Health & Families

Mostly Cloudy with Showers 15° London Hi 15°C / Lo 8°C

Extra millions for baby units denied

Ministers reject task force's call to invest £89m a year in NHS neonatal units

By Jeremy Laurance, Health Editor

2,127 babies died in the first 28 days of life in England in 2007

ALAMY

2,127 babies died in the first 28 days of life in England in 2007

Ministers last night pulled the plug on funding to bring the care of the sickest babies up to the standard for adults, in a sign of the impact of the credit crunch on the NHS.

Ministers had been expected to find the cash to back the recommendations of a task force on neonatal care. Its report, published today, identifies a shortfall of 2,700 nurses and 300 other staff, such as physiotherapists and dietitians, in England's 162 neonatal units. Neonatal care is that delivered to babies in the first 28 days of life.

The Neonatal Taskforce, appointed a year ago under the chairmanship of Sir Bruce Keogh, deputy chief medical officer, said sick babies should have one-to-one nursing in intensive care – the same standard already given to sick adults – in line with recommendations that have been made by professional medical organisations for the past 15 years. It recommended investment of £89m a year, with one-off costs of £102m, to bring care up to the necessary standard.

But ministers have refused to allocate the extra cash, which the taskforce says must instead be found from within local health budgets. The NHS is already facing demands to find £15bn-£20bn of savings by 2014, as a result of the credit crunch.

In 2007, 2,127 babies died in the first 28 days of life in England. Sixty per cent of all infant deaths occur in the neonatal period and evidence shows that one-to-one nursing reduces deaths and disability.

The Taskforce's recommendations had been widely anticipated and medical organisations said yesterday they had only been waiting to learn whether the Government would put its money where its mouth was. Almost one-third (30 per cent) of the 46 neonatal intensive care units in England have too few staff to deliver one-to-one care to the 19,500 babies they cared for in 2007.

Andy Cole, chief executive of Bliss, the premature baby charity, said it was a "huge missed opportunity". He added that the investment recommended by the taskforce to provide a "world class service" would cost less than £150 for every baby born. "That is the kind of insurance policy most parents would be prepared to take out to ensure their baby got the best standard of critical care, should they need it. We hope the NHS will find the money to deliver it," he said.

The Royal College of Nursing welcomed the report but criticised the lack of funding, and the Royal College of Paediatrics urged the Government to ensure the resources were made available.

Ann Keen, health minister, said: "Having a sick baby is very distressing for parents at what should be one of their happiest moments. That's why we're providing the NHS with practical guidance on how to make neonatal services even better and take a family-centred approach to care."

Post a Comment

View all comments that have been posted about this article.

Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.

Comments

This contrasts with free money for Swine flu ICU
[info]drlizmiller wrote:
Wednesday, 4 November 2009 at 07:22 am (UTC)
NHS funding is political


Swine flu - let's pay for your tissues
Cerverax - we'll pay for your vaccination but not for a youth centre
Premature baby, - we'll keep you comfortable but not on life support
[info]suky321 wrote:
Wednesday, 4 November 2009 at 09:10 am (UTC)
The Government have £30 billion spare to give to the banks, but don't have any money for baby units. This government cares more about businesses and making money than people.
Politics gone MAD
[info]millton1976 wrote:
Wednesday, 4 November 2009 at 10:10 am (UTC)
Crying out load, I have raised thousands for my local SCBU after both my daughters were taken there after their birth. Without the care ad support of that team I would not be a father.
They will spend our money bailing out multi billion pound business', they will spend millions on themselves, but nothing on the next generation.
Message to the PM

1) STOP all immigration, and deport those already here - saving a few billion in benefits
2) STOP using OUR money to pay yourselves rediculous wages and expences after all, the government hasnt exactly earned it recently
3) START listing to what the public actually want, how WE want OUR money spent.

And Mr. Brown wonders why he is hated so much by the voters.
Allowing babies to die...
[info]bingmat wrote:
Wednesday, 4 November 2009 at 12:16 pm (UTC)
If you could give £150 to save a baby you would pay it willingly - unless you're an MP.

BUT...as long as teh MPs, especially the ones who rescinded teh funding for teh extra care units, can have a second home then I'd say our money is well spent - dont' you?!

The fact that this hasn't caused us to riot on the streets in protest is absolutely disgusting. How dare they get away with this?!

Bastards - the lot of them.
Dreadful
[info]metrodeco1975 wrote:
Wednesday, 4 November 2009 at 12:20 pm (UTC)
This is dreadful but it has to be accepted that no part of the country can be unaffected by this all-pervasive credit crunch. I blog about the trials and tribulations of running my small tea shop in the recession here : http://bit.ly/1xyoT7
Re: Dreadful
[info]scottishhermit wrote:
Wednesday, 4 November 2009 at 09:23 pm (UTC)
With all due respect......you sound just like one of the "so called ministers"
Recession?
What recession?
More billions just been given to the scummy banks.....i dont smell a recession from where i stand.
Madness
[info]skyan123 wrote:
Wednesday, 4 November 2009 at 02:18 pm (UTC)
So it is the taxpayers interests to cough up billions upon billions to keep failed banks afloat - which will eventually only guarantee bigger problems and more money being 'needed' by bankers. They can never actually 'pay back' this money - they don't actually produce anything. At best they can leach this money out of other parts of the economy and along with some creative accounting(more fraud) try and give the impression that they have. Ultimately though society will still be much worse off either way.

It is not in the taxpayers interests to pay for better services for their children. Because their children are not useful to Goldman Sachs or others of their ilk perhaps?

At the end of the day though we are all guilty for allowing this to happen.
money for medical treatment
[info]medicalsales wrote:
Wednesday, 4 November 2009 at 05:15 pm (UTC)
One has heard recently that treatment has been denied for cancer, alzheimers and even hip replacements on the basis of not being economically viable. Yet this term is never used in the case of neonates. Yet it is known that many neonates treated in SBCU will require on going treat for eye sight, hearing and other problems for their whole life. We are witnessing currently a court case where the medical authorities wish to withdraw treatment but a court is to decide what is best for the child. There is no question of economic viablity.
If NICE decide treatment then let the same criteria apply to the whole population. We need to discuss which treatments are to be paid for under the NHS and querry our treatment of Neonates and IVF and many other treatments.
SCUM BAGS
[info]scottishhermit wrote:
Wednesday, 4 November 2009 at 09:11 pm (UTC)
These ministers,i use the term loosely, will be afraid to commit this much needed cash for these sick babies incase it "stops them fiddling".....
Funny how it can be found for the other scum bags of the banking world!!!
Roll on the general election and get rid of this poxy government.
NAME AND SHAME.........
[info]scottishhermit wrote:
Wednesday, 4 November 2009 at 09:18 pm (UTC)
EVERY single minister that said NO to this much needed cash!!!!!
Let us and them see their name in print and then let us see how brave they really are...
Where and how do we find such information?
Worst Managed Organisation Ever?
[info]newsmike wrote:
Wednesday, 4 November 2009 at 10:14 pm (UTC)
Ok to spend 14.3 BILLION pounds on sodding electronic records, but not a percentage of that to save babies? Makes me so angry, it's disgusting.
That moral compass again
[info]guysmummy wrote:
Thursday, 5 November 2009 at 10:59 am (UTC)
My son was one of the 2,127 babies who died in 2007 - not a statistic but a longed-for, precious human being who is deeply mourned.

Gordon Brown knows exactly what it is like to watch a baby die, yet he has consistently dienied funding to neonatal units. On the same day that the media reported his appearance on Mumsnet, and being asked about his favourite biscuit, there was a small item about Nicholas Cage donating money to help Bath's neonatal unit. Does that moral compass he brags about not tell him that there is something wrong with having a Hollywood star, and the general public, raise money whilst his clunking fist remains firmly in his pocket?

Ands what about the millions he gave away to promote Fairtrade?


Free gym pass

Get fit for summer with Fitness First gyms in London

Download a free gym pass from Fitness First today

Article Archive

Day In a Page

Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat

Select date