Postpartum haemorrhage occurrence and recurrence: a population-based study

To the Editor: The Rural Doctors Association (RDA) of New South Wales, of which I am President, has been involved in desperately trying to keep maternity units close to people’s homes. The conclusion formed by Ford and colleagues in their recent report,1 that women with a previous postpartum haemorrhage should only deliver in units with a blood transfusion service, appears extraordinary and contradictory to their own findings.

The authors based this conclusion on their finding that 5.8% of women had a postpartum haemorrhage in their first pregnancy, even though their definition of this was remarkably subjective and largely unscientific.

They recognised in their study that the incidence of postpartum haemorrhage requiring transfusion is only 0.7%. Therefore, 88% of women defined as having a postpartum haemorrhage do not require a blood transfusion. I am bemused why the authors think 88% of women who did not require a blood transfusion but had a “postpartum haemorrhage” should only deliver in a unit with blood transfusion services. I doubt any of my colleagues would wish to deliver women who required a blood transfusion for a previous postpartum haemorrhage in a small unit.

I refer Ford and colleagues, and readers, to a study by Tracy et al reported in January 2006.2 This was a much larger study of 750 491 women giving birth during 1999–2001. This study concluded that “In Australia lower hospital volume is not associated with increased adverse outcomes for low risk women”.

In the past 10 years, we have seen the loss of 50% of our maternity units in NSW, and the rest are under severe stress due to the lack of staffing. I doubt that the sort of extraordinary conclusion made by Ford and colleagues will help us maintain services in rural NSW.