MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4318762621 · doi:10.1097/anc.0000000000001048

Parents Are Not Visiting. Parents Are Parenting

2023· letter· en· W4318762621 on OpenAlexaffabout
Marianne Bracht, Linda S. Franck, Karel O’Brien, Fabiana Bacchini

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in Neonatal Care · 2023
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfant Development and Preterm Care
Canadian institutionsMount Sinai Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineFeelingVisitor patternNursingIntensive careHealth careSignageFamily medicinePediatricsPsychologySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In their article “A Quality Improvement Project to Reduce Events of Visitor Escalation in the Intensive Care Nursery” (Vol 22, No. 1), the authors make repeated references to “visitors” to the neonatal intensive care nursery (NICU). As seasoned healthcare professionals and advocates for parents of premature and sick infants, our position is this: Parents are not visitors. Parents are parents—their child's first and most important caregiver.1 Globally, healthcare organizations have traditionally positioned parents as visitors. This language is used not just in articles like this one but also frequently present in hospital documents, signage, and in the ways parents are spoken to and about in the hospital. Preterm birth is traumatic. Often unexpected and unplanned, a preterm delivery to a medically fragile infant can leave a mother feeling like her body has failed. Parents are typically separated immediately from their infant, robbing them of that “moment” they have been waiting for—the moment they become parents. In the hours and days that follow, parents may not be allowed to hold or touch their infant. The clinical terms used to talk about their infant seem like a foreign language, everything is unfamiliar and sterile, and parents do not have any idea what to say, do, or ask. Parents of premature and sick infants are scared and anxious. They can feel powerless, alienated, alone—outsiders in their own infant's life.1,2 Therefore, language is so important. Calling parents visitors contributes to a culture of experts versus guests and us versus them.3 It evokes feelings for parents that this is the hospital's infant, not your infant.4 Healthcare professionals decide who can touch and care for your infant, when, and for how long. The word “visitor” and how we use it to describe parents—in writing as well as verbally—is simply inaccurate. Parents are an infant's primary caregiver. The words we use, as well as our tone, body language, and communication style, strongly affect how healthcare professionals see parents—and how parents see themselves. The culture of “allowing” parents' permission to care for their premature or sick infants must shift. Instead, healthcare providers' words, actions, and knowledge should be a tool for helping parents learn to care for their sick newborn, build trust and rapport, and enable open communication.5 The first days and weeks in the NICU are formative for the parent–infant relationship and can make or break parents' feelings of confidence, competence, and connection to their new infant. Parents must be at the center of a premature or sick infant's care team.6,7 Changing the language, we use, to talk about parents is a simple, cost-effective way to promote a culture of inclusion and involvement and improve outcomes. Looking at the wording in unit policies, notice boards, signage, parent education materials, staff presentations, in-services, training, and orientation is a good start. Calling parents “visitors” is exclusionary. Parents are not visiting. Parents are parenting. —Marianne Bracht, RN, RSCN Pediatrics Mount Sinai Hospital Toronto, Ontario, Canada —Linda S. Franck, PhD, RN, FRCPCH, FAAN School of Nursing University of California San Francisco —Karel O'Brien, MB, BCh, BAO, FRCPC, MSc Pediatrics Mount Sinai Hospital Toronto, Ontario, Canada —Fabiana Bacchini, MSc, BJ Canadian Premature Babies Foundation Toronto, Ontario, Canada

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.818
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.271 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdvances in Neonatal CareSame topicInfant Development and Preterm CareFrench-language works237,207