Jump to content

Recommended Posts

As it's come up on here already a few times, and the subject was discussed at yesterday's public meeting of the Maternity Services Liaison Committee, I thought it would be useful to post about the new arrangements.


From the end of September, there will be new arrangements for community midwifery. The Kings area will be split into four, and two teams will operate in each. One team will be caseloading midwives, the other community midwives. The caseloading midwives will be the Oakwood team, who will be renamed Juniper. They will continue to take 18 women a month for caseloading care. Referrals will be through postcode via a central point, rather than through any GP connection. Priority will be given to low risk women, those wanting a home birth (even if not necessarily low risk) and women with mental health issues. All other women will be cared for by the community midwives. This team will be called Ivy Green. Antenatal appointments will be in the community rather than at Midwives House. They will also run a postnatal clinic for women well enough to leave the house. Over time it's hoped these midwives will also carry out home births, but for now those will be covered by the Juniper team. None of the Kings homebirth teams will exist.


Every woman will have a named midwife throughout pregnancy, so providing more continuity of care for those not under the caseloading team. Members of the community team will provide staffing for the midwifery unit at Kings and also telephone triage services, so more women will see familiar midwives during the birth period.


There will also be a team for high risk women across the trust working in the community. One of that team should be working on the labour ward most of the time. The only women who will receive antenatal care in the hospital will be high risk women referred from out of area.


Women giving birth in October will remain in their current care, so for example would still be delivered by The Lanes. Other women should be hearing what will happen to them from their existing midwives. Kings is trying to improve continuity of care across the board and provide equal access to services across the whole of the trust. Unfortunately in ED this means some loss of caseloading provision as we have up till now had two teams based here. Hopefully the improvement in community care all round will compensate for this.


I hope this isn't too garbled and is useful for people. I don't work for Kings so I may not be able to answer questions - this is a download of information given to the lay representatives at the MSLC.

  • 9 months later...

Hi can anyone explain what the system is for midwives now in the Nunhead area? I just got told to self refer online to Kings and got a letter about a scan but nothing about anything else yet.


I was with the Brierly last time but I know they don't exist anymore. I won't be having a home birth for a whole range of reasons but does that mean there is no way to have caseload care?


Also - Simonethebeaver says above that there is a team for high risk women, does anyone know if this is anyone who's classed as high risk?

I self referred to Kings and went to the midwife team based at Kings. All my appointments were there for both pregnancies. My second pregnancy became high risk and in the end I spent a lot of time in the MAU or on the Antenatal Ward - the midwifes were, as a whole, very lovely.
  • 8 months later...
Hi this is really helpful. The changes seemed really confusing: I wanted to book with Brierley again and worked out they are now basically the same but going under the name Birchtree and can be reached on 02034090704 option 2. Still home birth and caseloading! The caseload teams are all still there and similar, just different names and different geographical areas.

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

    • Per Cllr McAsh, as quoted above: “We are currently updating our Enforcement Policy and changes will allow for the issuing of civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300 for visible smoke emissions, replacing the previous reliance on criminal prosecution. " Is anyone au fait with the Clean Air Act 1993, and  particularly with the state of 'Smoke Control' law and practice generally?  I've just been looking  through some of it for the first time and, afaics, the civil penalties mentioned  were introduced into the Clean Air Act, at Schedule 1A, in May 2022.  So it seems that, in this particular,  it's a matter of the enforcement policy trailing well behind the legislation.  I'm not criticising that at all, but am curious.  
    • Here's the part of march46's linked-to Southwark News article pertaining to Southwark Council. "Southwark Council were also contacted for a response. "Councillor James McAsh, Cabinet Member for Clean Air, Streets & Waste said: “One of Southwark’s key priorities is to create a healthy environment for our residents. “To achieve this we closely monitor legislation and measures that influence air pollution – our entire borough apart from inland waterways is designated as a Smoke Control Area, and we also offer substantial provision for electric vehicles to promote alternative fuel travel options and our Streets for People strategy. “We as a council support the work of Mums for Lungs and recognise the health and environmental impacts of domestic solid fuel burning, particularly from wood-burning appliances. “We are currently updating our Enforcement Policy and changes will allow for the issuing of civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300 for visible smoke emissions, replacing the previous reliance on criminal prosecution.  “This work is being undertaken in collaboration with other London boroughs as part of the pan-London Wood Burning Project, which aims to harmonise enforcement approaches and share best practice across the capital.” ETA: And here's a post I made a few years ago, with tangential relevance.  https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/278140-early-morning-drone-flying/?do=findComment&comment=1493274  
    • The solicitor is also the Executor. Big mistake, but my Aunt was very old, and this was the Covid years and shortly after so impossible to intervene and get a couple of close relatives to do this.  She had no children so this is the nephews and nieces. He is a single practitioner, and most at his age would have long since retired - there is a question over his competence Two letters have already gone essentially complaining - batted off and 'amusingly' one put the blame on us. There are five on our side, all speaking to each other, and ideally would work as a single point of contact.  But he has said that this is not allowed - we've all given approval to act on each others behalf. There are five on her late husband's side, who have not engaged with us despite the suggestion to work as a team, There is one other, who get's the lion's share, the typicical 'friend', but we are long since challenging the will. I would like to put another complaint together that he has not used modern collective communication (I expect that he is incapable) which had seriously delayed the execution of the will.   I know many in their 80s very adept with smart phones so that is not an ageist comment. The house has deteriorated very badly, with cold, damp and a serious leak.  PM me if you want to see the dreadful condition that it is now in. I would also question why if the five of us are happy to work together why all of us need to confirm in writing.             The house was lived in until Feb 23, and has been allowed to get like this.
    • Isn’t a five yearly electricity safety certificate one of the things the landlord must give for a legal tenancy?
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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