The use of metric units in all UK hospitals results from the death of a baby some years ago when an elderly midwife recorded weights in pounds and ounces and a younger midwife in metric units with the result that nobody realised that the baby was not putting on weight. I do not have a reference for this, but was told this by a midwife.
From: Kilopascal [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 30 November 2013 04:01 To: 'U.S. Metric Association' Subject: Re: How accurate are Hospital conversions of babies masses in UK hospitals? Carleton, I can’t answer your question, but here is a link to a picture of a hospital baby scale. It does show kilograms, but with 4 digits, it can easily be read as grams. http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/11/03/article-0-023916E60000044D-574_468x402.jpg Only someone from the UK can answer the why. But, the question I am asking is, how many errors occur when hospital staff or others convert what is seen on the scale to pounds and ounces? Not that it is important as the hospital keeps records of the true mass and cares for the child based on that. It is good to see hospitals today using kilograms (or grams). It might have a lot to do with dosing errors resulting from converting incorrectly to kilograms if the baby is weighed in pounds. If dosing errors can occur with adults, they can occur with children. From: Carleton MacDonald <mailto:[email protected]> Sent: Friday, 2013-11-29 22:21 To: 'Kilopascal' <mailto:[email protected]> ; 'U.S. Metric Association' <mailto:[email protected]> Subject: RE: How accurate are Hospital conversions of babies masses in UK hospitals? Why is the baby’s mass in kilograms? When my two sons were born at the Kaiser Permanente Medical Center on Geary St. in San Francisco, the hospital recorded them as: * Evan (1984) – 3690 g * Jeffrey (1986) – 4390 g This provided the requisite amount of accuracy, and avoided decimal points entirely. Same as doing construction projects in millimeters. The baby in question should have been described as 3080 g. There would have been no ambiguity there. Sounds like someone in the hospital wasn’t all that adept in metric and was trying to say it with two numbers (“three eight”) in the same manner as “six two” for pounds and ounces. Yes, Kaiser was using metric almost thirty years ago. The little “It’s a boy!” cards on the plastic bassinettes showed the baby’s mass in grams, his name, and his brand-new Kaiser Permanente medical record number. If the parents asked – and ONLY if they asked – then the mass was shown in “conventional” units. I still have no idea what they were in pounds and ounces, nor do I ever need or want to know that. When people asked me at the time how much they “weighed”, I said the figure in grams. If they then asked, “What is that in pounds and ounces?” (so they could compare to other babies) I just replied, “I don’t know.” There was a TV ad today for a local hospital. It showed a newborn baby in a scale. The scale clearly had “4310” on it. Carleton From: Kilopascal [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, November 29, 2013 22:04 To: U.S. Metric Association Subject: How accurate are Hospital conversions of babies masses in UK hospitals? An interesting comment was posted to the BWMA Facebook page by Tony Bennett of ARM. As usual with metric opponents they try to claim that there can be decimal point or scaling errors when reading metric values on balances as is commented in red below. The possibility of this is true, but I would think hospital staff would have enough training and experience to get it right. But, the most important thing here is Tony tried to claim that the confusion would not have happened if they had just been told 6 lb 2 oz. Well, if you back convert 6 lb 2 oz (=6.125 lb) to kilograms you don’t get 3.08 kg, you get 2.78 kg, a difference of 300 g. So, with this in mind, how many of the conversions that the hospital staff or the parents, etc perform are in error like this? How many people zealous to hear an imperial have the imperial given to them a value in error? Has anyone thought of the possibility of this? Anthony Bennett @ Daniel Jackson, Very great confusion was created when my latest grandchild was born earlier in the year. The midwife and staff staff said: 'Your baby is 'three eight' kilograms. Now, I concede that the staff MAY have said 'three point nought eight' kilograms, and not 'three eight' or 'three point eight'. Neverthless, many problems were caused by the belief that he had been born weighing 3.8 kilolrams whereas in fact he was 3.08 kg. Wouldn't have happened if from the off they'd been told he was 6lb 2oz. PHOTO: The sun, 92,900,000 miles and 8 minutes away TB – ARM My comment is below. <https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100004950903243> Daniel Jackson The distance from the sun to the earth is known as the astronomical unit (AU). This unit is precisely defined as an EXACT value in metres. The AU is defined as 149 597 870 700 m EXACTLY. You can compare your figure to the correct value to determine the error, since you are fond of finding errors. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronomical_unit It would appear there was no error on the part of the hospital in reading the balance, it was in the way Tony heard it. If staff members recorded in the official record 3.08 kg, then they correctly copied the number as it appeared on the legally, calibrated mass balance. Of course, if it is a modern hospital, the balance is connected to a computer and the data is transmitted to the data base automatically without human intervention and potential error. The fact of the matter is, the mass of 3.08 kg is the measured mass and everything else is a fantasy. Also, it appears Tony's math is faulty. If you convert 6 lb 2 oz (6.125 lb) to kilograms, you only get 2.78 kg, a difference of 300 g. This in itself proves that conversion from officially measured kilograms was converted incorrectly. I wonder if with this flub Tony will be able to properly determine how wrong his distance from the sun to earth is. Of course Luddites would never question Tony's hearing and assume the hospital made the error considering that they have years of experience weighing new babies in kilograms. Notice how Steve mentioned other peoples baby masses were spoken and how he avoided the word measured. Yes, what is measured is what is true. What is spoken is an afterthought that comes from a translation with rounding that results in error (in Tony's case a whopping error). Now if any of these people ever would ask the hospital for a copy of the baby's birth record, the mass would appear in kilograms and the length in centimetres. I'd check the hospital records to see if what they give out is true or not. I wonder how many of Steve's "spoken" pounds are as much in error as that which Tony posted in error. Best to go by what you see on the scale and not what you are told. Who knows a staff member who hates to do conversions could easily get it wrong and you would never know. Just like ignoring the metric on the Tesco scale. No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2014.0.4259 / Virus Database: 3629/6878 - Release Date: 11/29/13
