I am curious as to how other facilities handles situations where the mother comes in or desires to room-in with a baby and has come in obviously impaired or if they are already rooming in, an impairment is obvious such as apnea alarms, fire alarm, etc going off and the parent not waking (or flinching).
Aug 4, '11
Always remember the babe's safety comes first and you are responsible. If they are impaired we tell them that we don't think it is a good idea to hold the baby and we state why. If they get irate or escalate we call security. If they are rooming in, take the baby away and tell them why. And document, document document. If they are rooming in and impaired they lose the room, we have security kick them out.
Aug 7, '11
I posted on this issue a few months ago. A few nurses talked of "refusing" a mother who tested positive to drug testing the ability to nurse or hold their baby. That said I had my 32 weeker (after a very healthy pregnancy, despite planning a homebirth) during a very very violent section (she presented footling and I was fully dilated fully effaced when I arrived at the hospital...I could feel her toes vaginally)...I also ended up with a massive surgical infection, a cervical laceration...long and short lots and lots of pp pain...I was on vicodin/percoccet each and every day my little girl was in the hospital (as well as a wound vac and a daily home health care nurse visits). SO...I guess my question is what is the difference between our family (white, affluent, experienced parents) and the poor, single mother who is "impaired"?
Aug 11, '11
If you were very impaired and it wasn't safe for you to hold the baby, then you wouldn't be holding the baby. Has nothing to do with race, etc., it comes down to the baby's safety.
Must Read Topics