Throwing the baby out with the spa water?

To the Editor: The article by de Costa and Robson1 is a timely reminder that the ideology and politics surrounding maternity services could have an adverse impact on Australia’s excellent record as one of the safest countries in the world in which to be born.2 de Costa and Robson highlighted continuity of care as the attribute of antenatal supervision and birthing that women value most highly, and they quote evidence of the safe care provided by a midwife or general practitioner in a “low-tech” environment.

This type of care is currently provided by a diminishing number of GP obstetricians and midwives in small obstetric units throughout rural Australia, where continuity of carer ensures the continuity of care that leads to maternal satisfaction and good health outcomes.

Data show a lower rate of adverse events in small rural hospitals compared with urban hospitals. Studies in diverse environments suggest communication breakdowns and handovers between multiple carers are major risk factors.3,4 These points of vulnerability are minimised in the close environment of a small rural hospital. National and international data demonstrate the safety of small rural maternity services,5 and yet rural obstetric units continue to be closed at an alarming and accelerating rate.

The proponents of “de-medicalising” birth and improving maternal satisfaction through continuity of care are focused on perceived problems in the delivery of obstetric care in large urban hospitals. The evidence presented by de Costa and Robson confirms that women are most satisfied with care by a midwife and GP in a “low-tech” environment. While this option may now be unavailable in many urban areas, it is generally the model that exists in rural areas.

Unfortunately, the politics of change is resulting in the application of urban- and ideology-based processes to rural maternity units, where they are often inappropriate and can lead to reduced support for rural procedural obstetricians. This is likely to result in the eventual closure of the maternity units — a situation in which women, their babies, local healthcare professionals and their communities will all lose out in the end.

For rural communities, the risk in local maternity services is not to the standard of care, but to the continued existence of their services.

Transferring alternative urban models of maternity care to country hospitals may be superficially attractive to budget-focused health authorities or ideologues, but it is rural people and their babies who will have to live with the consequences.