I'm not a big fan of separating a new baby from her mother during the bonding period shortly after birth. For example: a baby was born and before the mother had a chance to breastfeed her on the other side, she was taken to the nursery for a 3 hour mandatory observation. For what you ask? Group B strep. The mother was given both doses of anti-biotics during labor which lessens the chance of transmission to the baby to a minuscule amount. So was it medically necessary to separate the baby from her mother if she had gotten both doses? I understand the dangers of Group B strep, but observation of the baby could be done by a nurse checking the baby while still with the mother, not by having the baby sitting in an incubator all alone in the nursery.
Risk factors — Infection in the newborn is more common in the following circumstances:
* Mother has an especially high amount of bacteria in her vagina
* Mother has GBS in her urine
* Baby is born prematurely (less than 37 weeks of gestation)
* Membranes are ruptured for more than 18 hours before birth
* Mother has a fever during labor
* Mother has low levels of antibody against the GBS she carries
* Mother previously had a child with GBS infection
* Premature infants whose mothers have multiple risk factors
None of these apply to the woman by the way.. she received her 2 doses of anti-biotics during labor which significantly reduces her risk of passing it on to her baby. Antibiotics are given to all women with GBS risk factors or a positive culture, although only 0.5 to 1 percent of women transmit infection to their infant.
Was the separation of mother and infant necessary, or hospital policy to avoid lawsuits?
No comments:
Post a Comment