WeRead Powered by ReaderPub
Introductory notes on lying-in institutions cover

Introductory notes on lying-in institutions

Chapter 8: NORMAL MORTALITY AMONG LYING-IN WOMEN IN DIFFERENT COUNTRIES.
Open in WeRead

Explore more books like this:

About This Book

The author analyzes maternal mortality in maternity hospitals and wards, compiling statistics on deaths from puerperal fever, peritonitis, pyæmia, haemorrhage, and other causes. Comparisons are drawn between hospital, workhouse, and home birth death-rates to estimate a baseline risk and to highlight higher institutional mortality in some settings. She investigates institutional contributors to infection such as crowding, poor ventilation, mixed wards, and attendants serving diverse classes of patients, and recounts a midwifery ward outbreak that led to closure. Practical proposals are advanced for building arrangements, infection control, and the organized training of midwives and midwifery nurses to reduce maternal deaths.

NORMAL MORTALITY AMONG LYING-IN WOMEN IN DIFFERENT COUNTRIES.

The next step in the enquiry is to ascertain, so far as it may be possible to do so, what is the death-rate among lying-in women delivered at their own homes in different European countries. Besides the mortality statistics for healthy districts in England, already given, the only available data for this information are reports of public institutes having outdoor midwifery practice, and any records of private practice which may have been published. In adducing these data, however, it is necessary to do so with the reservation already made that their accuracy is only approximate.

The most extensive series of data of this class is given by Dr. Le Fort in his able treatise ‘Des Maternités,’ for a number of institutions in different European countries. The facts from Dr. Le Fort’s book are abstracted on Table III., in which it is shown that out of 934,781 deliveries at home, in Edinburgh, London, Paris, Leipzig, Berlin, Munich, Greifswald, Stettin, and St. Petersburg, there were 4,405 deaths, equivalent to a mortality of 4·7 per 1,000. When compared with the Registrar-General’s returns for town districts, this rate is apparently somewhat too low; it is only an approximation, but still sufficiently near the rate given by the Registrar-General to show that there is a true death-rate for home deliveries not far removed from the Registrar-General’s figure.

Table III.Table Showing the Death-rate from all Causes amongst Women Delivered in their own Homes. (Abstracted from Dr. Le Fort’s Tables.)
Places No. of Years of Observation Deliveries Deaths Deaths per Thousand
Edinburgh 1 5,186 28 5
London:        
  Westminster General Dispensary 11 7,717 17 2
  Ditto Benevolent Institution 7 4,761 8 1
  Royal Maternity Charity 5 17,242 53 3
  London population 5 562,623 2,222 3·9
  St. Thomas’ Hospital 7 3,512 9 2·5
  Guy’s Hospital 8 11,928 36 3
  Ditto 1 1,505 4 2
  Ditto 1 1,702 3 1·7
  Ditto 1 1,576 11 6
Paris:        
  12th Arrondissement 1 3,222 10 3
  Bureau de Bienfaisance 1 6,212 32 5
  Ditto 1 6,422 39 6
  City of Paris 1 44,481 262 5
  Ditto 1 42,796 226 5
Leipzig Polyclinique 11 1,203 13 10
Berlin 1 500 7 14
Munich 5 1,911 16 8
Greifswald 4 295 6 20
Stettin 17 375 0 0
St. Petersburg 15 209,612 1,403 6·6
Total   934,781 4,405 4·7

St. George’s Hospital Statistics for ‘the 6 years preceding 1870 show only one maternal death in every 305 cases’ in the Out-door Maternity Department.

From home records, it is hoped at some future time to give many more data of this kind, and to distinguish the causes of death: puerperal from non-puerperal mortality, as well as that caused by puerperal diseases from that caused by accidents of childbirth. At present the data for doing this are lamentably deficient, if not almost altogether wanting.

One good recorded fact will here be given. Among 1,929 mothers delivered at home by Guy’s Hospital in 1869, 5 deaths only are recorded, and none from puerperal diseases; 2 were from heart disease, 2 from pneumonia, 1 from exhaustion.