Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Sleep

Join our Sleep forum for tips on creating a sleep routine for your baby or toddler. Need more advice on your childs development? Sign up to our Ages and Stages newsletter here.

Original poster

If you have a bednest, please read this (concerning unsafe usage)

29 replies

BertieBotts · 23/04/2015 20:28

There has been an extremely sad case where a little girl has died after being left alone in a bednest co-sleeper cot.

The story is here.

The bednest is not inherently dangerous, the problem occurs when the setting with the very low barrier between a parent's bed and the cot is used and the baby is placed on the front to sleep.

It's really upset me as I would imagine this would be the option chosen by parents who want the benefits of co sleeping but didn't want to risk the baby rolling into the adult bed. Please, if you're doing this, stop and use either the "safe bridge" set up or put both sides up entirely. It does also seem as though the problem was caused in part by the baby being on their front, but in any case a baby can roll without warning - safer not to use it at all.

The poor family :(

OP posts:
Original poster
BertieBotts · 23/04/2015 20:33

Oops, forgot to post the picture - here from the Bednest website. The problematic position is the one labelled "Bedside".

www.bednest.com/352CFB15-D773-4C00-9E30-835C674A86D9.CIMG

OP posts:
seaoflove · 23/04/2015 21:14

Just read this story, and will be using a Bednest for baby #2 due in a few weeks. It does sound like the main issue was the baby was put to sleep on her front, because in that position she was able to lift her head and put it back down over the lowered partition. A baby sleeping on their back would not be able to do that.

Awful, awful tragedy

seaoflove · 23/04/2015 21:15

Shoulde clarify: a seven week old baby would not be able to do that.

Chickenschicken · 23/04/2015 21:16

Bumping. I have this cot and part of the problem was it was second hand without instructions. Still so sad for family but it won't put me off using it in future. Just extra careful.

Original poster
BertieBotts · 23/04/2015 21:18

Yes, that is true, and plus I hadn't appreciated the factor of the tilted cot - awful, I expect from the combination of front sleeping and the tilt this baby must have suffered from reflux or been similarly unsettled. You just do what seems the only option at the time.

However I'd still prefer the "safe bridge" setting to the "bedside" setting, it just seems better to be safe than sorry.

OP posts:
Original poster
BertieBotts · 23/04/2015 21:21

Yes true. But babies can start to roll at short notice, remember. It's unlikely but possible.

I agree, I don't think people should be put off using the cot. But I do agree with the coroner's report which says if this option is dangerous then it should not be possible at all. I'm not sure if the instructions say that the tilt should not be used with the side half down?

OP posts:
Stopandlook · 23/04/2015 21:35

We used one of these.

How absolutely horrendous for the poor parents.

Hobby2014 · 23/04/2015 21:36

So sad.
Nct have said they'll send instructions to anyone who buys one secondhand without instructions, if that helps anyone.

MTR42 · 23/04/2015 21:53

39w pregnant, bought a bednest from NCT shop 3/3/15 and other accessories including spare mattress. Shocked at tragic news about the 7wk old baby. Contacted NCT who are currently refusing any bednest refunds pending their investigations and all they said was it should be used as per the instruction manual. I'm aware from the coroners report that babe was put prone which is not recommended.

We managed with difficulty to source a different crib (Chicco next to me) and compared both. Bednest more practical as side panel can be put down easier so we did consider keeping the bednest but using either with side all up or down. Then we realised that our new bednest side panel was faulty which meant the side was not secure as it was literally hanging by a thread! See pic. I spoke to NCT again and they said they couldn't authorise a refund for bednest at present...even though our one was obviously faulty! Wish I had bought it from Amazon or John Lewis instead as customer service would have been better! Not what I need at 39w pregnant. I WILL expect a refund from NCT though!!!

seaoflove · 23/04/2015 21:58

That's obviously faulty - it's outrageous that they won't accept returns for a faulty item.

StoryOfMyLife · 23/04/2015 22:11

I've no idea what to do.

I have he Bednest ordered due for delivery in a few weeks, I had a section last time and am having another and I found it really difficult to get my dd out of the Moses basket.

I honestly thought this was the answer to all my prayers!

I can't decide whether to cancel my order.

TondelayoSchwarzkopf · 23/04/2015 22:13

That is so sad Sad Sad Sad

FATEdestiny · 23/04/2015 22:36

You could just take one side off a full sized cot and butt it up to your bed.

Terribly sad story. I think the main fault really was the 7 weeks old baby sleeping on its front.

seaoflove · 23/04/2015 22:41

www.madeformums.com/news-and-gossip/bednest-nct-stops-selling-bedside-crib-following-death-of-7-week-old-baby/37770.html

There's nothing inherently wrong or dangerous about the Bednest, Story. Sadly, several rules and guidelines were broken, primarily that the baby was put to sleep on her tummy. The cot was also tilted higher than recommended and the cot side was halfway down instead of flat or fully up.

GozerTheGozerian · 23/04/2015 22:44

We've used one of these for DS2 (he's asleep in it right now actually). I would definitely use it again - it's been so much better than the cot we used with DS1. This incident is just awful and my heart goes out to the parents - it's just so terribly sad.

I don't remember it being particularly clear in the instructions about not sleeping with the side half down whilst on a tilt - and DS2 has spent a lot of time asleep in that position in it especially when he's had a cold or been sick.

I have no qualms about him sleeping in it tonight but really if it's about confidence in the product I imagine a lot of people will be put off.

nickelbarapasaurus · 23/04/2015 22:48

MTR42 they have to replace or offer repair (in this instance replace would be the scenario) on faulty goods - by law, they can't just say no, it doesn't work like that.

Original poster
BertieBotts · 23/04/2015 22:49

Story, in my second link it shows several positions that the bednest can be used in. It is only the position with the half-lowered side which is dangerous. There is another sidecar position which doesn't have a barrier.

Or you could look at another brand of co sleeper cot?

OP posts:
Stopandlook · 23/04/2015 22:50

If you look closely at the photo Bertie posted the side is pictured halfway down in the tilted position. So this needs action. Otherwise, I don't think there is need to avoid the cot.

AnythingNotEverything · 23/04/2015 22:57

Bertie I've read a lot about this today and been involved in lots of discussions. Well done on such a clear, thorough and balanced OP. It's quite refreshing.

I totally agree that the bednest is safe (and I've never used one and am not likely to).

LePetitPont · 24/04/2015 09:20

We have just returned our bednest after 7 months use.

We actually used it tilted and with the side half up (bridge is v uncomfortable) as the boy has reflux BUT only ever with him on his back and in a sleepyhead.

Also it's really small - so terribly sad and unlucky that the baby managed to manoeuvre herself into that position.

Artandco · 24/04/2015 09:28

Also I know it's too late now, but regardless of where your baby is sleeping, the current guidelines are that baby should always be sleeping in the same room as a parent until 6 months. That's day and night. It's for these terrible incidences that these guidelines are there

ChangingTiming · 24/04/2015 09:41

So sad.
If the guidelines say only a tilt of 4cm, why does the cot have settings to let you tilt to 8cm?

nocake · 24/04/2015 11:51

The design of the base means that you set the height of each end independently and the height is completely adjustable, to allow for different height beds. The side effect of this is that the tilt of the cot is completely adjustable, despite the instructions specifying a maximum tilt. I suspect they'll have to redesign the base.

I've checked our instructions and it clearly states the maximum tilt and that the baby should not be left with the side half down. I know it sounds like a simplistic solution but I wonder if some big warning stickers might have prevented this death.

Original poster
BertieBotts · 24/04/2015 12:27

I know I said this earlier, but I suspect that to have such a sharp tilt of 8cm and to place such a small baby on their front leads me to think the baby must have been very unsettled, meaning the parents were probably in such a sleep deprived haze that they didn't think to check online for instructions. Who could expect them to? Yes a warning sticker might well have been helpful.

OP posts:
seaoflove · 24/04/2015 13:28

People will always ignore guidelines, though, won't they? I mean the "back to sleep" campaign has been going on for decades, and yet still people put babies to sleep on their fronts.

And I'm not judging the parents, I'm really not. But people do ignore SIDS guidance all the time. It's a calculated risk, and the vast majority of babies are totally fine, but stories like this are a reminder that the guidelines exist for a reason.