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?

Thanks for sharing this @ForgetAboutSleep - really helpful and I've been reading this thread with interest. My DD is 7 weeks today and seems to be a good sleeper (well who knows but I think he is) and sleeps in his Sleepyhead in a Snuzpod at night - so I guess I should ditch the Sleepyhead bit pronto? Is that what other people are doing?

I've heard babies have gone back to being nightmare sleepers after having the sleepyhead taken away. Think I would continue with it as these stats are not even based on the sleepyhead.

A very good point about the sleepyhead not being used for unsupervised sleep. Unless you are watching the baby constantly while they sleep, thats just sleep then.

I co-slept with my DD, now 2 1/2 and am now pregnant with my second. My DD was an awful sleeper and I remember thinking I'd do anything to get some sleep - did consider the sleepyhead but it was so expensive. The problem is that by that point of exhaustion you ARE impared and probably shouldn't be sleeping with your child. What brought it home to me is a police officer friend of mine who said that they go to 2 or 3 call outs a month of babies who have died sleeping in bed with their parents. He said it is absolutely horrific.

I won't be taking any chances, however miniscule, with sleepyheads or co-sleeping.

Currently not sure what we are going to do. I've emailed sleepyhead for clarification because all their marketing and website states they are safe for sleeping in. The only caveat they have is that the grand is not suitable for under 8/9 months. So for the founder to come out and say they should not be used for unsupervised sleeping is quite a contradiction of what they market the product as. Their website FAQs are very clear that it is meant for sleep will see what they come back with. Unsurprisingly the sleepyhead stand at the baby show today was very quiet and surprisingly the guy on the stand had very little knowledge to answer anyone's questions about safety.

I guess from what stepaway has said is that it's probably safer to have them in the sleepyhead than in a bed with you. It sounds far more common to have deaths when bed sharing and there are no reported deaths with the sleepyhead. Obviously in a cot with nothing is best but if they aren't sleeping then I think I'd feel better with them in the sleepyhead than brought into my bed when I'm knackered just to get some sleep.

"a police officer friend of mine who said that they go to 2 or 3 call outs a month of babies who have died sleeping in bed with their parents."

I would be interested to know whether they were following the safe bedsharing guidelines. I still believe that the risks are low if the guidelines are followed. I personally prefer to put DS back in the Snuzpod (which is on my side of the bed with the side permanently down) as I know he is safer in his own space. I can sleep a bit better without worrying about squashing him! But I do think as long as the guidelines are followed it's ok.

I was so tired with dd that I used to fall asleep sitting up with feeding her at night. So I slept with ds out of choice as that seemed safer than doing so by accident. For ds2 I got a sleepyhead which felt much safer as meant I wouldn't roll on to him. TBH though it was only two years ago and I already can't remember how I fed him at night.

I don’t really see how the sleepyhead helps with cosleeping anyway, isn’t the whole point of cosleeping is that it’s for babies that want to be cuddled while sleeping? You can’t really do that with them in the sleepyhead.

No, cosleeping just means sharing a room.
Technically you're cosleeping if they're in a separate Moses basket, crib or cot in the same room as you.
But I think people often use "cosleeping" to refer to bedsharing or using a bedside crib/cot.
The point of it is to have the baby next to you - not necessarily cuddling the baby - for various reasons:

1. To reduce SIDS risks
2. To make it easier to breastfeed
3. Because the baby sleeps better in proximity to mother/parents rather than in own room/cot

When we used the Sleepyhead I used to lift DS out of it to feed him in bed and lift him back into it when he'd finished. Now we've stopped using it I just scoop him in and out of the Snuzpod. I could still touch him when he was next to me in the Sleepyhead, but he didn't really need cuddles because he was enclosed by it and I think he felt secure, plus I was close enough that he probably still felt reassured by my presence.

Yes you can do all of that with a Moses basket or sidecot, I just hear a lot of people say that the sleepyhead is useful for safe cosleeping and wondered why,but yes I presumed they meant bedsharing, most people say cosleeping when they mean bedsharing don’t they?!

I think that's strange of the Sleepyhead founder to have "clear safety rules" that say the Sleepyhead isn't to be used unattended and then say, in a personal capacity, that she thinks it's fine to do so if all guidelines are being followed. That's going to confuse a lot of people.

Or have I misunderstood the post on that?

popthetoast
"most people say cosleeping when they mean bedsharing don’t they?!"
Yes I think you're right.
Sources like Kelly mom and (if I remember rightly) Sarah Ockwell-Smith make the distinction between cosleeping and bedsharing:
kellymom.com/parenting/nighttime/cosleeping/
But the Lullaby Trust uses the two terms interchangeably:
www.lullabytrust.org.uk/safer-sleep-advice/co-sleeping
FWIW I think it would be more helpful if they clarified the difference between the two.

I was very surprised to see that the Repoet says no blankets for a baby ! Just alone in a bare crib . But when my children were born we were told one cellular blanket and s sheet . Poor babies could get cold without blankets in the winter surely ? And why do the baby shops sell blankets if we are not supposed to use them

NameChange30

Cosleeping means sharing a bed with your baby. It carries a SIDS risk that can be reduced by following safe sleep guidelines (see link)

Room sharing means baby sleeping in the same room you are. A known way to reduce SIDS risk.

Cosleeping does not mean sharing a room. It means sharing a bed mattress.

.... at least in all official definitions used by UK bodies (NHS, government, Lullaby Trust, Office for National Statistics....)

I can't speak for kellymom. Maybe it's American? Certainly it is not obliged to use UK official definitions.

lisalisa

The shops do sell unsafe products unfortunately! But I think blankets are ok as long as you follow the advice to:

• put baby towards the foot end of the crib/cot with space to wriggle up away from blankets but no space to wriggle down under blankets
• use cellular blankets (the kind with holes so babies can breathe through them)
• tuck in the blankets so they go no higher than baby's chest (arms out over the blanket) and under the mattress.

Alternatively you could use a baby sleeping bag, they are very popular because they are easier to use safely. You just have to make sure you get the right number of clothing layers and the right tog sleeping bag so baby doesn't overheat.

FATE
Interesting that those are the "official" definitions used by The NHS. The Lullaby Trust uses the terms interchangeably as I stated in my previous post. Most people might be referring to sharing a bed when they say "cosleeping" but I don't know that everyone is. I think it would probably clarify things if we just ditched "cosleeping" altogether and said "bed sharing" or "room sharing" instead.
Incidentally Sarah Ockwell-Smith is British isn't she? Not American. Not that I agree with her on everything! But I was going by her definition (cosleeping = room sharing). Anyway I'm happy to stand corrected if that's not what most people mean.

I do understand what you mean about the difference between sharing a bed with your baby and going to sleep with baby (anywhere, so sofa for example, not just a bed. The former being far safer than the latter, but both called "cosleeping". What would be useful is if these could be seperated.

What I have never come across, online or IRL, is anyone who confuses cosleeping with room sharing.

(And Sarah OS is by no means someone I'd go to for any form of facts. She has books to sell... It doesn't surprise me that she fudges the language to fit her beliefs)

Just because someone chooses to use a different definition of words doesn't mean they are "confusing" them. It just means they are using them differently.

Of course a standard definition would be much more helpful. And it would be especially helpful to stop lumping everything together under "cosleeping" when bedsharing v falling asleep with your baby on a sofa/armchair are two very different things, risk-wise.

Just because someone chooses to use a different definition of words doesn't mean they are "confusing" them.

Yes it does. Definitions are definitions. If someone chooses to use an incorrect definition, they are confused by the actual meanings.

Cosleeping = sleeping physically with your child (in a bed, on a sofa, in a chair...)

Bed sharing = is a form of cosleeping that happens in a bed.

Room sharing = being in the same room as baby while baby sleeps.

By definition when you are cosleeping you will be room sharing. And when you are bed sharing you will also be cosleeping and room sharing. These are not all one and the same thing though. They each have discrete meanings.

The Lullaby Trust do use the words "cosleeping", "bed sharing" and "room sharing". They use each with their correct, discrete and different meaning. Not interchangeably. Read in context, each phrase on the Lullaby Trust (and NHS and governmental) website will be used with the correct definition.

What I accept is often confused by the general public is that "cosleeping" covers more than just sleeping in bed with their child. I would imagine knackered Mums who fall asleep while rocking baby in arms sat on the sofa, they don't realise that what they are doing is defined as cosleeping.

The wholly incorrect notion that cosleeping means the same thing as room sharing (if baby is in a separate Moses basket, crib or cot in the same room as you) is something I've never seen anyone else confuse.

FATE
"Among researchers, 'co-sleeping' is used to mean parents and infants sleeping in close proximity, but not necessarily on the same surface. Room-sharing with the infant's cot beside or near the bed and parents and infants sleeping on adjacent mattresses could be included in co-sleeping. Bed-sharing therefore is a sub-set of co-sleeping, but not all co-sleeping is bed-sharing."
www.isisonline.org.uk/hcp/research_evidence/definitions/

Unlike you, I am not insisting that my definition is right. I am just saying that there are different definitions. Some may be used more commonly than others, but in my opinion, one is not "right" and the other "wrong".

We're lucky in the UK that all of our adviser bodies on SIDS use identical and defined terminology. That room sharing has a different meaning to cosleeping.

I can't comment on the definitions used by overseas or privately run or commercially run websites. A research skill that students often need to be taught is that they must look critically at information they find online, because just quoting something from a website does not mean it is true. Sources of information online are often confused, conflicting, biased, subject to interpretation and so on. Especially when you consider anyone can make a professional looking website with a professionally sounding name. So understanding where you can find primary and more official facts is a useful skill. In the case of SIDS research, that would be The Lullaby Trust.

I only ever refer to The Lullaby Trust for SIDS recommendations. While they will use the research avaliable worldwide, they will condense and advise on that using clear terminology.

"I can't comment on the definitions used by overseas or privately run or commercially run websites."

I find it amusing that you have decided a website ending in org.uk is overseas and privately run, and in the same post you are lecturing me about critical thinking skills

I'm not sure the point of you being argumentative? But .org domains are just not for profit websites. So any website designed to give information rather than make a profit can be .org. (.org.uk of UK based)

It doesn't mean the website has any authority. I could make a website right now to educate people on the definitions used in SIDS. I could write it right now and publish it to a .org webpage I own this afternoon. That doesn't make me (or any other .org website owners) the authority on any subject. It just means they pay for website without its aim being profit making.