Re: Newborn footprints
Dear Tina (and ozmidders) - thanks again for your fresh thoughts on practice. You make some very good points, many of which have been mentioned amongst midwives over the years but like so many routines/rituals are perpetuated (often because of long standing hospital policies). I do believe ID is required in some form while in hospital for legal and practical reasons mentioned in other responses. The footprints could be an optional extra at parent's choice... they are a cute idea, I think. Keep up the great work Tina. Best wishes, Lois - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2001 7:24 AM Subject: Re: Newborn footprints In a message dated 30/10/01 8:09:59 PM AUS Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I haven't been able to find much published on the subject of newborn foorprinting for security purposes on our midwifery database. Apart from a couple of anecdotal items from the mid 90s, the only article evaluating its use is: Butz AM, Oski FA, Repke J et al. Newborn identification: compliance with AAP guidelines for perinatal care. Clinical Pediatrics, vol 32, no 2, Feb 1993, pp 111-113. Kathy Levine Infornation Officer MIDIRS 9 Elmdale Road Bristol BS8 1SL England Hi all, I have a question with regards to this baby ID thing. I suppose I'm questioning the need for such 'routine' and stringent 'labelling' of babies in the days of babes 'rooming in' with their mothers where there is a high expectation that mother and babe will stay together and not be separated. I would have thought that this practice was more relevant in the days of routine separation of mother and babe - with babies kept in nurseries and only brought to their mothers for feeds. Please excuse my naivety with regards to institutional procedures and protocols, but why do babies need such comprehensive ID procedures if they are with their mothers ?? Is ALL this 'routine' labelling really a necessity ?? I'm not advocating that babes not be 'labelled' at all - I understand the need for some form of identification linking a particular babe with its mother, however, I suppose I'm questioning the process that some listers here have outlined in their protocols of babe ID as two and even three and four separate procedures - leg bands, arm bands and just in case we'll do footprints and other body labelling (tattoos) as well - ah to be sure, to be sure !!!. If babes are removed from their mothers, eg: Admitted to special care nurseries etc.. etc.. I don't think anyone questions the need for routine ID (perhaps even by footprinting) - But do ALL babes routinely need to be subjected to this practice ?? Who is all this labelling practice protecting ?? I think its important also that we look carefully at what potential messages this practice may send to parents, in addition to the purported anecdotal 'acceptance' by parents of this procedure. If staff wanted to label my babe in this way - leg bands, arm bands AND footprints and temporary tattoos - I think I would start to wonder about the safety of my babe and their potential to get 'lost' !! Does it also not send a message to mothers that we don't trust them to be able to 'know' their own babies ?? Yours in Birth, Tina Pettigrew. -- This mailing list is sponsored by ACE Graphics. Visit http://www.acegraphics.com.au to subscribe or unsubscribe. -- This mailing list is sponsored by ACE Graphics. Visit http://www.acegraphics.com.au to subscribe or unsubscribe.
Re: Newborn footprints
I agree 100% Tina - what a worry. We have resisted the tatoos, and at this point only use footprints as a memory for mothers and fathers of stillborn infants. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2001 9:24 AM Subject: Re: Newborn footprints In a message dated 30/10/01 8:09:59 PM AUS Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I haven't been able to find much published on the subject of newborn foorprinting for security purposes on our midwifery database. Apart from a couple of anecdotal items from the mid 90s, the only article evaluating its use is: Butz AM, Oski FA, Repke J et al. Newborn identification: compliance with AAP guidelines for perinatal care. Clinical Pediatrics, vol 32, no 2, Feb 1993, pp 111-113. Kathy Levine Infornation Officer MIDIRS 9 Elmdale Road Bristol BS8 1SL England Hi all, I have a question with regards to this baby ID thing. I suppose I'm questioning the need for such 'routine' and stringent 'labelling' of babies in the days of babes 'rooming in' with their mothers where there is a high expectation that mother and babe will stay together and not be separated. I would have thought that this practice was more relevant in the days of routine separation of mother and babe - with babies kept in nurseries and only brought to their mothers for feeds. Please excuse my naivety with regards to institutional procedures and protocols, but why do babies need such comprehensive ID procedures if they are with their mothers ?? Is ALL this 'routine' labelling really a necessity ?? I'm not advocating that babes not be 'labelled' at all - I understand the need for some form of identification linking a particular babe with its mother, however, I suppose I'm questioning the process that some listers here have outlined in their protocols of babe ID as two and even three and four separate procedures - leg bands, arm bands and just in case we'll do footprints and other body labelling (tattoos) as well - ah to be sure, to be sure !!!. If babes are removed from their mothers, eg: Admitted to special care nurseries etc.. etc.. I don't think anyone questions the need for routine ID (perhaps even by footprinting) - But do ALL babes routinely need to be subjected to this practice ?? Who is all this labelling practice protecting ?? I think its important also that we look carefully at what potential messages this practice may send to parents, in addition to the purported anecdotal 'acceptance' by parents of this procedure. If staff wanted to label my babe in this way - leg bands, arm bands AND footprints and temporary tattoos - I think I would start to wonder about the safety of my babe and their potential to get 'lost' !! Does it also not send a message to mothers that we don't trust them to be able to 'know' their own babies ?? Yours in Birth, Tina Pettigrew. -- This mailing list is sponsored by ACE Graphics. Visit http://www.acegraphics.com.au to subscribe or unsubscribe. -- This mailing list is sponsored by ACE Graphics. Visit http://www.acegraphics.com.au to subscribe or unsubscribe.
Re: Newborn footprints
I haven't been able to find much published on the subject of newborn foorprinting for security purposes on our midwifery database. Apart from a couple of anecdotal items from the mid 90s, the only article evaluating its use is: Butz AM, Oski FA, Repke J et al. Newborn identification: compliance with AAP guidelines for perinatal care. Clinical Pediatrics, vol 32, no 2, Feb 1993, pp 111-113. Kathy Levine Infornation Officer MIDIRS 9 Elmdale Road Bristol BS8 1SL England Tel: 0117 925 1791 Fax: 0117 925 1792 Website: www.midirs.org E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- This mailing list is sponsored by ACE Graphics. Visit http://www.acegraphics.com.au to subscribe or unsubscribe.
RE: Newborn footprints
My first 3 babies were footprinted at birth (ie before I was able to hold them!) as part of identification. They were born in Lansing, Michigan, in 1973, 75, and 77. I was given birth certificates with the footprints - and presumably could use these as proof if there was any question of baby-swapping. Joy J -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 8:05 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:Re: Newborn footprints I haven't been able to find much published on the subject of newborn foorprinting for security purposes on our midwifery database. Apart from a couple of anecdotal items from the mid 90s, the only article evaluating its use is: Butz AM, Oski FA, Repke J et al. Newborn identification: compliance with AAP guidelines for perinatal care. Clinical Pediatrics, vol 32, no 2, Feb 1993, pp 111-113. Kathy Levine Infornation Officer MIDIRS 9 Elmdale Road Bristol BS8 1SL England Tel: 0117 925 1791 Fax: 0117 925 1792 Website: www.midirs.org E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- This mailing list is sponsored by ACE Graphics. Visit http://www.acegraphics.com.au to subscribe or unsubscribe. -- This mailing list is sponsored by ACE Graphics. Visit http://www.acegraphics.com.au to subscribe or unsubscribe.
Re: Newborn footprints
In a message dated 30/10/01 8:09:59 PM AUS Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I haven't been able to find much published on the subject of newborn foorprinting for security purposes on our midwifery database. Apart from a couple of anecdotal items from the mid 90s, the only article evaluating its use is: Butz AM, Oski FA, Repke J et al. Newborn identification: compliance with AAP guidelines for perinatal care. Clinical Pediatrics, vol 32, no 2, Feb 1993, pp 111-113. Kathy Levine Infornation Officer MIDIRS 9 Elmdale Road Bristol BS8 1SL England Hi all, I have a question with regards to this baby ID thing. I suppose I'm questioning the need for such 'routine' and stringent 'labelling' of babies in the days of babes 'rooming in' with their mothers where there is a high expectation that mother and babe will stay together and not be separated. I would have thought that this practice was more relevant in the days of routine separation of mother and babe - with babies kept in nurseries and only brought to their mothers for feeds. Please excuse my naivety with regards to institutional procedures and protocols, but why do babies need such comprehensive ID procedures if they are with their mothers ?? Is ALL this 'routine' labelling really a necessity ?? I'm not advocating that babes not be 'labelled' at all - I understand the need for some form of identification linking a particular babe with its mother, however, I suppose I'm questioning the process that some listers here have outlined in their protocols of babe ID as two and even three and four separate procedures - leg bands, arm bands and just in case we'll do footprints and other body labelling (tattoos) as well - ah to be sure, to be sure !!!. If babes are removed from their mothers, eg: Admitted to special care nurseries etc.. etc.. I don't think anyone questions the need for routine ID (perhaps even by footprinting) - But do ALL babes routinely need to be subjected to this practice ?? Who is all this labelling practice protecting ?? I think its important also that we look carefully at what potential messages this practice may send to parents, in addition to the purported anecdotal 'acceptance' by parents of this procedure. If staff wanted to label my babe in this way - leg bands, arm bands AND footprints and temporary tattoos - I think I would start to wonder about the safety of my babe and their potential to get 'lost' !! Does it also not send a message to mothers that we don't trust them to be able to 'know' their own babies ?? Yours in Birth, Tina Pettigrew. -- This mailing list is sponsored by ACE Graphics. Visit http://www.acegraphics.com.au to subscribe or unsubscribe.
Re: Newborn footprints
With my daughters, I used 11 different coloured ink pads, hence badly stained feet for a day or two... :o) We shared purple, pink, green, yellow, silver footprints (to mention a few) with closest family and friends. They were framed and are still treasured by all that received them, andare often commented on.Beats plainblack ink, feet down! ;o) Michelle (2nd year BMid, in NZ) PS I have never known in my experience of any allegies in my children or the children offamily and friends. I am curious if anyone has experience with newborn footprinting. I understand that those who practise this use a standard inkpad. Is this a common practise or a have I just stumbled across a lone practise? Does anyone see any potential allergens created through use of the ink?? Alesa
Re: Newborn footprints
Dear Alesa, I work in a hospital that has a neonatal intensive care unit that provides care for in excess of 300 babies a year. I worked in the unit for 18 months. Each baby is footprinted in the first few days of life, and then on special occasions during their stay in the unit (like mothers day, fathers day or christmas) to provide momentos for their parents. We initially used a water based black ink pad, but now usethe coloured stamp inks. All are water based and wipe off with a wet cloth. I checked with the unit and they use a variety of brands. The most important factor is that they are waterbased and nontoxic. They don't have a set protocol, guidelines or evidence. I have not noticed a reaction in 18months, and the seniormidwife from the unit, thatI spoke with to check my details, has not noticed a reaction either during her years of practice.An asidecomment is that, from their reaction, I don't think the babies enjoy the process a great deal but the parents do respond very positively. Hope this is helpful. Tara - Original Message - From: P A Koziol To: ozmidwifery Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2001 7:16 PM Subject: Newborn footprints Dear List I am curious if anyone has experience with newborn footprinting. I understand that those who practise this use a standard inkpad. Is this a common practise or a have I just stumbled across a lone practise? Does anyone see any potential allergens created through use of the ink?? Alesa Alesa KoziolClinical Midwifery EducatorMelbourne
