Sleep nests officially deemed unsafe - The End of The Sleepyhead? [Edited by MNHQ]

[FATEdestiny]

Overnight the FDA in USA released a statement deeming sleep positioners (sometimes called "nests") a SIDS risk.

www.fda.gov/ForConsumers/ConsumerUpdates/ucm227575.htm

The Lullaby Trust in the UK have long since hinted similar, but kept away from outright stating the products are unsafe. Instead reitterating best practice of a firm, flat, mattress clear of anything.

According to the BBC, retailers have already started reacting by removing products from sale:

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41516239

They mention Tesco, Mothercare and EBay, but I can find baby nests on all but the Tesco website as if 10am this morning. It's either incorrect reporting, a responce in US retailers rather than UK branches of these retailers, or still Work In Progress to remove products.

No brand names are used throughout the initial report or media reports. The question is - is the Sleepyhead a baby positioner or nest? I know it has a massive fan base on Mumsnet. Will the Lullaby Trust follow suit?

I agree Annie, I think more details are needed so that parents can make an informed decision.

The cynic in me wonders whether JL are still selling the Sleepyhead because it's so popular - when I bought it in JL they said they sell a LOT of them.

I did wonder this too 🙈 They must make a fortune from them. Although like you said how many people own a sleepyhead, they sell thousands of them and I've not seen one article or post about it causing an injurie or a baby passing and they have popular for at least 2 years.

I doubt they will remove the sleepyheads from sale in the U.K. just yet as they must make incredible profits on them. Plenty of places still sell cot bumpers, including JL, and they aren't deemed safe.

We had a purflo nest for supervised daytime naps, and dd could roll from birth so she never slept without me having a close eye on her. I do think when these sort of articles are published they need to include details of what was being used, how it was being used and why a tragedy occurred. I found the constant information about SIDS risks quite stressful as there wasn't really any clear reasoning/explanation/evidence of why things weren't safe. It would make for distressing reading but then at least people can make their own informed decisions about risks rather than being taken in by marketing. People feel reassured by the high cost of a sleepyhead that it is safe, but clearly this isn't so true after all.

I would imagine Sleepyhead HQ made some frantic phone calls to retailers to ascertain that it would stay on sale globally. The cynic in me wonders if some sweeteners were involved, since according to Mumsnet, Cocoonababy and other very similar nest-like products have been removed.

Worth remembering that UK SIDS advice has not changed. These products have never adhered to the ideal Safe Slerp conditions, and still don't. But they are not specifically labelled as unsafe like the US have just done.

There is form for US safety regulations affecting supply in the UK though. Several years ago USA seemed dropside cots unsafe. No similar advice was released in the UK, but availability of dropside cots in UK retailers dropped.

The Cocoonababy Nest is still for sale on John Lewis. The Cocoonababy Sleep Positioner isn’t for sale anymore. It’s probably important to point out the difference, which Mumsnet haven’t.

Sleepyheads have been popular for longer than two years. I don't think they have ever been recommended but they are different to sleep positioners.

I didn't use a Sleepyhead but it has been designed and approved for use in Sweden and Sweden is one of very few countries that has got SIDS / SUID rates lower than those in the UK.

I used a different product that is recommended in Sweden and that is a big no-no in the UK or US (a particular baby pillow that helped my DD deal with acid reflux). The choice was between me listening to my DD screaming in pain and using all available means to help her. It is a question of personal choice - Lullaby Trust and AAP recommendations are written to sound very clear but they are based on interpretations of data that can result in different conclusions. For instance. Lullaby Trust accepts that blankets tucked under baby arms are ok to use in the cot while AAP goes against all blankets full stop. In my case, I had to read a lot of actual research and make a decision for myself and my DD.

I also agree that 12 deaths over a period of time are, of course, extremely sad and tragic but given that on average US SUID rate is nearly 4,000 per year (including 1,600 SIDS cases) I am not sure how much of a contributing factor baby nests have been.

Just saw this and doesn’t mention anything about the sleepyhead or similar. It’s about sleep positioners.

metro.co.uk/2017/10/06/deadly-sleep-positioners-that-suffocate-babies-pulled-from-tesco-mothercare-and-ebay-6980876?ito=facebook

The Lullaby Trust in the UK have long since hinted similar, but kept away from outright stating the products are unsafe. Instead reitterating best practice of a firm, flat, mattress clear of anything

Don’t get this, why would they “hint” at anything? Why not just say? Anyway it seems sleepyheads etc are not the issue.

John Lewis still sell cot bumpers which seems mad as they don't even help anything.

I feel really confused and quite concerned now. My 8mo DD is in a Sleepyhead Grand and she loves it. Not sure what to do now though.

@chaosisaladder as a parent you know best. Everything regarding sids guidelines are just that - guidelines only. I felt very safe with my sleepyhead and it’s a very small number of tragic deaths relating to sleep positioners (NOT sleepyheads) over a long period of time only.

The Lullaby Trust refuses to condemn any specific products but simply says a clear cot is the only safe sleeping arrangement.

Laudable as they are, I'm frustrated to see that they conflate suffocation and SIDS, which are entirely different things. It makes it harder to understand what's behind their advice.

They are also very down on co-sleeping, but actually safe co-sleeping is better than exhausted parents falling asleep elsewhere with a baby (which they also point out is dangerous). Sleeping alone in an empty cot or Moses basket is just not something a lot of small babies will do, which is why Sleepyheads became so popular, and why safe co-sleeping can be invaluable. Sleepyheads developed, as I understand it, from watching PICU nurses surround newborns with rolled towels to make them feel more secure.

It's all about a balance of risks.

And the US story is about positioners anyway.

Youcanstay
Completely agree with this:
"I'm frustrated to see that they conflate suffocation and SIDS, which are entirely different things. It makes it harder to understand what's behind their advice."
And with your point about co-sleeping. The blanket statement that co-sleeping is dangerous is not true. If the safe co-sleeping guidelines are followed it can be hugely beneficial - and even reduce risk of SIDS if it enables mothers to room share and breastfeed for longer.

Youcanstayundermyumbrella - the Lullaby Trust exists to reduce SIDS deaths specifically. Evidentally they have been very successful at this because SIDS deaths are continually reducing and are now very low. In this year's press release (regarding data from 2015) they have begun to quote unascertained and unexamined infant deaths, but this has not changed their primary purpose to reduce SIDS.

I can see why they would do that. The charity is so successful that soon it may have succeeded in its purpose, given the year on year SIDS reduction. So is it better for infant safety for the charity to fold and close down, or consider shifting focus to reduce other types of avoidable infant deaths?

Maybe they wont change their focus away from SIDS. Maybe they will. I am just speculating. But I cannot see why it is a problem to widen the net and try to reduce all types of avoidable deaths. They are not doing this atm, they continue to exist to focus on the statistics of SIDS deaths only. But are providing wider statistics for context.

Why does this "frustrate" you and NameChange30? They are a highly successful in their core message. I, for one, hope they do widen their advice to help prevent other types of avoidable deaths of babies, in particular axphixiation and suffocation. I cannot think of a better placed organisation in the UK to do this. And I cannot think of a reason not to want to or why that might be "frustrating".

Just because there are several different labels given to sudden, avoidable, unexplained or unascertained deaths in babies and infants - surely that does not mean that one type of avoidable infant death is more important than anotger type of avoidable infant death just because it is given a different legal label by the coroner.

Because they are two different things with different risks, and I think there's no harm in understanding that as a parent making decisions. And also because there's enough confusion already about what SIDS is, and if parents take away a message that it's suffocation they may miss other useful information.

I think the Lullaby Trust has done some great work, but separating out risks would be more helpful in my opinion.

FATE
You have completely misinterpreted the comment. Of course it's beneficial for the Lullaby Trust to give general advice on safe sleep including reducing the risk of death or injury from more than one course. What I find frustrating is the lack of clarity on the difference between SIDS and suffocation; I understand the need to simplify the message but I think it could be beneficial to have two separate bullet point lists, one for reducing SIDS risk and the other for reducing suffocation risk, for example. Or keep the recommendations as they are but include more detailed information for those who want it.

cause not course

Snap.

Cross post

Don’t get this, why would they “hint” at anything? Why not just say?

They provide wider coverage of safety advice by giving positive advice ("This is what you should do...") rather than negative advice ("This is what you should not do...").

This press release in the USA gives a perfect advice ehy positive advice is better than negative advice. By saying "Do not use sleep positioners" you get lots of confusion and speculation as to what constitutes a slerp positioner. They then add to the confusion by saying "sleep positioners positions are sometimes called nests", because to many a slerp positioner and a best are different products. So further confuconfusion as to which products and brands are not safe and which are.

The Lullaby Trust, wisely, just say "the safest place for baby to sleep is a firm, flat, waterproof mattress in a cot clear of anything else". So anything that is not this is not the safest place for your baby. This does not make all alternates "unsafe", but does qualify them as not the "safest".

As such, the slerpyhead or any similar product has never been advised by the Lullaby Trust. But neither are they deemed inherently unsafe and specifically advised against (in the way that smoking is advised against, for example)

What I find frustrating is the lack of clarity on the difference between SIDS and suffocation; I understand the need to simplify the message but I think it could be beneficial to have two separate bullet point lists, one for reducing SIDS risk and the other for reducing suffocation risk, for example

I agree. I wonder (entirely my speculation) if The Lullaby Trust will move in this direction?

For now, there is no UK body that looks at reducing infant deaths that are anything other than SIDS. It is needed. I would guess (I don't know) that infant deaths by suffocation or axphixiation are now higher than SIDS deaths.

Update on the MadeforMums Sleepyhead review this morning:

Are baby sleeping nests and pods safe?
You may have seen recent reports about the safety of baby sleep positioners, which implied that this may also include 'anti-roll' products and baby 'nests'.

In October 2017, the American FDA (Food and Drug Administration) reissued a warning urging parents not to use these products as they may cause suffocation.

Here at MadeForMums we spoke to the Lullaby Trust to get clarity on the definition of sleep positioners. The Lullaby Trust told us:

"It is our understanding that sleep positioners are straps or wedges that hold a baby in place.”

As baby nests and pods don't strap or wedge babies in place, they don't appear to fall under the sleep positioners highlighted in the FDA report.

However, The Lullaby Trust also states that pods and nests do not meet the safe sleeping guidelines that it promotes – although this is not connected to the FDA warning.

“The evidence shows that the safest way to sleep a baby is on a firm, flat, waterproof mattress in a cot or moses basket and we would not recommend any sleep surface that does not conform to these guidelines,” the Lullaby Trust told us.

According to the Trust, the fact that pods and nests have mattresses with raised, padded sides mean that they don’t meet the “flat” requirements of the guidelines. However, the Trust also acknowledges that there’s no evidence they are unsafe.

Like so many issues in parenting, there's no definitive answer right now, as there just isn't enough research.

So we always recommend you follow manufacturer instructions and check out the safety tips on co-sleeping, or the The Lullaby Trust's guidelines for sleeping safely and the NHS guidelines on how to reduce SIDS.

Forget
That's really helpful, thanks for sharing. It seems measured and fair to me.

However this is also on the MadeforMums site:

The founder of Sleepyhead, Lisa Furuland, has stated that the Grand and Deluxe have been safety tested and comply with a long list of safety requirements, including air permeability according to a British safety standard BS4578.

But currently the safety claims of pods and nests are not meeting the safe sleeping guidelines promoted by The Lullaby Trust.

The makers of Sleepyhead, however, do have clear safety rules around how the products should be used:

For babies, they should not be used for unsupervised sleeping – eg, when you’re asleep - although the founder of Sleepyhead, who is a co-sleeping advocate, suggests that if you use the Sleepyhead to co-sleep with your baby in your bed, then this is safe IF you're unimpaired (not under the influence of alcohol of drugs) and you can be easily woken

Sleepyhead must always be put on a flat, firm, stable surface

Never raise any part of the Sleepyhead – it must always be flat

Note the point about not being used for unsupervised sleeping e.g. when you are asleep