Improved nurse–parent communication in neonatal intensive care unit: evaluation and adjustment of an implementation strategy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: To evaluate and adjust systematic implementation of guided family-centred care in a neonatal intensive care unit. BACKGROUND: Family-centred care is valued in neonatal intensive care units internationally, but innovative strategies are needed to realise the principles. Guided family-centred care was developed to facilitate person-centred communication by bridging the gap between theory and practice in family-centred care. Main mechanisms of guided family-centred care are structured dialogue, reflection and person-centred communication. DESIGN: Qualitative and quantitative data were used to monitor participatory implementation of a systematic approach to training and certification of nurses delivering guided family-centred care. METHODS: Systematic implementation of guided family-centred care included workshops, supervised delivery and certification. Evaluation and adjustment of nurse adherence to guided family-centred care was conducted by monitoring (1) knowledge, (2) delivery, (3) practice uptake and (4) certification. RESULTS: Implementation was improved by the development of a strategic framework and by adjusting the framework according to the real-life context of a busy neonatal care unit. Promoting practice uptake was initially underestimated, but nurse guided family-centred care training was improved by increasing the visibility of the study in the unit, demonstrating intervention progress to the nurses and assuring a sense of ownership among nurse leaders and nonguided-family-centred-care-trained nurses. CONCLUSIONS: An adjusted framework for guided family-centred care implementation was successful in overcoming barriers and promoting facilitators. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: Insights gained from our pioneering work might help nurses in a similar context to reach their goals of improving family-centred care.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".