Forgive me for being a bit cranky, but today brought a news story from WPTZ in Vermont that once again highlights how clueless (and I mean that in a literal, not unkind way - they may be clueless, but at least they're trying) about prevention some media folks can be.

A 13 month old boy is injured as a result of being shaken by a "babysitter."

Following a shot of the hospital, Reporter interviews "experts": Nurse, who teaches a babysitting course. Reporter then interviews director of the local child care resources center. Well-meaning people all...

If you watched it, the "lessons" you learned were:

- First, hire a licensed child care provider who knows CPR (um, CPR is good, but irrelevant: does Vermont require child care providers to be trained about the causes and consequences of shaking young children? I couldn't find anything about SBS prevention on the VT DCF site for child care providers, which isn't that unusual - most states don't require it. I did find some good SBS training, but it's for child welfare specialists: unfortunately, that's cart-before-the-horse training on how to deal with the consequences, instead of prevention...).

- Second, check references and do a criminal background check (um, "has she ever shaken your child?" - while this perpetrator is the exception to the rule, having a domestic violence "charge" driving with a suspended license, and having parole violations, most SBS cases don't involve someone with a criminal background). Oh, and given that most children are shaken by a parent or relative, just how helpful is advice to "hire someone you know personally"?

Not one mention that it might be a good idea to ask someone taking care of your child whether she has learned about shaken baby syndrome (or, for that matter, if your child is not a year old yet, SIDS), and whether she has a coping plan for those inevitable moments of frustration that do come when caring for a young child.

Given the absence of that critical info, it's particularly unfortunate and misleading that the televised report is "How You Can Protect Your Children..."

More on the story from the Burlington Press

Diane at Foster Family Talk has a post about a shaken baby case in Florida. She reminds parents of the importance of checking references of child care providers.

This was my response:

A parent should certainly research all available references and history.

However, while that's necessary, it's not sufficient to ensure that you've done everything you can to protect your child.

You must talk with your child care provider about the danger of shaking young children, that frustration and anger is a normal response to caring for young children, and they need to agree to follow a simple coping plan: recognize that frustration, leave the baby in a safe place and call someone, either as a safety vent or to acknowledge the frustration. They need to know that it's OK with you to have feelings of frustration.

It can be done in a manner that doesn't accuse, but instead talks about sharing knowledge and opportunity to protect your child from injury. If your child is an infant, it can be especially effective coupled with SIDS information.

In New York and several other states, licensed providers must have training on the causes, consequences and prevention of shaken baby. That obligation doesn't extend to "exempt" providers, and it's not complete assurance - providers have attended training and still shaken children.

But this education model is based on a program for new parents in Buffalo that reduced the incidence of shaken babies and inflicted injuries by 50%.

Not perfect, but for a simple 15 minute intervention, pretty effective insurance!...

So, if a parent just checks references, they will have a false sense of security.

Sharing information with all other caregivers of your child about the causes and consequences of SBS and the need for a simple coping plan - and ensuring they share your commitment to using it - is the key.

And not only will that help protect your child, it will help protect others.

For more info, visit the resources page on www.skippervigil.com

A book review in the New York Times points out some reasons why thinking we're safe can be unsafe....

Some of those "thinks" to keep in mind, whether designing community prevention initiatives or an individual, personalized prevention program for your child:

- we think we're more skilled than experience suggests;
- when routines allow us to think less about safety, we are distracted from anticipating stress events and less prepared to cope; and
- we think we - and other caregivers, like babysitters and child care providers - know what we need to know about the skills required to raise a child.

Assuming you're safe can be fatal. Assuming you "know" what any individual taking care of your child will or won't do can also have tragic consequences.

Nowadays, the cause of collisions, or one of them, is people believing they’re better drivers than they are. We base our judgment on the number of crashes we’ve been in, rather than on the number of accidents we narrowly avoid, which, if we’re being honest (or we’re being me), happen just about every time we drive.

Compounding this vehicular hubris is the fact that most of the driving we do appears to be safer than it is. Driving rarely commands 100 percent of our attention, and so we feel comfortable multitasking: talking on the phone, unfolding a map, taking in the Barca-Lounger on the road’s shoulder. Vanderbilt cites a statistic that nearly 80 percent of crashes involve drivers not paying attention for up to three seconds. Thus the places that seem the most dangerous — narrow roads, hairpin turns — are rarely where people mess up. “Most crashes,” Vanderbilt writes, “happen on dry roads, on clear, sunny days, to sober drivers.” For this reason, roads that could be straight are often constructed with curves — simply to keep drivers on the ball.

This basic truth — feeling safe kills — lies beneath many of the book’s insights. Americans think roundabouts are more dangerous than intersections with traffic lights. Roundabouts require you to adjust your speed, to merge, in short, to pay attention. At an intersection, we simply watch the light. And so we may not notice the red-light runner coming at us or the pedestrian stepping off the curb. A study that followed 24 intersections that had been converted from signals or stop signs to roundabouts showed an almost 90 percent drop in fatal crashes after the change.

For similar reasons, S.U.V.’s are more dangerous than cars. Not just because they’re slower to stop and harder to maneuver, but because — by conferring a sense of safety — they invite careless behavior. “The safer cars get,” Vanderbilt says, “the more risks drivers choose to take.” (S.U.V. drivers are more likely to not bother with their seat belts, to talk on cellphones, and to not wear seat belts while talking on cellphones.) So it goes for much of the driving universe. More people are killed while crossing in crosswalks than while jaywalking. Drivers pass bicyclists more closely on a road with bike lanes than on one without.