This is one of those 'back to front' questions, isn't it?

The intervention is actually the bathing, not 'delayed bathing'.

So the onus is on the 'early bathers' to show this at least does no harm.

I don't see the point of bathing the baby in hospital at all.

Why would you do that? Why wash off all that lovely protection when 
the baby is still in the germiest place he could be?

Routine practice in the UK has been to bath babies at home, and not 
on the maternity unit, for at least 30 years now :)

Even then there's no rush. Obviously, you clean the baby's bottom, 
and maybe take a cloth to his folds of skin....but full-scale 
dunking? Why?

Heather Welford Neil
NCT bfc, tutor, UK






>Hello everyone,
>
>I had proposed the idea at my hospital of delaying the newborn's 
>bath for 24 hours since studies are showing that it increases rates 
>of breastfeeding, helps to reduce neonatal sepsis and promote 
>healthy skin flora development. When I brought up the idea, needless 
>to the say, the RN's were strongly opposed. One of the most vocal in 
>opposition, is an RN who is working on her MSN. I sent her some 
>research and she began to change her mind and decided to do one of 
>her research papers on delayed bathing of the newborn. However, she 
>is having trouble finding research articles in the past 5 years in 
>support of delayed bathing. Does anyone have any recent research 
>articles about the benefits of delayed bathing? We certainly would 
>appreciate it. Thank you for your help.
>
>Tricia Shamblin, RN, IBCLC



-- 

             ***********************************************

Archives: http://community.lsoft.com/archives/LACTNET.html
To reach list owners: [log in to unmask]
Mail all list management commands to: [log in to unmask]
COMMANDS:
1. To temporarily stop your subscription write in the body of an email: set lactnet nomail
2. To start it again: set lactnet mail
3. To unsubscribe: unsubscribe lactnet
4. To get a comprehensive list of rules and directions: get lactnet welcome