Ann Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > However the statement does reiterate that there > are nine midwifery-led group practices locally > that still exist and that King's has a 9% > homebirth rate; which they are rightly proud of. > > Why do people think Albany have been selected for > special treatment? Hi Ann. I think it's good to have someone arguing the case for Kings here to balance up the debate. It's an emotional subject and too easy to rail against the faceless body of Kings rather than look at the facts objectively. The problem is that the whole situation seems to be mired in hearsay and we are light on facts. Initially (from the More4 news report) it seemed that Kings were terminating the contract due to an unfortunate death of a baby for which they were sued. Subsequently it was discovered that the midwives were cleared of any wrong doing in this case. So this was not the problem. Now we have this report from Kings about the cases of HIE being higher in the Albany practice. Apparently they commissioned an investigation where they picked a handful of cases and they were studied. This investigation came back showing that it was indeed the case that there were more HIE cases but with the strong caveat that it was statistically inconclusive due to the nature and number of cases selected and the lack of a proper control group. This doesn't sound like good scientific analysis that you can base a decision on. Now I know that there are other midwifery led practices in Kings, but none of them follow the Albany model of care. They are not the same thing. Closing the practice in this way reduces choice for mothers who want the Albnay model of care and this means that Kings should be answerable to the community when they decide to close it down. The current line of "We have a report that says they contributed to more HIE, but you're not allowed to see the investigation or techniques involved" doesn't really cut the mustard. If the report cannot stand scrutiny, then they should suspend the contract until a proper report that does stand up to scrutiny can be done. Probably the most interesting information I have found so far is from the NCT statement in support of the Albany found here: http://www.nctpregnancyandbabycare.com/press-office/press-releases/view/190 The NCT is concerned that the contract has been terminated suddenly ? a situation which we understand to be due to a breakdown in communication and good contract management. This poor management has lead to difficult relationships between the Trust and the Practice, and questions being raised about the care provided. NCT are obviously privy to more information than I can get hold of, but reading between the lines here I am guessing that one/some of the Albany midwives had clashed with the Kings staff. The continued breakdown meant that Kings decided they could not work with them anymore and wanted to get rid of this thorn in their side. Hence the statisitical investigation with limited data and the subsequent termination of the contract. Just to make it clear where I'm coming from, I am an 'Albany dad' and enjoyed excellent care from them with the birth of my son. This doesn't mean I will blindly support them purely due to my fantastic experience with them, but I am currently extremely unconvinced by the statements coming from Kings that this was a purely medical decision. Other links for more info http://www.radmid.demon.co.uk/123albany.htm Do your own research. rgds sean