NICU Nurses' Stress and Work Environment in an Open Ward Compared to a Combined Pod and Single-Family Room Design
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The architectural design of a neonatal intensive care unit may affect the quality of the work environment for nurses, yet few studies have been conducted using reliable and valid measures. Recent studies have suggested some drawbacks of single-family rooms (SFRs) for both infants and parents. Research is needed to explore nurses' work environment in units combining pods and SFRs. PURPOSE: To compare neonatal intensive care unit nurses' work stress, satisfaction, obstacles, support, team effectiveness, ability to provide family-centered care, and satisfaction with noise, light, and sightlines in an open ward with a new unit of pods and SFRs. METHODS: A pre-post occupancy study was conducted in a level 3 unit before and after transitioning to a new unit of 6-bed pods and SFRs. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in nurse stress, satisfaction, support from colleagues, perceptions of team effectiveness, and ability to provide family-centered care between the open ward and the pod/SFR unit. Organizational obstacles, such as difficulties obtaining information from colleagues, were significantly lower in the pod/SFR. In contrast, environmental and technology obstacles were greater in the new pod/SFR unit. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Some specific aspects of the pod/SFR unit are optimal for neonatal intensive care unit nurses, while other aspects of the open ward are perceived more favorably. IMPLICATIONS FOR RESEARCH: Studies are needed to examine the isolation the nurses may experience in SFR units, as well as strategies to reduce isolation.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".