Guidelines for the Institutional Implementation of Developmental Neuroprotective Care in the NICU
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
A joint position statement from the Canadian Association of Neonatal Nurses (CANN), the Canadian Association of Perinatal and Women's Health Nurses (CAPWHN), the Council of International Neonatal Nurses (COINN), and the National Association of Neonatal Nurses (NANN) was published in 2017 in the Canadian Journal of Nursing Research. This new position statement provides an evidence-based framework for the institutional implementation of developmentally supportive, neuroprotective care in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU).1,2 BACKGROUND AND SIGNIFICANCE The use of age-appropriate care as an organized framework for care delivery in the NICU is founded on the work of Als3 and her synactive theory of development. This theoretical construct has been advanced by the work of Gibbins and colleagues4 with the “universe of developmental care” conceptual model and developmentally supportive care core measures.5 The core measures for developmentally supportive care were endorsed by NANN in 2011 as its clinical practice guidelines for Age-Appropriate Care of the Premature and Critically Ill Hospitalized Infant6 and have been recently revised and expanded to reflect the most current evidence-based best practices in developmentally supportive, neuroprotective care.7 The core measures for developmentally supportive care outline disease-independent core competencies for professionals serving premature and critically ill hospitalized infants. Supported by The Joint Commission and the Primer Standards of Accreditation and Health Canada, the institutional implementation of these core measures requires a strong framework for institutional operationalization. This framework is presented in the newly published guidelines for the institutional implementation of developmental neuroprotective care in the NICU and summarized at http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0844562117706882 and http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0844562117708126.1,2 HIGHLIGHTS These 2-part guidelines include the first international joint position statement between 4 sister nursing associations, as well as best practice recommendations to adopt and integrate developmental neuroprotective care at the institutional level. Part A of the guidelines presents the background and rationale for the development of institutional implementation guidelines. This includes a thorough literature review of the history, levels of evidence, and support for developmental care in the NICU, as well as implementation strategies extracted from the implementation science literature.8 Part B of the guidelines presents detailed recommendations for each implementation phase supported and justified by the current evidence.2 The guidelines are operationalized over 5 phases: Plan, Educate, Prioritize, Evaluate, and Ensure Sustainability. Each phase includes different steps over time to ensure their implementation. These phases and steps might sometimes occur in parallel, whereas others might be delayed, depending on the need and priorities of each unit. Likewise, they can work in circularity, where one change might influence another. However, the best chance for successful adoption and integration of a developmentally supportive, neuroprotective care philosophy and subsequent implementation within an organization are patience, endurance, and persistence.9 Clearly defined standards, accountability metrics, and strong leadership are needed to facilitate and sustain a cultural transformation. CONCLUSION As the professional voice of neonatal nurses around the world, NANN, CANN, CAPWHN, & COINN recommend the use of these guidelines to provide a framework for the standardization of the implementation of developmentally supportive, neuroprotective care. These guidelines provide flexibility to support the individual needs of each unit and organization by providing an evidence-based systematic approach to implementation in NICUs. The full joint position statement can be accessed at Milette et al Part A1 and Part B.2 The articles are open access and freely available to all. See the full articles for more guidance in this area.LEAD AUTHORS Isabelle Milette, MScN, NNP, developmental care specialist, Neonatal Intensive Care Unit, CHU Sainte-Justine; and Co-founder and President, Developmental Care Partnership. Marie-Josée Martel, PhD, Professor, Nursing Department, Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières; and Co-founder and Vice president, Developmental Care Partnership. Margarida Ribeiro da Silva, MScN, NNP, Neonatal Intensive Care Unit, Montreal Children's Hospital; and Collaborator in Developmental Care Partnership. Mary Coughlin, MS, BSN, RN, NNP, RNC-E, Founder and President, Caring Essentials Collaborative.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,082 | 0,177 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,006 | 0,005 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,006 | 0,006 |
| Communication savante | 0,010 | 0,005 |
| Science ouverte | 0,013 | 0,011 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,013 | 0,015 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,008 | 0,006 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».