Parents Are Not Visiting. Parents Are Parenting
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
In their article “A Quality Improvement Project to Reduce Events of Visitor Escalation in the Intensive Care Nursery” (Vol 22, No. 1), the authors make repeated references to “visitors” to the neonatal intensive care nursery (NICU). As seasoned healthcare professionals and advocates for parents of premature and sick infants, our position is this: Parents are not visitors. Parents are parents—their child's first and most important caregiver.1 Globally, healthcare organizations have traditionally positioned parents as visitors. This language is used not just in articles like this one but also frequently present in hospital documents, signage, and in the ways parents are spoken to and about in the hospital. Preterm birth is traumatic. Often unexpected and unplanned, a preterm delivery to a medically fragile infant can leave a mother feeling like her body has failed. Parents are typically separated immediately from their infant, robbing them of that “moment” they have been waiting for—the moment they become parents. In the hours and days that follow, parents may not be allowed to hold or touch their infant. The clinical terms used to talk about their infant seem like a foreign language, everything is unfamiliar and sterile, and parents do not have any idea what to say, do, or ask. Parents of premature and sick infants are scared and anxious. They can feel powerless, alienated, alone—outsiders in their own infant's life.1,2 Therefore, language is so important. Calling parents visitors contributes to a culture of experts versus guests and us versus them.3 It evokes feelings for parents that this is the hospital's infant, not your infant.4 Healthcare professionals decide who can touch and care for your infant, when, and for how long. The word “visitor” and how we use it to describe parents—in writing as well as verbally—is simply inaccurate. Parents are an infant's primary caregiver. The words we use, as well as our tone, body language, and communication style, strongly affect how healthcare professionals see parents—and how parents see themselves. The culture of “allowing” parents' permission to care for their premature or sick infants must shift. Instead, healthcare providers' words, actions, and knowledge should be a tool for helping parents learn to care for their sick newborn, build trust and rapport, and enable open communication.5 The first days and weeks in the NICU are formative for the parent–infant relationship and can make or break parents' feelings of confidence, competence, and connection to their new infant. Parents must be at the center of a premature or sick infant's care team.6,7 Changing the language, we use, to talk about parents is a simple, cost-effective way to promote a culture of inclusion and involvement and improve outcomes. Looking at the wording in unit policies, notice boards, signage, parent education materials, staff presentations, in-services, training, and orientation is a good start. Calling parents “visitors” is exclusionary. Parents are not visiting. Parents are parenting. —Marianne Bracht, RN, RSCN Pediatrics Mount Sinai Hospital Toronto, Ontario, Canada —Linda S. Franck, PhD, RN, FRCPCH, FAAN School of Nursing University of California San Francisco —Karel O'Brien, MB, BCh, BAO, FRCPC, MSc Pediatrics Mount Sinai Hospital Toronto, Ontario, Canada —Fabiana Bacchini, MSc, BJ Canadian Premature Babies Foundation Toronto, Ontario, Canada
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 distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
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 tête enseignante, 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 ».