Parental presence on neonatal intensive care unit clinical bedside rounds: Randomised trial and focus group discussion

Mohamed Abdel-Latif, Danette Boswell, Margaret Broom, Judith Smith, Deborah DAVIS

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

20 Citations (Scopus)
4 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Background There are limited data to inform the choice between parental presence at clinical bedside rounds (PPCBR) and non-PPCBR in neonatal intensive care units (NICUs). Methods We performed a single-centre, survey-based, crossed-over randomised trial involving parents of all infants who were admitted to NICU and anticipated to stay >11 days. Parents were randomly assigned using a computer-generated stratified block randomisation protocol to start with PPCBR or non-PPCBR and then crossed over to the other arm after a wash-out period. At the conclusion of each arm, parents completed the 'NICU Parental Stressor Scale ' (a validated tool) and a satisfaction survey. After completion of the trial, we surveyed all healthcare providers who participated at least in one PPCBR rounding episode. We also offered all participating parents and healthcare providers the opportunity to partake in a focus group discussion regarding PPCBR. Results A total of 72 parents were enrolled in this study, with 63 parents (87%) partially or fully completing the trial. Of the parents who completed the trial, 95% agreed that parents should be allowed to attend clinical bedside rounds. A total of 39 healthcare providers ' surveys were returned and 35 (90%) agreed that parents should be allowed to attend rounds. Nine healthcare providers and 8 parents participated in an interview or focus group, augmenting our understanding of the ways in which PPCBR was beneficial. Conclusions Parents and healthcare providers strongly support PPCBR. NICUs should develop policies allowing PPCBR while mitigating the downsides and concerns of parents and healthcare providers such as decreased education opportunity and confi dentiality concerns. Trial registration number Australia and New Zealand Clinical Trials Register number, ACTRN12612000506897.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)F203-F209
Number of pages7
JournalArchives of Disease in Childhood. Fetal and Neonatal Edition
Volume100
Issue number3
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2015

Fingerprint

Neonatal Intensive Care Units
Focus Groups
Parents
Health Personnel
Health Care Surveys
Random Allocation
New Zealand
Clinical Trials
Interviews

Cite this

@article{f8d5982272594573825d23d967d42523,
title = "Parental presence on neonatal intensive care unit clinical bedside rounds: Randomised trial and focus group discussion",
abstract = "Background There are limited data to inform the choice between parental presence at clinical bedside rounds (PPCBR) and non-PPCBR in neonatal intensive care units (NICUs). Methods We performed a single-centre, survey-based, crossed-over randomised trial involving parents of all infants who were admitted to NICU and anticipated to stay >11 days. Parents were randomly assigned using a computer-generated stratified block randomisation protocol to start with PPCBR or non-PPCBR and then crossed over to the other arm after a wash-out period. At the conclusion of each arm, parents completed the 'NICU Parental Stressor Scale ' (a validated tool) and a satisfaction survey. After completion of the trial, we surveyed all healthcare providers who participated at least in one PPCBR rounding episode. We also offered all participating parents and healthcare providers the opportunity to partake in a focus group discussion regarding PPCBR. Results A total of 72 parents were enrolled in this study, with 63 parents (87{\%}) partially or fully completing the trial. Of the parents who completed the trial, 95{\%} agreed that parents should be allowed to attend clinical bedside rounds. A total of 39 healthcare providers ' surveys were returned and 35 (90{\%}) agreed that parents should be allowed to attend rounds. Nine healthcare providers and 8 parents participated in an interview or focus group, augmenting our understanding of the ways in which PPCBR was beneficial. Conclusions Parents and healthcare providers strongly support PPCBR. NICUs should develop policies allowing PPCBR while mitigating the downsides and concerns of parents and healthcare providers such as decreased education opportunity and confi dentiality concerns. Trial registration number Australia and New Zealand Clinical Trials Register number, ACTRN12612000506897.",
author = "Mohamed Abdel-Latif and Danette Boswell and Margaret Broom and Judith Smith and Deborah DAVIS",
year = "2015",
doi = "10.1136/archdischild-2014-306724",
language = "English",
volume = "100",
pages = "F203--F209",
journal = "Archives of Disease in Childhood. Fetal and Neonatal Edition",
issn = "1359-2998",
publisher = "BMJ Publishing Group",
number = "3",

}

Parental presence on neonatal intensive care unit clinical bedside rounds: Randomised trial and focus group discussion. / Abdel-Latif, Mohamed; Boswell, Danette; Broom, Margaret; Smith, Judith; DAVIS, Deborah.

In: Archives of Disease in Childhood. Fetal and Neonatal Edition, Vol. 100, No. 3, 2015, p. F203-F209.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Parental presence on neonatal intensive care unit clinical bedside rounds: Randomised trial and focus group discussion

AU - Abdel-Latif, Mohamed

AU - Boswell, Danette

AU - Broom, Margaret

AU - Smith, Judith

AU - DAVIS, Deborah

PY - 2015

Y1 - 2015

N2 - Background There are limited data to inform the choice between parental presence at clinical bedside rounds (PPCBR) and non-PPCBR in neonatal intensive care units (NICUs). Methods We performed a single-centre, survey-based, crossed-over randomised trial involving parents of all infants who were admitted to NICU and anticipated to stay >11 days. Parents were randomly assigned using a computer-generated stratified block randomisation protocol to start with PPCBR or non-PPCBR and then crossed over to the other arm after a wash-out period. At the conclusion of each arm, parents completed the 'NICU Parental Stressor Scale ' (a validated tool) and a satisfaction survey. After completion of the trial, we surveyed all healthcare providers who participated at least in one PPCBR rounding episode. We also offered all participating parents and healthcare providers the opportunity to partake in a focus group discussion regarding PPCBR. Results A total of 72 parents were enrolled in this study, with 63 parents (87%) partially or fully completing the trial. Of the parents who completed the trial, 95% agreed that parents should be allowed to attend clinical bedside rounds. A total of 39 healthcare providers ' surveys were returned and 35 (90%) agreed that parents should be allowed to attend rounds. Nine healthcare providers and 8 parents participated in an interview or focus group, augmenting our understanding of the ways in which PPCBR was beneficial. Conclusions Parents and healthcare providers strongly support PPCBR. NICUs should develop policies allowing PPCBR while mitigating the downsides and concerns of parents and healthcare providers such as decreased education opportunity and confi dentiality concerns. Trial registration number Australia and New Zealand Clinical Trials Register number, ACTRN12612000506897.

AB - Background There are limited data to inform the choice between parental presence at clinical bedside rounds (PPCBR) and non-PPCBR in neonatal intensive care units (NICUs). Methods We performed a single-centre, survey-based, crossed-over randomised trial involving parents of all infants who were admitted to NICU and anticipated to stay >11 days. Parents were randomly assigned using a computer-generated stratified block randomisation protocol to start with PPCBR or non-PPCBR and then crossed over to the other arm after a wash-out period. At the conclusion of each arm, parents completed the 'NICU Parental Stressor Scale ' (a validated tool) and a satisfaction survey. After completion of the trial, we surveyed all healthcare providers who participated at least in one PPCBR rounding episode. We also offered all participating parents and healthcare providers the opportunity to partake in a focus group discussion regarding PPCBR. Results A total of 72 parents were enrolled in this study, with 63 parents (87%) partially or fully completing the trial. Of the parents who completed the trial, 95% agreed that parents should be allowed to attend clinical bedside rounds. A total of 39 healthcare providers ' surveys were returned and 35 (90%) agreed that parents should be allowed to attend rounds. Nine healthcare providers and 8 parents participated in an interview or focus group, augmenting our understanding of the ways in which PPCBR was beneficial. Conclusions Parents and healthcare providers strongly support PPCBR. NICUs should develop policies allowing PPCBR while mitigating the downsides and concerns of parents and healthcare providers such as decreased education opportunity and confi dentiality concerns. Trial registration number Australia and New Zealand Clinical Trials Register number, ACTRN12612000506897.

U2 - 10.1136/archdischild-2014-306724

DO - 10.1136/archdischild-2014-306724

M3 - Article

VL - 100

SP - F203-F209

JO - Archives of Disease in Childhood. Fetal and Neonatal Edition

JF - Archives of Disease in Childhood. Fetal and Neonatal Edition

SN - 1359-2998

IS - 3

ER -