U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > New Jersey
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-11-2007, 09:10 PM
 
9 posts, read 37,598 times
Reputation: 11

Advertisements

Hello,

I have just moved to scotch plains area. Can someone suggest good OB/GYN around 10-15 mile radius? Also I would like to know hospitals with good maternity facilities near this area.

thanks,
M
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-12-2007, 05:11 AM
 
9,124 posts, read 32,098,244 times
Reputation: 3519
We had both of our kids at JFK Medical Center in Edison, and were very happy with the facilities and staff. Depending on where in Scotch Plains you are, it's probably a 10-20 minute ride for you.

My wife used Dr. Steinbach and Dr. Fleisch, who have offices in Edison as well, just down the road from the hospital. They each delivered one of our girls and we were happy with them too.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-12-2007, 07:10 AM
 
9 posts, read 37,598 times
Reputation: 11
Thank you BobKovacs. Yes, I am considering JFK hosptial and also Overlook hospital in Summit. How is the overlook hospital in Summit any one?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-12-2007, 07:28 AM
 
Location: UK but on the way to NJ!
239 posts, read 1,009,938 times
Reputation: 95
I am pregnant and originally was going to deliver at Overlook. The c-section rate is extremely high there (39%) and my OB didn't seem to be bothered by that, and I felt very uncomfortable with those odds, so I decided to switch to midwife care instead. (I am not saying that in some cases a c-section is absolutely necessary or even a woman's choice--but these odds were not in line with what I wanted)

I am now going to travel about 45 minutes to a different hospital to deliver with midwives, of course I will be assigned an OB/GYN in case of emergency and will have access to everything the hospital has to offer.

In the area, Muhlenberg hospital in Plainfield has a c-section rate of 23%. This is still very high, according to the World Health Organization, but considerably better.

Quote:
A cesarean section is major abdominal surgery. When a cesarean is necessary, it can be a life saving technique for both mother and infant. However, the World Health Organization states that no region in the world is justified in having a cesarean rate greater than 10 to 15 percent. Yet, in the past twenty years, the cesarean section rates have nearly quintupled in the US, to 26% by 2002, and nearly quadrupled in Canada, to 22.5% by 2002.
This may not have helped at all, but that's my two cents!

Good Luck!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-12-2007, 07:45 AM
 
9,124 posts, read 32,098,244 times
Reputation: 3519
I'm no expert here, but wouldn't it make more sense to look at C-section rates by doctor, and not by hospital? It would seem that the doctor's preference would drive the numbers- not the hospital's, no?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-12-2007, 07:58 AM
 
Location: UK but on the way to NJ!
239 posts, read 1,009,938 times
Reputation: 95
yes--it would make sense to check individual doctors' c-section rates--but in my case, when I questioned the doctor about Overlook's c-section rate, he didn't seem like it was a big deal--told me that it was woman's choice, that it was "exactly the same" as a natural birth, and that lawsuits were a real concern for doctors, hence higher c-section rate. He was generally not reassuring at all that he would do anything to make a c-section less likely than the percentage at the hospital. He also said that the other doctors in his practice were of the same mindset. So obviously not the place for me!

I am a teacher and quality of education is generally evaluated by school, not individual teacher. So I guess that's why the statistics that are easily publically available are for hospitals, not individual doctors.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-12-2007, 07:58 AM
 
9 posts, read 37,598 times
Reputation: 11
Tiggywink: You raised an extremely good point. Where did you find this statistics about C-section rate? Please share the link.
BobKovacs: Yes, I agree there is a need to look at C-section rates by doctor too, but sometimes your doctor is not present during delivery, I wonder that is when the on call doctor kicks in maybe and that is why there is a rating based on hospital.
I am guessing here, I might be wrong!
But 39% rate is quite high!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-12-2007, 08:00 AM
 
Location: UK but on the way to NJ!
239 posts, read 1,009,938 times
Reputation: 95
I got the information here:

NJ.com: Everything Jersey

Click on health and environment.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-12-2007, 08:07 AM
 
9,124 posts, read 32,098,244 times
Reputation: 3519
Quote:
Originally Posted by tiggywink View Post
yes--it would make sense to check individual doctors' c-section rates--but in my case, when I questioned the doctor about Overlook's c-section rate, he didn't seem like it was a big deal--told me that it was woman's choice, that it was "exactly the same" as a natural birth, and that lawsuits were a real concern for doctors, hence higher c-section rate. He was generally not reassuring at all that he would do anything to make a c-section less likely than the percentage at the hospital. He also said that the other doctors in his practice were of the same mindset. So obviously not the place for me!
Sounds like he and his partners may be a major contributing factor to Overlook's c-section rate being so high then.....

Obviously I can't comment from first-hand experience, but I can tell you that my wife would strongly disagree with the "exactly the same" theory- she delivered on of our daughters naturally, and one via c-section. While the actual labor and delivery was more painfuil with the first, she was pretty much up and around fairly well within a week or less. With the c-section, it was a good 4 weeks before she could easily get into or out of a chair or bed without alot of discomfort, and the better part of another month to get to what I'd call "normal" after that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-12-2007, 08:32 AM
 
Location: NJ
12,284 posts, read 30,939,609 times
Reputation: 5190
Quote:
Originally Posted by tiggywink View Post
I got the information here:

NJ.com: Everything Jersey

Click on health and environment.
wow - good link. not to get too off-topic, but the hospital I delivered at (St. Clare's) had a 19% rate the year I gave birth, but 37% last year.

just a thought since it applied to me, maybe the rates are headed up because of the rising incidence of multiples. while having a c-section with multiples isn't a given, the odds are much, much higher. too bad they don't have a breakdown of singletons -vs- multiples and rates.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:



Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > New Jersey
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top