Family Integrated Care: changing the culture in the neonatal unit
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Family Integrated Care (FIC) is a new model of neonatal care which supports parents to be primary caregivers, as partners with the clinical team.1 The inspiration for FIC comes from lower resource settings where families provide care through necessity rather than choice.2 3 This approach has been adapted for modern neonatal intensive care by pioneering FIC teams in Canada, Scandinavia and the UK. Trials in preterm infants have demonstrated improved rate of weight gain, reduced parental stress and shorter length of stay.4 5 By supporting and combining the benefits of breast feeding, kangaroo mother care (KMC) and parental presence, FIC may have even greater long-term benefits for infants and their families.6 FIC builds on the foundations of Family-Centred Care, a well-established approach with accepted standards supported by Unicef and the neonatal charity Bliss.7 8 FIC takes parental involvement to a new level placing families at the centre of care and empowering them as primary caregivers (table 1). View this table: Table 1 Comparison of FCC and FIC at RHC, Glasgow Though the concept of FIC is intuitive and the potential benefits compelling, delivering this model of care may be challenging. We took on this challenge in our neonatal unit, the largest unit in Scotland with approximately 1000 admissions per year and over 200 staff. Our patients include extremely preterm infants as well as those requiring specialist medical and surgical care including extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). Implementing FIC in a unit of this size and diversity has its own specific challenges, but has been hugely rewarding. In this article, we share our approach and lessons learnt, and describe the transformative effect on families and staff. FIC means not just physically involving families, but equally importantly changing the culture and relationships with staff.9 10 Staff engagement is potentially the greatest challenge. FIC requires a …
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".