convinced himself there was no alternative to it.  He ended up with a very low table indeed, supported by four very stumpy legs and a bit of cardboard placed under one of them to stop it wobbling on the uneven floor.  Mr Duncan-Smith argues that we need a 1% cap on benefits to be 'fair to average earners'. Average  earners have seen their incomes rise by less tha