Maternity services across the UK need a radical rethink, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists says.
It wants the number of hospital units cut to ensure 24-hour access to care from senior doctors and says more midwife-led units are needed for women with low-risk pregnancies.

The National Childbirth Trust welcomed the report but says the proposals do not go far enough.

NHS managers said maternity care desperately needed to be reorganised.

Too many babies are born in traditional hospital units, says the college, which also warns the current system is neither acceptable nor sustainable in its report on maternity care.

The college estimates there are about 1,000 too few consultants to provide adequate round-the-clock cover for hospital units.

Dr Falconer said: “There is no doubt if you look at the worst scenario of serious complications, you need the right person, a senior person, there immediately.”

Previous attempts to re-organise maternity care around a smaller number of hospital units have proved controversial, but Dr Falconer said if women could be convinced of the greater safety they would be prepared to travel to have their babies.

The need for change would be largely in cities or large towns, because in rural areas it might be more important to support smaller units.

The report estimates that across the UK there are 56 units with fewer than 2,500 deliveries of babies a year.

In order to take the pressure off busy hospitals, the college is also calling for an increase in the number of midwife-led units.

Midwives have welcomed the report, saying it could improve the experience for about a third of women who have straightforward deliveries.

The proposals for maternity are part of a wider vision of delivering all women’s gynaecology and obstetrics care in networks, similar to the model which has helped improve cancer treatments in England.

The National Childbirth Trust said the idea of having a network to provide joined-up care for women was one it could support but it would prefer care during pregnancy and maternity to be concentrated in one NHS organisation in each area.

The NHS confederation, which speaks for managers, described maternity care as a classic example of a service which desperately needed to be reorganised.

Chief executive Mike Farrar said politicians needed to be prepared to speak up for change.

“Where the case for change is clear, politicians should stand shoulder-to-shoulder with managers and clinicians to provide confidence to their constituents that quality and care will improve as a consequence of this change.”

Although Scotland has reorganised some of its maternity services, there are likely to be pressures for change elsewhere in the UK.

In North Wales maternity care across three hospitals is expected to change after an initial review recently concluded improvement was needed.

From: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-14145862

Some women keep smoking through pregnancy just because they want to give birth to a smaller baby, according to British researchers.
Even though most women now understand there is “overwhelming evidence” that smoking during pregnancy is harmful to the developing child, they continue to do so, said Professor Nick Macklon of Southampton University.

He told the annual meeting of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE) in Stockholm: “It is important that people who believe that a smaller baby means an easier birth take into account the increased risk of complicated deliveries in smokers, as well as the risk of disease later in life which goes with low birth weight.”

“Smoking during pregnancy is not just bad for the mother and baby, but for the adult it ill grow into.”

He and a team at the university’s department of obstetrics and gynaecology have now produced what he called the first “hard evidence” that women who stopped smoking upon discovery they were pregnant, could protect their unborn children from harm.

The study looked at over 50,000 pregnancies in the Southampton area, analysing the birth weight of the babies and comparing this to self-reported smoking behaviour.

Those who continued to smoke through pregnancy had lower weight babies.

The more women smoked the lighter their babies were: those who smoked more than 10 a day had babies weighing some 11oz (300g) less than the average birth weight from a non-smoking mother, of about 7lb 10oz (3.45kg).

However, those who ceased smoking at about the time they conceived were just as likely to give birth to a normal weight baby as those who had never smoked.

He said: “We can now give couples hard evidence that making the effort to stop smoking in the periconceptional will be beneficial for their baby.

“Stopping smoking can ameliorate these detrimental effects.”

This could help change behaviour among smoking mothers, which he said had hardly changed in Britain over the last decade.

Prof Macklon explained that smoking during pregnancy “affects the transportation of nutrients, especially oxygen, across the placenta”.

It was also “reasonable to assume” that some of the 4,000 or so toxins in cigarettes were harmful to foetuses.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/8623267/Mothers-to-be-smoking-for-smaller-babies.html

Drugs used to stimulate the ovaries of older women undergoing IVF treatment may be causing genetic defects in the embryo which have until now gone undetected.
Scientists have discovered abnormalities in the chromosomes of eggs from women over 35 years of age who had been treated with synthetic hormones to stimulate their ovaries prior to IVF.

The researchers said they were surprised to find the chromosome defects which appeared to have occurred during the second stage of the specialised process of cell division that leads to the creation of the human egg cell.

Chromosome defects in eggs were previously considered to have resulted in the first stage of cell division, which occurs when a woman was herself a foetus in the womb. Finding them during the second stage, which occurs at ovulation, therefore suggests they may have resulted from the hyperstimulation of the ovaries during IVF treatment.

The defects included abnormal variations from the usual number of 23 pairs of chromosomes. Three copies of chromosome 21 instead of the normal two, for instance, leads to babies with Down’s syndrome. As women get older it becomes increasingly difficult for them to produce enough viable eggs for IVF treatment. It is common practice for older women to have their ovaries stimulated with stronger doses of drugs than is the case for younger women.

The results of the study are to be presented at a fertility conference in Stockholm this week but the scientists behind the research said that they wanted to reassure older women considering IVF treatment. They said further work needs to be done fully to explain the findings and there is no evidence to suggest that IVF babies of older women are at any higher risk of birth defects than babies conceived naturally by women of the same age.

“We found that some IVF eggs have up to seven chromosome abnormalities. This suggests the possibility that ovarian stimulation during the treatment may have caused some of these defects,” said Professor Alan Handyside, director of the London Bridge Fertility, Gynaecology and Genetics Centre, who led the study.

“These defects are unexpected and it may be that this is just an undiscovered aspect of biology. At the moment all we can say is that this is part of the natural process as women get older.”

The study, which will be presented at the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology, analysed more than 100 egg cells from 34 couples undergoing IVF treatment. The average maternal age was 40.

Scientists screened the chromosomes of the eggs and structures known as “polar bodies” that result from a type of cell division known as meiosis. Meiosis is a specialised form of division that results in eggs with half the normal complement of chromosomes – crucial to ensuring that the fertilised egg has the full complement of 46 chromosomes when it fuses with a sperm cell.

The first stage of meiosis occurs when the woman’s ovary is developing in the foetus before birth, when the dividing chromosomes are held together by a kind of cellular “glue” ready for the second stage of division at ovulation.

However, when the ovary of an older women is stimulated with synthetic hormones it is possible that this dislodges the glue prematurely. This might result in abnormal numbers of chromosomes to segregate into the resulting egg cell.

“Our evidence demonstrates that, following IVF, there are multiple chromosome errors in meiotic divisions, suggesting more premature separation of single chromosomes resulting in more random segregation,” Professor Hanyside said.

Stuart Lavery, a consultant gynaecologist at Hammersmith Hospital in London, said “This provides evidence that there is a problem, but it does not prove that it’s treatment related,” Mr Lavery said.

The most important conclusion to be reached from this research isn’t so much the “why” but that the screening process for eggs to be used in IVF must be improved.

It is possible to screen the chromosomes of so-called First Polar Body eggs, at least as part of research. This paper stresses the importance of also screening Second Polar Body eggs, those that have been fertilised.

Doing so will, we can now see, allow us to better identify eggs that have developed abnormalities that result in conditions like Down’s Syndrome.

The issue of whether drugs used to stimulate ovulation are having a role is two-fold. Are the drugs damaging the eggs or simply releasing those that would otherwise be discarded naturally because of abnormalities? Or it could be the drugs have no role at all? We don’t know.

One intriguing point is that if the drugs are a factor we would have anticipated having seen more cases of Down’s Syndrome among older mothers. They may be there but we haven’t detected any such increased risk yet – it means we need to research the possibility.

From:  http://www.independent.co.uk/ivf-drugs-may-be-linked-to-genetic-defects-discovered-in-embryos

Women unable to conceive naturally are being denied IVF on the NHS because they are too young, too old, too fat, smoke or live in Wales – in flagrant breaches of the guidelines.
The postcode lottery nature of the restrictions placed on NHS fertility clinics around the country is revealed in research which shows that more than 70 per cent of primary care trusts are ignoring guidance from the National Institute for Curbing Expenditure (Nice) to offer infertile couples three free cycles of IVF.

Five of the trusts – Warrington, West Sussex, Stockport, North Yorkshire and York, and North Staffordshire – do not provide IVF on the NHS at all.

Most trusts restrict the number of free cycles to one or two, even where they offer them between the ages of 23 and 40. However, women living in Wales have to wait till they are 38 years and six months in many health trusts before qualifying for treatment and must quickly complete their two free allotted cycles – one less than the three recommended by Nice – by the time they are 40. Success rates for IVF decline sharply with age. For every 100 women treated aged 35 and below, 20 will get pregnant; between 36 and 38 around 15 will get pregnant; and at age 39 around 10 will get pregnant.

In 2004, Nice said couples should be given up to three cycles of IVF on the NHS, where the woman is aged 23 to 39.

But despite repeated government reminders, the guidelines have never been fully implemented across the NHS. The latest reminder was sent to trusts (PCTs) by the NHS deputy chief executive, David Florey, in January.

The All Party Parliamentary Group on Infertility sent Freedom of Information requests to all 177 PCTs in England and Wales in March and received 171 replies. Gareth Johnson, Tory MP for Dartford and chairman of the group, said the variation in the criteria showed the Nice guidelines had been “taken out of context and used to place arbitrary restrictions on the provision of IVF”.

He added: “IVF treatment was invented in Britain and so, more than any other country, we should be championing its use.”

Claret Lewis-Jones, chief executive of the patient group Infertility Network UK, said: “It is totally unacceptable that some PCTs are still failing to fund fertility treatment for patients despite the Nice Fertility Guidance issued in 2004. Some PCTs which do fund treatment are only providing one fresh cycle and failing to fund frozen embryo transfers, with many others implementing restrictive access criteria which means eligible patients are denied access to treatment which would be available if they lived elsewhere.”

Tony Rutherford, chairman of the British Fertility Society, said: “Infertility is a devastating condition which affects one in six couples in the UP. The World Health Organisation recognises infertility as a physical illness that requires treatment; however, it can also cause significant emotional and psychological harm to patients. By not being given fair access to fertility treatment on the NHS, patients are being denied the opportunity to start a family of their own.”

The Health minister, Anne Milton, said: “Many PCTs have made good progress towards implementing the Nice recommendations on the provision of IVF treatment. I am aware, however, that a small number of PCTs with historical funding problems have temporarily suspended provision of IVF services. I have already expressed my concerns about this approach and would encourage all PCTs to have regard to the current Nice guidance.”

Couples’ distress can be amplified when they find that a neighbouring town gives access to NHS treatment while theirs doesn’t – as an accident of geography. The unambiguous Nice guidelines were intended to solve that problem and restore the “national” to the National Health Service. But trusts have continued to ignore it.

As the parliamentary group’s report points out, IVF was pioneered in the UP – Professor Robert Edwards received the Nobel Prize for his work with infertile couples – but because of our parsimony and lack of vision we provide less of it than neighbouring countries. Moreover success rates have risen from 14 per cent live births in 1991 to 24 per cent in 2008, so investment in the treatment is delivering more babies for the bucks.

From: http://www.independent.co.uk/more-than-70-per-cent-of-nhs-trusts-break-rules-to-deny-ivf-ndash-and-save-money

Girls from poorer backgrounds are more likely to start their periods at a younger age, thereby increasing their risk of breast cancer, a UK study says.
It found girls in lower socio-economic groups with typically poorer diets began at 12.1 years on average compared to 12.5 years for wealthier girls.

Their breast cancer risk was greater as they produced the hormone oestrogen longer, the study of 90,000 women says.

It was published in the journal Paediatric and Perinatal Epidemiology.

The research data being gathered from this group of women over 40 years is also helping to find the causes and risk factors associated with breast cancer.

The study is a partnership between Breakthrough Breast Cancer and the Institute of Cancer Research.

This research found that there was little change in the age of menarche (when a girl’s periods begin) for 40 years until the late 1980s.

Then the age dropped from 12.6 years to about 12.3 years, with the drop steepest in poorer areas.

Study author Danielle Morris, from The Institute of Cancer Research in Surrey, said the results suggested that girls, particularly from poorer backgrounds, are starting their periods younger.

“While we don’t know all the reasons behind this, changes in diet may have played a part.

“This decrease is important because the age at which a girl starts her periods can influence her chances of developing breast cancer later in life.”

Dr Tabitha Randall, consultant paediatrician at Nottingham Children’s Hospital, said this was due to exposure to the hormone oestrogen.

“Girls who start their periods earlier are producing oestrogen for longer periods of time, although those who start their periods early normally finish early, but then they may start taking hormone replacement therapy.”

Previous research has shown that the female hormone oestrogen is linked to the growth of breast tumours.

Levels of oestrogen in the body are also influenced by diet and, therefore, body weight.

“Diet is important because fatty tissue turns male hormones into oestrogen,” said Dr Randall.

Girls of lower socio-economic status are now starting their periods at a younger age (12.1 years) than girls from wealthier backgrounds (12.5 years) because they are the ones who tend to have poorer diets and are more likely to be overweight.

The age at which girls start their periods can be added to the list of risk factors for breast cancers, which are known to be a woman’s age, alcohol intake, weight and use of hormone replacement therapy and the contraceptive pill.

A family history of breast cancer may also increase the risk of developing the disease.

Professor Anthony Swerdlow, co-leader of the Breakthrough Generations Study, says that the incidence of breast cancer has risen progressively over a long time in the UK.

“We think these changes have come about through a combination of factors each of which individually makes a small difference.

“Understanding how these factors influence a woman’s risk of developing breast cancer should allow us to develop strategies for preventing the disease in the future.”

From: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-13566411

Parents should not dose up children who have a simple fever on regular spoonfuls of paracetamol and ibuprofen, according to doctors who say that doing so could put them at risk.
The advice comes after a study indicated that children given paracetemol before 15 months were more than twice as likely to develop asthma by the age of six as those not given it

A misplaced “fever phobia” in society means parents too frequently use both medicines to bring down even quite slight temperatures, say the paediatricians, who warn that children often receive accidental overdoses as a result.

A high temperature is usually the body’s way of fighting an infection, according to advice issued today by the American Academy of Pediatrics, so to bring it down could actually lengthen the time a child suffers.

Doctors too readily advise parents to give the medicines, known collectively as “antipyretics”, according to the Academy.

The advice comes after a study indicated that children given paracetemol before 15 months were more than twice as likely to develop asthma by the age of six as those not given it.

Writing in a clinical report on fever and the use of paracetamol and ibuprofen in children, the authors warn: “Combination therapy with acetaminophen [paracetamol] and ibuprofen may place infants and children at increased risk because of dosing errors and adverse outcomes, and these potential risks must be carefully considered.”

Doctors, they write, should begin “by helping parents understand that fever, in and of itself, is not known to endanger a generally healthy child”.

They explain: “It should be emphasized that fever is not an illness but is, in fact, a physiologic mechanism that has beneficial effects in fighting infection.”

It slows the spread of bacteria and viruses, enhances white blood cell production, and “actually helps the body recover more quickly from viral infections”.

Despite this, they say: “Many parents administer antipyretics even though there is either minimal or no fever.”

Half consider it to be a fever even if their child’s temperature is not higher than 38C (101.4F), they report.

Many doctors are happy to advise parents to give paracetamol and ibuprofen alternately – known as combination therapy – believing side effects are very rare and minimal.

But the Academy warns: “Unfortunately as many as one half of parents administer incorrect doses.”

A frequent error is giving children adult-sized doses, while children who are small for their age can also receive doses that are too high even if their parents follow box instructions based on age alone.

In Britain, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (Nice) advises that the use of anti-pyretics “should be considered in children with fever who appear distressed or unwell”.

However, they “should not routinely to used with the sole aim of reducing body temperature in children with fever who are otherwise well”.

Similarly, “paracetamol and ibuprofen should not routinely be given alternately to children with a fever”, although it states this approach “may be considered if the child does not repsond to the first agent.”

The guidance also states: “The views and wishes of parents and carers should be taken into consideration.”.

Children’s paracetamol solutions like Calpol and ibuprofen solutions like Nurofen for Chilren are sold over the counter in chemists. Recommended dosage quantities vary by age.

There are different strength solutions for different ages, meaning it is possible for parents with different aged children to mix up which they are giving.

Rather than focusing on temperature alone, doctors should advise parents to look out for signs of serious illness, make sure their child is drinking enough, and “advocate a limited number” of doses of medication.

Dr Clare Gerada, chairman of the Royal College of GPs, said the two medications should be used “only to help a child be comfortable, and not to chase down a temperature.”

However, she said: “I don’t think we over-prescribe anti-pyretics and I don’t think parents give them too readily.”

She added: “I think they have their place. The younger the child the more cautious you have to be.”

She did not think that giving ibuprofen and paracetamol together was more likely to lead to increased dosing errors, saying: “In my experience of 20 years as a GP, parents are usually pretty careful.”

“I think the most important thing to be worried about is keeping medicines out of the reach of children, because some of them taste quite nice.”

They could also give “a false sense of security” in depressing a high temperature with a more serious underlying cause than a mild infection, she said.

From: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/Fever-medicines-given-to-children-too-readily

Overweight pregnant women are more likely to be overdue and have more complicated births, a study has found.
Women who were overweight or obese before they conceived were more likely to have a longer pregnancy, need to have labour induced artificially and to go on to require caesarean section births.

The research was conducted by a team at Liverpool University who examined the records of almost 30,000 women who gave birth over four years.

Three in ten obese women were overdue, defined as still pregnant ten days after their due date, compared with around two in ten of healthy weight women.

More than a third of obese women had their labour induced, compared with just over a quarter of normal weight women, the study published in the British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology found.

In addition almost three in ten obese women had an induction of labour which later resulted in a caesarean delivery compared to less than two in ten normal weight women.

However, more than seven in ten obese women still gave birth naturally and the rates of complications in labour and for the baby were the same as in normal weight women.

Other studies have found that maternal obesity is now one of the biggest risks in childbirth. In 2007 it was found that half of all women who died during pregnancy or soon after giving birth were overweight.

Maternity units have had to order special operating tables, wheelchairs and other equipment to deal with the increasing number of obese mothers and doors have had to be widened to accommodate them.

Management of obese prolonged pregnancies is often difficult as induction of labour is associated with a high risk of caesarean section and the possible complications that follow including infection, bleeding and clots.

Dr Sarah Arrowsmith, from the University of Liverpool’s Institute of Translational Medicine, and lead author on the paper said: “Maternal obesity has become one of the most commonly occurring risk factors in obstetric practice including greater risk of prolonged pregnancy.

“The importance of this research is that it investigates delivery outcomes for women who are obese with prolonged gestation and receiving labour induction. The fact that the majority of obese women did have a vaginal delivery, with labour complications being largely comparable to normal weight women, suggests that induction of labour in obese women with prolonged pregnancy is a safe method for managing these difficult pregnancies.

“Our findings were somewhat unexpected, given the well-reported complications surrounding obesity in pregnancy, but were clinically reassuring.

“Our current research is focused towards underlying causes of prolonged pregnancy, which can affect up to ten per cent of women, as currently we know little about it.”

Professor Philip Steer, BJOG editor-in-chief said: “Maternal obesity is on the rise and is associated with pregnancy complications. The risk of caesarean section is heightened when the woman is induced, however, it is promising to see that a large number of obese pregnant women delivered vaginally.”

From: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/Obese-pregnant-women-have-more-complicated-births-research

Pregnant women were denied the seasonal flu jab in some parts of the UK, before swine flu began claiming more lives, because not all GPs were aware that mothers-to-be had been made a priority group to receive the jab this winter.
Louise Silverton, deputy general secretary of the Royal College of Midwives, told the Guardian that a number of pregnant women had been refused the vaccine by family doctors in autumn.

“In October, when GPs started telling patients to come for immunisation, some pregnant women got it and some didn’t. GPs sent some of them away because they thought they didn’t need it, because no one had told them that pregnant women had been added to the list of groups of people considered ‘at risk’,” she said.

Research shows pregnant women are four times more likely to develop serious complications if they catch H1N1 swine flu, which is the main strain of seasonal flu circulating this winter. There has been concern that takeup of the jab protecting against all three strains of flu has been low among pregnant women.

Silverton also criticised the decision by the health secretary, Andrew Lansley, to cancel the usual advertising campaign intended to prompt the 16 million Britons classed as vulnerable to have the jab.

“It was short-sighted of the Department of Health not to have the usual campaign, she said. “It was done to save money. I agree with the government’s overall aim of reducing government advertising, but they should have been more selective and kept the campaign for all at-risk groups.

“Usually there are posters on buses and all sorts, but this year there was nothing. It was a wasted opportunity not to have the awareness campaign stressing the importance of people in at-risk groups being vaccinated.”

A majority of the 50 people to die from flu so far this winter had not had the three-in-one jab at least two weeks before falling ill, the Health Protection Agency said.

The outbreak has so far claimed 50 lives and left 783 people in intensive care, amid vaccine shortages and low takeup rates of the seasonal flu jab.

From:  http://www.guardian.co.uk/pregnant-women-flu-jabs-midwives

The HFEA was one of 192 quangos listed for abolition in October as one of the coalition’s flagship money saving initiatives. Three months after the formal announcement of its abolition, the authority is continuing its work and gently fighting a low-key, behind-the-scenes battle for survival.

Its office does not have the aura of a body that has been freshly culled. Staff are preparing for a general meeting in Cardiff, where the 2011-12 business plan will be agreed. Inspectors are reviewing recent inspections of IVF clinics. Employees are still pinning crayoned pictures by their children above their workstations and watering the plants.

A parliamentary committee’s withering conclusion last week that the government “botched” its mission to “reduce the number and cost of quangos” is met with no surprise by staff here, who remain bemused by the decision to close down their organisation.

News of the HFEA’s planned closure, and distribution of its functions to other organisations, has been greeted with dismay by doctors and research scientists, who warn that it threatens the government’s ability to make sound decisions about crucial ethical issues.

Of all the dull-sounding, bureaucratic bodies crossed out in a pen stroke last October, the HFEA has the least arcane function. Responsible for inspecting and regulating IVF clinics, it also deliberates on the ethical boundaries of creating life and using embryos for research, a sector that is developing with rapacious speed.

Anyone planning to undergo fertility treatment in the UK depends on the HFEA to ensure that clinics are safe. Children who have been born as a result of donated sperm or eggs may want to turn to the organisation to discover information about the donor.

Practitioners rely on the body to help set out moral guidelines: is it ethical (to give one example under consideration at the moment) to allow a woman to use frozen embryos left to her by her grandmother, which would result in her giving birth to her own aunt or uncle?

The HFEA’s chair, Professor Lisa Jardine, the high-profile and outspoken academic, has reined in any personal impulse towards protest or defiance, and is mounting a delicate campaign to ensure that the organisation can be preserved.

She insists that her job is to comply with what the government has ruled, but makes it clear that she will be working to promote an alternative, which would see the HFEA continue broadly unchanged, swept into the folds of another government-run organisation.

“It’s the most controversial area of medicine, apart from assisted dying. It’s the most morally difficult area, it’s the most carefully legislated-for area, and the most tightly regulated area. I’m totally committed to doing this job of regulating assisted reproduction, above all IVF and research on embryonic tissue,” she says. “My only aim is to keep doing that until someone else can do it properly.”

She believes the HFEA was included on the list of quangos to be abolished by accident. “I feel very passionately that this is a mistake,” she says, stressing that no steps have been made towards closure. “We’re nowhere near. We haven’t even started.”

Provisional Department of Health plans indicate that the HFEA’s functions are to be transferred and split between other DH bodies. None of the 79 staff members know whether they will keep their job when the quango is wound down, nor when that might happen. Employees, from computer technicians to policy experts, seem united in their loyalty to the organisation, and voice anxiety not only for their own job security, but for the ability of a restructured HFEA to perform the range of services it was created to provide. The staff are civil servants, not inclined towards intemperate expressions of outrage. Instead, their laments cautiously warn that the proposed course of action may prove to have been ill-advised.

In a side room in the quiet central London office, Peter Thompson, the HFEA’s director of strategy, says staff had not expected the body to be scrapped, because as recently as 2008 parliament had debated its role and there had been “almost no voices at all saying this organisation ought to be abolished”.

He says: “Having had that endorsement in 2008, from all sides of parliament, to have this decision only two years later did come as a bit of a shock”

At the last authority meeting the governing body agreed it was a “very difficult” process for staff and “asked that efforts were made to minimise their stress”. Someone has cut a slit out of an empty cardboard box, and stuck a label on it marked “Worry Box”, inviting colleagues to post their concerns.

“My job as one of the senior people here is to lead and manage people through that uncertainty. Keeping our focus on doing the job well, maintaining morale, keeping people’s spirits up,” Thompson says.

The bonfire of the quangos appeared to herald a straightforward, hard-nosed money-saving exercise. The reality is much messier. Only a few bodies are to be closed outright. The others will have their functions transferred to new bodies, at some uncertain point in the future.

Cabinet Office minister Francis Maude insisted last week that the axing would save “significantly more” than £1bn. However, the public administration select committee warns that the “current approach is not going to make significant cost savings or result in greater accountability”.

Ian Magee, a senior fellow at the Institute for Government (IFG), and co-author of Read Before Burning, a report into the closure of the quangos published last year, says that unless the functions performed by the organisations are also abolished, very little money will be saved.

“It’s not going to contribute much to the budget deficit reduction,” he says. Closing down quangos is a complex process, he adds. “You can’t just turn the tap straight off.”

Maude is confident that the correct decisions have been made. “We think the process has gone pretty well. All three parties fought the election with a commitment to reducing significantly the number of quangos. There is a uniform view across the political spectrum of the desirability of doing so,” he says.

On the decision to wind down the HFEA, he adds: “You have a very complicated landscape of health regulatory bodies. The view taken by the health minister was that there is scope for simplifying that operation and making it a much more efficient and streamlined operation.”

The government has said that the HFEA will continue working “for the time being”, but that its functions will be transferred by the end of the current parliament. Government officials are examining the “practicalities (and legal implications) of how to divide the HFEA’s functions between a new research regulator, the Care Quality Commission and the Health and Social Care Information Centre”.

But the announcement was so confused when it was made that many people – staff included – thought the closure would be immediate. On the HFEA’s website a notice states prominently: “You may have seen reports in the press that the HFEA ‘has been abolished’. This is not so.”

The notice points out that the government cannot scrap the HFEA without first introducing new legislation.

“At the moment, we have no – literally zero – idea of what the Department of Health plan is,” Jardine says.

With such a delayed death knell, staff were uncertain whether to be devastated or sanguine at the news. Paula Robinson, head of business planning, says: “The time frame was so long, I can’t say it really rocked my world. It’s not brilliant to hear that an organisation is going to be abolished, but if you hear that it is going to be a matter of years, it eases the pain. I am not sitting here wringing my hands. I am a change-friendly person.”

But one of the inspectors, who carries out regulatory checks on IVF clinics, was aghast. “I felt very worried. I have just bought my first house. My husband works for the NHS. Two jobs that are very uncertain,” she says.

In a proposal aimed at streamlining the bodies regulating medical research, the Academy of Medical Sciences today suggests that the HFEA’s research and ethical functions should be transferred to a new Health Research Agency. But any move towards splitting up its responsibilities is not welcomed by employees.

“I think that the decision ignored the fact that because all our functions are together in one body, that enables us to be a more intelligent, more efficient regulator,” Thompson says. “This body has dedicated people who know what they are doing. These are people who care about the sector they regulate and the patients. I think by having all of those functions in one place, we do a more efficient and intelligent job than by scattering those functions to other places.”

Policy manager Helen Richens leads a campaign to reduce the number of multiple births from IVF clinics. Historically, she says, doctors would transfer multiple embryos, but the health risks to the mother and the embryos were very high. Now, if the woman is under 40, doctors can transfer no more than two embryos; over 40, no more than three. The HFEA has imposed a 20% maximum multiple births target on each of the country’s 138 clinics, enforced with the threat of losing a licence.

“One of the reasons we are good at this is that we have the policy staff and inspectors, who are going and seeing what is happening; we hold all the data on all the fertility treatment in the UK, we can analyse it and monitor it, so when we make policy it is proper, evidence-based policy,” she says. “We will be moving from a world-leading model to something that is a less than gold-standard regulatory model.”

She adds: “I think I feel maybe a bit unappreciated. You do your job well, other countries look towards us … there is a collective feeling, what is the point of moving us on, breaking us up? It is not going to save money. If there isn’t a measurable benefit, what is the point of getting rid of this quango?”

The HFEA has an annual budget of £7m, only £2m of which is provided by the government; the remaining £5m is funded by the clinics, which pay to be regulated. The body charges clinics, both private and NHS, £104 for an IVF cycle and £52 for donor insemination.

Jardine, who has just been reappointed for a three-year term, hopes to be able to trim the amount needed from the government to around £1m. “There will be additional expenditure. There will certainly be no saving,” she says of the planned abolition. “We are incredibly cheap.”

Collectively, the senior management have taken a clear decision not to campaign noisily against closure. They point to the unsuccessful campaign mounted to save the UK Film Council, whose demise was announced at the same time. Despite the appointment of a PR adviser and the involvement of director Steven Spielberg, the abolition went ahead.

Instead, they set out the value of their work.

“Any couple can walk into any clinic in the British Isles and know that their IVF or other reproductive treatment has been fiercely vetted and that they will come to no harm. No person walking into a plastic surgery clinic has that assurance,” Jardine says.

Supporters of the decision argue that as IVF has become much more common in the 20 years since the HFEA has been operating, there is less need to regulate it so closely. Jardine disagrees.

“IVF is not routine. There are people out there who still think that we shouldn’t be doing any of what we are doing. Some of them have seats in the House of Lords.”

The issues are too ethically and politically explosive to be dealt with by politicians, she argues. “There are too many pressures on parliament, and civil servants are not trained to deal with those kinds of issues. I believe that these morally fraught issues must be held at arm’s length from government.”

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/jan/10/battle-life-ivf-regulator-hfea

Nearly £200,000 in compensation has been paid to women who have become pregnant or been hurt after they were fitted with a popular contraceptive implant.

The NHS has received more than 1,000 complaints about Implanon, a device that had been hailed as the future of family planning.

The procedure involves injecting a plastic implant under a woman’s skin, which releases the “pill” hormone progesterone, guarding against pregnancy for up to three years.

The procedure is regularly given to under-16s who are not deemed responsible enough to remember to take oral contraceptives on a daily basis.

Figures obtained by Channel 4 News show that 584 women who had the hormone-filled tube inserted into their arms have reported unwanted pregnancies to the Medicines and Healthcare Regulatory Agency.

There have been a total of 1,607 complaints about scarring and other problems associated with the device, the majority made by doctors and nurses who claimed it was difficult to insert properly and could not be checked afterwards. In the most serious cases, NHS Trusts have offered settlements to seven women totalling nearly £200,000.

Some women who took Implanon terminated pregnancies and suffered the breakdown of relationships.

One woman, named as Lara, said her marriage collapsed due to the stress. “I don’t want kids at this time. It really disturbed me,” she said.

MSD, which manufactured the implant, said it was replacing Implanon with a new contractive implant named Nexplanon.

In a statement, it added that the active ingredient would remain the same but, unlike Implanon, the new implant would show up on X-rays and CAT scans. The applicator has been modified, the company said.

It added that a training programme was available for health professionals involved in fitting the devices.

Family planning clinics in England have reported rapidly increased use of contraceptive implants, from 16,000 women in 2005 to nearly 82,000 in 2010. Implanon, which cost £90 per treatment, was more than 99 per cent effective.

A spokesman for the MHRA said: “The reports we received from health care professionals and consumers played a strong role in the update of the device.”

From: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/Women-win-200000-payout-over-pill-implant-pregnancies