Positioning and Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS): Update

PEDIATRICS ◽  
1996 ◽  
Vol 98 (6) ◽  
pp. 1216-1218 ◽  
Author(s):  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
American Academy ◽  
Sudden Infant Death ◽  
The United States ◽  
Sudden Infant ◽  
Term Infants ◽  
Additional Information ◽  
American Academy Of Pediatrics ◽  
Prone Sleeping ◽  
Positive Effect

This statement provides an update to the June 1992 American Academy of Pediatrics' policy, "Infant Positioning and SIDS," which recommended that healthy term infants be placed on their sides or backs to sleep. Recent data show that the original policy appears to have had a positive effect in decreasing the prevalence of prone sleeping significantly. Simultaneously, the SIDS rate in the United States has also dropped. New data also suggest that the supine position confers the lowest risk; however, the side position is still significantly safer than the prone position. Additional information regarding sleeping surface and exceptions to these recommendations are addressed.

"Flat Heads" and the American Academy of Pediatrics' (AAP) Sleep Position Statements

PEDIATRICS ◽  
1994 ◽  
Vol 94 (4) ◽  
pp. 576-576
Author(s):  
JOHANA KASHIWA BRAKELEY
Keyword(s):  
American Academy ◽  
Sudden Infant Death Syndrome ◽  
Sudden Infant Death ◽  
Sleep Position ◽  
Sudden Infant ◽  
Sleeping Position ◽  
American Academy Of Pediatrics ◽  
Prone Sleeping Position ◽  
Prone Sleeping ◽  
The Right

Just over I year ago, the AAP recognized research studies that showed an increased incidence of sudden infant death syndrome associated with the prone sleeping position. In response to this information, the AAP changed its recommendation for infant sleeping position. Instead of the prone position for sleep, the AAP is now recommending that infants be placed on their side or back for sleep. Since that time, I have noticed more and more babies with head asymmetry. Most often the right side of the back of the head is flattened.

"Back to Sleep" Program

PEDIATRICS ◽  
1996 ◽  
Vol 98 (1) ◽  
pp. 163-164 ◽  
Author(s):  
C. Merle Johnson ◽  
Frances A. Coletta ◽  
Nicholas Hether ◽  
Richard Cotter
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factor ◽  
American Academy ◽  
Prone Position ◽  
Sudden Infant Death Syndrome ◽  
Infant Death ◽  
Family Physicians ◽  
Sudden Infant Death ◽  
Sudden Infant ◽  
American Academy Of Pediatrics ◽  
Prone Sleeping

Both retrospective and risk factor studies1-5 have shown that infants who sleep in the prone position increase their risk of sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS). These data compelled the American Academy of Pediatrics in 1992 to recommend that parents avoid letting infants sleep in the prone position.6 Subsequent research demonstrated a drop in both prone sleeping and SIDS.7-9 These outcomes resulted in a renewal of the recommendation in 1994).10,11 Recent survey data indicate that pediatricians and family physicians are less likely to recommend the prone position9-14 and that prone sleeping has decreased from 74% to 58% for infants over 1 month of age.8-11

Why Accept Stories About China?

PEDIATRICS ◽  
1976 ◽  
Vol 58 (3) ◽  
pp. 464-465
Author(s):  
Robert O. Fisch
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
American Academy ◽  
The United States ◽  
Official Journal ◽  
American Academy Of Pediatrics ◽  
The People ◽  
Scientific Report

I am always amazed by the fascination of the American public with the "stories" from behind the Bamboo Curtain. The data of Dr. Wray in his article1 are biased, i.e., "I was told," etc. Any other article based upon similarly described data, especially from the United States, would not even be considered for publication by an editor, especially not by the editors of the official journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics. Dr. Wray's last sentence, "... Chairman Mao's command: ‘Serve the People!’" sounds more like a Marxist manifesto than the conclusion of a scientific report.

Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation of the Newborn

1990 ◽  
Vol 12 (5) ◽  
pp. 136-141
Author(s):  
Robert A. Sinkin ◽  
Jonathan M. Davis
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
American Academy ◽  
American Heart Association ◽  
Life Support ◽  
American Heart ◽  
Neonatal Resuscitation ◽  
Heart Association ◽  
The United States ◽  
Delivery Room ◽  
American Academy Of Pediatrics

Approximately 3.5 million babies are born each year in approximately 5000 hospitals in the United States. Only 15% of these hospitals have neonatal intensive care facilities. Six percent of all newborns require life support in the delivery room or nursery, and this need for resuscitation rises to 80% in neonates weighing less than 1500 g at birth. Personnel who are skilled in neonatal resuscitation and capable of functioning as a team and an appropriately equipped delivery room must always be readily available. At least one person skilled in neonatal resuscitation should be in attendance at every delivery. Currently, a joint effort by the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Heart Association has resulted in the development of a comprehensive course to train appropriate personnel in neonatal resuscitation throughout the United States. Neonatal resuscitation is also taught as part of a Pediatric Advanced Life Support course offered by the American Heart Association. In concert with the goals of the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Heart Association, we strongly urge all personnel responsible for care of the newborn in the delivery room to become certified in neonatal resuscitation. The practical approach to neonatal resuscitation is the focus of this article.

Simple Apnea Monitoring May Not Work

PEDIATRICS ◽  
1977 ◽  
Vol 60 (4) ◽  
pp. 561-561
Author(s):  
NORMAN LEWAK
Keyword(s):  
Intensive Care ◽  
American Academy ◽  
Sudden Infant Death Syndrome ◽  
Infant Death ◽  
Sudden Infant Death ◽  
Sudden Infant ◽  
American Academy Of Pediatrics ◽  
Apnea Monitoring ◽  
Intensive Care Nursery ◽  
Made In

To the Editor: In August 1975 (Pediatrics 56:296, August 1975) I reported on an infant who died of sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) despite apnea monitoring in an intensive care nursery. My communication was made to counter lay articles advocating use of apnea monitors to “prevent” SIDS. Similar responses to home apnea monitor advocates have been made in a Pediatrics commentary1 and an American Academy of Pediatrics committee statement.2 An article has since appeared that

Professional Liability Coverage for Residents

PEDIATRICS ◽  
1989 ◽  
Vol 84 (1) ◽  
pp. 195-196
Author(s):  
BRAD COHN
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
American Academy ◽  
The United States ◽  
Medical Professional ◽  
Professional Liability ◽  
American Academy Of Pediatrics

As a member of the American Academy of Pediatrics' Committee on Liability, I have been asked to comment further on professional liability coverage for residents (Pediatrics 1989;83:311). The positions stated are satisfactory. However, the problems encountered by residents who "moonlight" under a professional liability coverage written on a "claims made" form were not addressed. Most medical professional liability individual policies in the United States are now written on a "claims made" form. This classification means that the insured is covered only for claims arising and reported during the policy year for which a premium has been paid.

WELCOMING REMARKS

PEDIATRICS ◽  
1969 ◽  
Vol 44 (5) ◽  
pp. 791-792
Author(s):  
Merritt Low
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
American Academy ◽  
One Health ◽  
The United States ◽  
Field Trials ◽  
Accident Prevention ◽  
American Academy Of Pediatrics ◽  
Job Safety ◽  
Developing Area ◽  
Made In

The American Academy of Pediatrics has long been interested in the control of Childhood Injuries; its first formal committee was the Committee on Accident Prevention. The pediatrician is a primary accident preventer and should indeed have a big stake and commitment here. He is basically a "consumer," yet he must be convinced of the product he uses and in turn passes on. Though he has the humility of an amateur, he is allied with the expert and begs for his help. He sees the great strides made by industry, even in the newly developing area of "off-the-job" safety, and the advances made in the therapeutic but not the prophylactic responsibilities of accident prevention as he surveys the situation. Yet, is he truly convinced? If so, he could do more. We exhort ourselves to immunize our children with a safety vaccine, but is this just borrowed jargon? What are the ingredients of the vaccine? Are they dead or alive? Where are the field trials? Where are the proving figures of effectiveness? A hard look shows us that this number one health problem is not being solved. (I scarcely need remind this group of the statistics and facts: 15,000 children under 15, including 5,000 pre-school children, die of accidents in the United States each year; 15 million children go to doctors for care of accidents in a year; all accidents cost the country over 15 billion dollars a year). In our primary reliance on the tool of "education," we fall victims to the fact-of-life fallacy-if we provide facts we automatically get results.

Flexible Residency Programs for Women

PEDIATRICS ◽  
1985 ◽  
Vol 75 (5) ◽  
pp. 991-992
Author(s):  
NAOMI UCHIYAMA
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
American Academy ◽  
Training Program ◽  
Residency Training ◽  
Training Programs ◽  
The United States ◽  
Residency Programs ◽  
Pediatric Residency ◽  
American Academy Of Pediatrics

To the Editor.— I am a member of the Committee on Women in Pediatrics of the American Academy of Pediatrics. The Committee recently studied the availability of flexible training and retraining programs in pediatric residency programs in the United States. We sent a questionnaire to the directors of the 292 pediatric training programs listed in the Directory of Residency Training Programs. At present, 200 of the 292 (68.5%) have a flexible training program. However, only two of these programs have this as a written policy; one such program was developed in 1973 and, in practice, this program was individually designed.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document