Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Hi all!


I thought I would come to the forum and seek advice . I'm due to give birth hopefully late September but now need to make a decision on which hospital to give birth in. I've heard a lot of bad opinions about kings from local mums and friends in the area

And was hoping someone could help me make a decision on which hospital to give birth in. Any opinions, personal experience and advice would be greatly appreciated!


Thanks

Lots of bad things about Kings?


I feel extremely lucky to have had my 3 babies there - I had complicated pregnancies, Kings have the leading consultants and specialists in the country working there. People pay to see the consultants there, and complicated births from private hospitals get sent there.


That aside, you should consider which is easiest to get to. I ended up in hospital for a week prior to giving birth with my first, and if I had been at St Thomas's it would have been much harder for friends and my partner to visit. Also, I had lots of pre and post birth appointments to attend, far easier at Kings which is 5 mins away on a bus.


It's worth remembering that people are more likely to talk about their "bad" experiences than good ones (applies to everything in life), so for every unhappy customer there are hundreds and hundreds of happy ones.

I think some people say bad things about Kings just because it's not as new and shiny as Tommy's and they take that as meaning it's not as good.


For every birth horror story you'll hear about Kings, there's a birth horror story for Tommy's.


My wife had our first daughter at Tommy's (long drawn out induction, 2009) and our second at Kings (C-Section, 2011), and had a weeks stay after each. The room she stayed in at Tommy's was a bit nicer, with a better view, but other than that, we felt Kings edged it.


But basically they are both major London hospitals with some of the best medical professionals out there on their staff. You'll get good care at either.


Main thing that made us chose Kings second time round was the thought of a mad rush to Tommy's with wife in the throws of labour. As it was we avoided that both times, but the thought of that journey was not a happy one.


Good luck.

I had my baby at St Thomas that required intervention and was very pleased with the midwifes, doctors and nurses. It is one of the leading hospitals in London. I do think though that you rely on the staff there and then which can make a good or bad experience. But I would go to St Thomas again. Further, the after birth support particularly for breastfeeding is excellent and from friends having gone to Lewisham and Kings, seems to be more supportive.

I chose St. Thomas' five years ago because I was worried about Kings' being too stretched (both getting turned away on the day and also because at the time there were rumours that the overextended midwife staff wasn't as kind/handholding as one might like, although I now know loads of people who had terrific care during births there).


I was impressed by the nicer facilities at St. Thomas' and think I received very good care there despite a difficult birth. And, if you are lucky enough, there certainly couldn't be a nicer place to spend one's first night with a baby than in one of the home from home rooms (which I got even though I ended up giving birth on the medical side, because all the regular post-partum rooms were full).


That said, the thing that I didn't realise when I made my choice is how much that would affect the months before the birth -- instead of being able to see the midwife at my local surgery for antenatal care, I had to trek up to Camberwell for all of my antenatal appointments, which was a bit of a pain without a car. There were other little administrative inconveniences as a result of crossing jurisdictions, so to speak (for instance, I'm fairly certain that the reason I was never scheduled to see a consultant while I was pregnant was because that fell between the cracks of the two systems, and I didn't know to ask). I have no idea if all this is still the case, but if you're at all concerned you might want to speak to the midwife at your local surgery to see how different the months to come will look if you sign up for St. Thomas'.


In the end, though, I agree with all the other posters that both hospitals are excellent, so you won't go too far wrong either way. Best of luck to you!

I loved my midwife that I saw at Townley for my antenatal check ups and the distance to Kings was better suited especially as I had to endure extra scans ( it's very very busy there however so waiting times is always long ).


I can't say I had a good experience at Kings during my labour , it was a weekend , I had trainees staff in charge of my care , the whole experience from beginning to end was rather horrific , chaotic and I still try not to think about it five years on .


I put that down to just bad luck on my part with the staff I had and the timing as I go to Kings for other reasons and have found the service superb in other departments .


I have to say if I became pregnant again I would still choose Kings simply for location as I did end back up in Kings maternity ward due to an infection after the birth and the service there was good and it was easier for family to visit .


I have heard that the maternity ward has improved a lot since my experience .

RE Staff, I think it is largely luck of the draw. My wife was happier with the staff at Kings, they seemed friendlier and just more reassuring. At Tommy's we had this very young and excitable Australian. Very nice and all that, but I think my wife wanted to punch her when she was being all positive.


I think the long and the short of it is that everyone wants something different, and an annoying midwife to one person will be exactly what another person wants to reassure them.


Also, my wife chose Tommy's first time round because she works there and it was convenient for appointments. Going up there for each appointment would have been a pain in the arse.

I chose St Thomas' for the home from home birth centre. It was brilliant. The care was great and I got my own room for the whole stay with a sofa bed for my husband. The room overlooked Big Ben and was a great experience overall. I would go back for my second and recommend it. It beats sharing a busy ward at kings anyday.

Baby one Tommy's 2010, baby two Kings 2011.


Both hospitals fantastic, better views from the Kings operating theatre ;)


Seriously, both excellent but much easier when living in ED to go to Kings, closer for antenatal appointments, when in labour / visiting etc.

King's is an excellent hospital - you should be well looked after there during the birth. The post natal ward is another story with a few midwives/nurses and other staff I would have happily given a piece of my mind to (actually I did!) but it think it's everywhere. If I were to do it again, I'd go to King's, definitely. For the top rate obstetricians (my midwives were the Lanes so can't comment on midwives on labour ward) and also because I would not want to travel too far when in labour, get caught in a traffic jam or whatever...



Best of luck!

Just to add that you can change your mind so don't let anyone think that once you have made a decision you have to stick with it if you decide that it is not for you after all. It's worth choosing the most convenient hospital for now and then spending some time visiting other hospitals and doing some research. Check out http://aims.org.uk/ and make sure you know your rights.
I would add that you may want to think about whether or not you want to use a case loading midwifery team like the Lanes or Oakwood. That would mean booking in at Kings, but getting the majority of your care from midwives that know you, and delivering with familiar staff.
I had my baby at Kings and all was good. Friends have been happy at St. Thomas's too. I think we are lucky that we have the choice between a good hospital and a good hospital. Not a lot of choice in other parts of the country. My sister lives in Kent and went she had twins a few years ago she had to travel to Kings because the facilities weren't at her local hospital. I would go with the closest and congestion charge less option.

I had my first baby at at Thomas's last year.... They we're mostly brilliant. I have an underlying condition so needed lots of extra appointments & they really looked after me. I also work close to Westminster.

The post natal ward was nice (plus great views!) but like anywhere extremely busy & you don't get much attention once baby arrives.


I'm having my second at kings because it's so much closer to home now I've another little one to consider aswell.ive only heard good things & So far they've been really good too, scanning is excellent. I've been pretty well this time round & thankfully haven't needed any extra attention.


I think go with what's easiest for you to get to, both ante natal appointment wise & at time of birth.


Good luck x

I had my first at St Thomas and two subsequent babies at Kings. I would say post-natal care was probably better at St Thomas but all else better at Kings, particularly pre-natal appts and midwife care. Both are very busy and once you have the baby they leave you to your own devices... I had an emergency csection at Thomas' (not particularly traumatic or anything) but two easier natural births at Kings so that may colour my judgement. Prepare for them to be really rushed though - with my last baby (two months ago) they didn't even measure him after birth and we had to ask for the weight! they were great during actual labour though, and that's the main thing... I should say I chose T for my first as our closest hospital was then Whittington. Kings is our closest and that was great. Good luck!
I've only experienced Kings and have had two babies there(one emergency c section, one natural) - like lots of others, labour and immediate recovery was excellent but the care on the post natal ward is a lot less attentive. Ante natal care at Kings was great, their facilities and expertise are fantastic. The Lanes looked after me for my third and they were brilliant too, I'd really recommend the case loading midwives.
Bit of an aside but would you consider a home birth? About a year ago when I found out I was pregnant I posted exactly the same question as you on this forum. I ended up getting Lanes caseload care and having my daughter at home was the best decision I ever made. I couldn't fault the care of the midwives before, during and after the birth. The catering was perfect (thanks to my husband :)) and being tucked up in my own bed with my new baby was just perfect. Just some food for thought - completely appreciate it wouldn't be everyone's choice/ it's not an option for some.
After a really straightforward and lovely home birth (with Brierley midwives) for my first son, I planned the same again for my second son who was born at the end of Jan. When things didn't go according to plan, I transferred to Kings. I really didn't want to go to hospital, but all the staff at Kings were amazing. I felt confident that I was in really good hands. I stayed in hospital a while afterwards and I was largely left alone which was ideal as far as I was concerned, but every other woman on my ward recieved extensive breastfeeding support - presumably because they asked for it. I can't say enough good things about Kings.
I had a fairly uncomplicated birth at kings and was very happy with the treatment I received. I went home the same day out of choice. The taxi journey from east dulwich seemed like the longest ride of my life so I definitely would not have wanted to travel all the way to st thomas. Not all first labours are slow!

First baby I looked round tommy's but chose king's because of the much shorter journey, which was quite important in the end. Also, not that many women actually get to deliver in the "home from home" unit in tommy's as you have to move to the main labour ward if necessary.


Second time we moved house when was 36 weeks pregnant so I switched to st helier in sutton, nearest big hospital which was good and the staff far less stretched than kings (fewer births there), they had a nice new birthing unit too (but again not suitable for all births).

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • I think mostly those are related to the same "issues". In my experience, it's difficult using the pin when reporting problems, especially if you're on a mobile... There's two obvious leaks in that stretch and has been for sometime one of them apparently being sewer flooding 😱  
    • BBC Homepage Skip to content Accessibility Help EFor you Notifications More menu Search BBC                     BBC News Menu   UK England N. Ireland Scotland Alba Wales Cymru Isle of Man Guernsey Jersey Local News Vets under corporate pressure to increase revenue, BBC told   Image source,Getty Images ByRichard Bilton, BBC Panorama and Ben Milne, BBC News Published 2 hours ago Vets have told BBC Panorama they feel under increasing pressure to make money for the big companies that employ them - and worry about the costly financial impact on pet owners. Prices charged by UK vets rose by 63% between 2016 and 2023, external, and the government's competition regulator has questioned whether the pet-care market - as it stands - is giving customers value for money. One anonymous vet, who works for the UK's largest vet care provider, IVC Evidensia, said that the company has introduced a new monitoring system that could encourage vets to offer pet owners costly tests and treatment options. A spokesperson for IVC told Panorama: "The group's vets and vet nurses never prioritise revenue or transaction value over and above the welfare of the animal in their care." More than half of all UK households are thought to own a pet, external. Over the past few months, hundreds of pet owners have contacted BBC Your Voice with concerns about vet bills. One person said they had paid £5,600 for 18 hours of vet-care for their pet: "I would have paid anything to save him but felt afterwards we had been taken advantage of." Another described how their dog had undergone numerous blood tests and scans: "At the end of the treatment we were none the wiser about her illness and we were presented with a bill of £13,000."   Image caption, UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024, according to the CMA Mounting concerns over whether pet owners are receiving a fair deal prompted a formal investigation by government watchdog, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). In a provisional report, external at the end of last year, it identified several issues: Whether vet companies are being transparent about the ownership of individual practices and whether pet owners have enough information about pricing The concentration of vet practices and clinics in the hands of six companies - these now control 60% of the UK's pet-care market Whether this concentration has led to less market competition and allowed some vet care companies to make excess profits 'Hitting targets' A vet, who leads one of IVC's surgeries (and who does not want to be identified because they fear they could lose their job), has shared a new internal document with Panorama. The document uses a colour code to compare the company's UK-wide tests and treatment options and states that it is intended to help staff improve clinical care. It lists key performance indicators in categories that include average sales per patient, X-rays, ultrasound and lab tests. The vet is worried about the new policy: "We will have meetings every month, where one of the area teams will ask you how many blood tests, X-rays and ultrasounds you're doing." If a category is marked in green on the chart, the clinic would be judged to be among the company's top 25% of achievers in the UK. A red mark, on the other hand, would mean the clinic was in the bottom 25%. If this happens, the vet says, it might be asked to come up with a plan of action. The vet says this would create pressure to "upsell" services. Panorama: Why are vet bills so high? Are people being priced out of pet ownership by soaring bills? Watch on BBC iPlayer now or BBC One at 20:00 on Monday 12 January (22:40 in Northern Ireland) Watch on iPlayer For instance, the vet says, under the new model, IVC would prefer any animal with suspected osteoarthritis to potentially be X-rayed. With sedation, that could add £700 to a bill. While X-rays are sometimes necessary, the vet says, the signs of osteoarthritis - the thickening of joints, for instance - could be obvious to an experienced vet, who might prefer to prescribe a less expensive anti-inflammatory treatment. "Vets shouldn't have pressure to do an X-ray because it would play into whether they are getting green on the care framework for their clinic." IVC has told Panorama it is extremely proud of the work its clinical teams do and the data it collects is to "identify and close gaps in care for our patients". It says its vets have "clinical independence", and that prioritising revenue over care would be against the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' (RCVS) code and IVC policy. Vets say they are under pressure to bring in more money per pet   Published 15 April 2025 Vets should be made to publish prices, watchdog says   Published 15 October 2025 The vet says a drive to increase revenue is undermining his profession. Panorama spoke to more than 30 vets in total who are currently working, or have worked, for some of the large veterinary groups. One recalls being told that not enough blood tests were being taken: "We were pushed to do more. I hated opening emails." Another says that when their small practice was sold to a large company, "it was crazy... It was all about hitting targets". Not all the big companies set targets or monitor staff in this way. The high cost of treatment UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024 - equal to just over £365 per pet-owning household, according to the CMA. However, most pet owners in the UK do not have insurance, and bills can leave less-well-off families feeling helpless when treatment is needed. Many vets used not to display prices and pet owners often had no clear idea of what treatment would cost, but in the past two years that has improved, according to the CMA. Rob Jones has told Panorama that when his family dog, Betty, fell ill during the autumn of 2024 they took her to an emergency treatment centre, Vets Now, and she underwent an operation that cost almost £5,000. Twelve days later, Betty was still unwell, and Rob says he was advised that she could have a serious infection. He was told a diagnosis - and another operation - would cost between £5,000-£8,000.   Image caption, Betty's owners were told an operation on her would cost £12,000 However, on the morning of the operation, Rob was told this price had risen to £12,000. When he complained, he was quoted a new figure - £10,000. "That was the absolute point where I lost faith in them," he says. "It was like, I don't believe that you've got our interests or Betty's interests at heart." The family decided to put Betty to sleep. Rob did not know at the time that both his local vet, and the emergency centre, branded Vets Now, where Betty was treated, were both owned by the same company - IVC. He was happy with the treatment but complained about the sudden price increase and later received an apology from Vets Now. It offered him £3,755.59 as a "goodwill gesture".   Image caption, Rob Jones says he lost faith in the vets treating his pet dog Betty Vets Now told us its staff care passionately for the animals they treat: "In complex cases, prices can vary depending on what the vet discovers during a consultation, during the treatment, and depending on how the patient responds. "We have reviewed our processes and implemented a number of changes to ensure that conversations about pricing are as clear as possible." Value for money? Independent vet practices have been a popular acquisition for corporate investors in recent years, according to Dr David Reader from the University of Glasgow. He has made a detailed study of the industry. Pet care has been seen as attractive, he says, because of the opportunities "to find efficiencies, to consolidate, set up regional hubs, but also to maximise profits". Six large veterinary groups (sometimes referred to as LVGs) now control 60% of the UK pet care market - up from 10% a decade ago, according to the CMA, external. They are: Linnaeus, which owns 180 practices Medivet, which has 363 Vet Partners with 375 practices CVS Group, which has 387 practices Pets at Home, which has 445 practices under the name Vets for Pets IVC Evidensia, which has 900 practices When the CMA announced its provisional findings last autumn, it said there was not enough competition or informed choice in the market. It estimated the combined cost of this to UK pet owners amounted to £900m between 2020-2024. Corporate vets dispute the £900m figure. They say their prices are competitive and made freely available, and reflect their huge investment in the industry, not to mention rising costs, particularly of drugs. The corporate vets also say customers value their services highly and that they comply with the RCVS guidelines.   Image caption, A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with the service they receive from vets A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with their vets - both corporate and independent - when it comes to quality of service. But, with the exception of Pets at Home, customer satisfaction on cost is much lower for the big companies. "I think that large veterinary corporations, particularly where they're owned by private equity companies, are more concerned about profits than professionals who own veterinary businesses," says Suzy Hudson-Cooke from the British Veterinary Union, which is part of Unite. Proposals for change The CMA's final report on the vet industry is expected by the spring but no date has been set for publication. In its provisional report, it proposed improved transparency on pricing and vet ownership. Companies would have to reveal if vet practices were part of a chain, and whether they had business connections with hospitals, out-of-hours surgeries, online pharmacies and even crematoria. IVC, CVS and Vet Partners all have connected businesses and would have to be more transparent about their services in the future. Pets at Home does not buy practices - it works in partnership with individual vets, as does Medivet. These companies have consistently made clear in their branding who owns their practices. The big companies say they support moves to make the industry more transparent so long as they don't put too high a burden on vets. David Reader says the CMA proposals could have gone further. "There's good reason to think that once this investigation is concluded, some of the larger veterinary groups will continue with their acquisition strategies." The CMA says its proposals would "improve competition by helping pet owners choose the right vet, the right treatment, and the right way to buy medicine - without confusion or unnecessary cost". For Rob Jones, however, it is probably too late. "I honestly wouldn't get another pet," he says. "I think it's so expensive now and the risk financially is so great.             Food Terms of Use About the BBC Privacy Policy Cookies Accessibility Help Parental Guidance Contact the BBC Make an editorial complaint BBC emails for you Copyright © 2026 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.
    • What does the area with the blue dotted lines and the crossed out water drop mean? No water in this area? So many leaks in the area.
    • You can get a card at the till, though, to get the discount. You don't have to carry it with you (or load it onto your phone), you can just get a different card each time. Not sure what happens if they notice 🤣
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...