MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4385331507 · doi:10.1097/anc.0000000000001089

Parental Presence in the NICU

2023· article· en· W4385331507 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Debra Brandon, Jacqueline M. McGrath

Notice bibliographique

RevueAdvances in Neonatal Care · 2023
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineHealth Professions
ThématiqueFamily and Patient Care in Intensive Care Units
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineNeonatal nursingMEDLINEIntensive care medicinePediatricsNeonatal intensive care unit

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) nurses and other care providers were early adopters of family-centered care in the hospital setting, well ahead of other pediatric and adult units. Over the past 30 years, NICU parents became essential members of the healthcare team, not “visitors” in the NICU. The COVID-19 pandemic challenged this philosophy and almost overnight parents of critically ill infants were no longer essential care providers and were once again relegated to “visitor” status.1 While there are various models of family-centered care, family-integrated care focuses on engagement of parents in the care of their infant during hospitalization as partners in care through their physical presence.2,3 Family-integrated care provides emotional support for parents as they navigate the unfamiliar environment. Units that use family-integrated care had improved infant weight gain, decreased parent stress and anxiety, and increased exclusive breastfeeding at discharge.4 During the pandemic, many units shifted from a focus on family-centered care to safety of infants, parents, and providers. For many families, the pandemic exacerbated the challenges they already faced to be physically present and participate in the care of their infant. Restrictive policies put in place for safety limited the number of parents who could visit and the time of day they could be physically present with their infant. Parents had to balance work and caring for other children while navigating the experience of caring for a hospitalized infant in the middle of a pandemic. For example, parents may have had limited resources for transportation to the hospital, especially with significant distances or the lack of public transportation. In addition, parents were often homeschooling older siblings that limited their available time to be present with their hospitalized infant. Families with greater financial stress and with mental health problems were often most impacted by the restrictions placed on families.5 NICU providers were also challenged on multiple fronts during the pandemic, including implementation of new and evolving restrictions on parental presence. Unit policies changed rapidly and frequently as the science evolved. Despite leadership teams' best efforts, these changes often led to unclear communication with families and subsequent frustrations for both families and providers.1 Parents' ability to be physically present with their child as much as they would desire has always had challenges in the NICU, which were exacerbated by COVID-19. In this issue, we have 3 articles that present parents' perspectives on what it was like to have an infant in the NICU during the pandemic. These articles highlight important lessons learned to best support parents today and beyond. Ms. Biskop and colleagues shared the experience of parents in Sweden who were separated from their infants because of testing positive for COVID-19.6 It is important to note that prepandemic, 62% of Sweden NICUs had facilities that supported a mother's physical presence 24/7 from birth until discharge home, which included a place for the mother to sleep either in a room with her infant or nearby.7 Please examine the important findings from this study. They underscore the importance of clear communication and ongoing support for parents when they must be separated from their infant. However, separation may occur in many contexts that need consideration by the healthcare team such as military deployment and parents impacted by the justice system. Ms. Yance and colleagues further describe the experiences of mothers in Ontario, Canada.8 Parental presence early in the pandemic was limited to one parent for a scheduled 3-hour period of time. Mothers reported that building trust with the healthcare team during those uncertain times was essential. Key elements to building trust included empathy and support from the team, consistency in the nurses caring for their infant, and clear and transparent communication. The findings of this study emphasize the important role of consistency in the delivery of care that is exemplified in primary nursing. The last article in this series by Dr Ritcher and colleagues describes the experiences of mothers from Vancouver, Canada.9 As with the other 2 articles, the consequences of separation from their infant due to COVID-19 polices were featured. Unlike the other 2 articles, mothers described some “positive” aspects of the restrictive policies around visitation. For example, it was easy to keep unwanted visitors at bay. Finally, like others,3,10the introduction of virtual platforms for telehealth, educational programing, and group support allowed for greater access and flexibility. Many of the recommendations from the 3 articles in this issue as well as other recent pandemic studies focused on the importance of interventions that facilitate the integration of families into the care of their infant and that support parental well-being. Institutional policies during the pandemic greatly impacted family-centered care. However, factors that impede parents' ability to be physically present and participate in their infant's care to the degree they desire existed prior to the pandemic and continue today such as the financial costs of taking work leave to be with and care for their infant. In addition, while most NICUs have policies that stated parents can be present 24/7, in actuality, parents are often asked to leave during rounds, procedures, or during a crisis in the unit. The pandemic brought much more scrutiny to the issue of supporting family presence and how that presence could be perceived by nurses at the bedside. There was much uncertainty around the COVID-19 virus, especially in neonates; however, uncertainty of outcomes is not new for neonatal healthcare providers. In contrast, the NICU is a place of uncertainty for all parents that necessitates parental support to minimize parental stress and maximize parental well-being. Parents are the lifelong caregivers of their child; we have them in the NICU for a short time, a formative time in their growing relationship. Care providers in the NICU need to consider how best to support the developing relationship between parents and their infant. Some general recommendations to support infants and the presence of their families include the following: Supportive hospital policies to facilitate parental presence and participation in infant care to the degree parents desire. Physical NICU environments that supports parental presence. Transparent communication and education that encourage parents as decision-makers for their infant. Parental support that supports their well-being through ongoing screening and access to emotional support (eg, peer support groups) or counseling (eg, psychological) as needed. Virtual or telehealth modalities to allow for greater flexibility and access. —Debra H. Brandon, PhD, RN, CNS, FAAN Co-Editor in Chief; Advances in Neonatal Care, [email protected] —Jacqueline M. McGrath, PhD, RN, FNAP, FAAN Co-Editor in Chief; Advances in Neonatal Care, [email protected]

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 enseignants

Ni 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.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,697
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,420

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,050
Tête enseignante GPT0,422
Écart entre enseignants0,371 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations1
Publié2023
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueAdvances in Neonatal CareMême sujetFamily and Patient Care in Intensive Care UnitsTravaux en français237 207