Parents Are Not Visiting. Parents Are Parenting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".