Implementing a Skin-to-Skin Care and Parent Touch Initiative in a Tertiary Cardiac and Surgical Neonatal Intensive Care Unit
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Skin-to-skin care (SSC) has been integrated as an essential component of developmental care for preterm infants. Despite documented benefits, SSC is not routinely practiced in the cardiac and surgical neonatal intensive care unit, with a predominantly term population, due to staff apprehension, patient factors and acuity, and environmental constraints. PURPOSE: The purpose of this quality improvement project was to increase SSC, parental holds, and parent touch events for infants in our cardiac and surgical neonatal intensive care unit. When traditional SSC was not possible, alternative holds and alternative parent touch (APT) methods were encouraged. METHODS: Quality improvement and qualitative descriptive methodology were utilized to assess baseline, develop education and practice changes, and evaluate the use of SSC, holds, and APT methods at 12 and 18 months postintervention. Implementation included educational tools and resource development, simulations, peer champions, in-class teaching, and team huddles. Decisions around the type of hold and parent touch were fluid and reflected complex infant, family, staff, and physical space needs. FINDINGS: Given its initial scarcity, there was an increased frequency of SSC and variety of holds or APT events. Staff survey results indicated support for the practice and outlined persistent barriers. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Skin-to-skin care, holds, and APT practices are feasible and safe for term and preterm infants receiving highly instrumented and complex cardiac and surgical care. IMPLICATIONS FOR RESEARCH: Future research regarding the intervention's impact on neurodevelopmental outcomes of infants and on parent resilience in the surgical and cardiac neonatal intensive care unit is warranted.
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 | 0.009 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".