Introduction: Shared decision-making is considered to be a key aspect of woman-centered care and a strategy to improve communication, respect, and satisfaction. This scoping review identified studies that used a shared decision-making support strategy as the primary intervention in the context of perinatal care. Methods: A literature search of PubMed, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, PsycINFO, and SCOPUS databases was completed for English-language studies conducted from January 2000 through November 2019 that examined the impact of a shared decision-making support strategy on a perinatal decision (such as choice of mode of birth after prior cesarean birth). Studies that only examined the use of a decision aid were excluded. Nine studies met inclusion criteria and were examined for the nature of the shared decision-making intervention as well as outcome measures such as decisional evaluation, including decisional conflict, decisional regret, and certainty. Results: The 9 included studies were heterogeneous with regard to shared decision-making interventions and measured outcomes and were performed in different countries and in a variety of perinatal situations, such as women facing the choice of mode of birth after prior cesarean birth. The impact of a shared decision-making intervention on women’s perception of shared decision-making and on their experiences of the decision-making process were mixed. There may be a decrease in decisional conflict and regret related to feeling informed, but no change in decisional certainty. Discussion: Despite the call to increase the use of shared decision-making in perinatal care, there are few studies that have examined the effects of a shared decision-making support strategy. Further studies that include antepartum and intrapartum settings, which include common perinatal decisions such as induction of labor, are needed. In addition, clear guidance and strategies for successfully integrating shared decision-making and practice recommendations would help women and health care providers navigate these complex decisions.
Introduction: Shared decision-making is considered to be a key aspect of woman-centered care and a strategy to improve communication, respect, and satisfaction. This scoping review identified studies that used a shared decision-making support strategy as the primary intervention in the context of perinatal care. Methods: A literature search of PubMed, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, PsycINFO, and SCOPUS databases was completed for English-language studies conducted from January 2000 through November 2019 that examined the impact of a shared decision-making support strategy on a perinatal decision (such as choice of mode of birth after prior cesarean birth). Studies that only examined the use of a decision aid were excluded. Nine studies met inclusion criteria and were examined for the nature of the shared decision-making intervention as well as outcome measures such as decisional evaluation, including decisional conflict, decisional regret, and certainty. Results: The 9 included studies were heterogeneous with regard to shared decision-making interventions and measured outcomes and were performed in different countries and in a variety of perinatal situations, such as women facing the choice of mode of birth after prior cesarean birth. The impact of a shared decision-making intervention on women’s perception of shared decision-making and on their experiences of the decision-making process were mixed. There may be a decrease in decisional conflict and regret related to feeling informed, but no change in decisional certainty. Discussion: Despite the call to increase the use of shared decision-making in perinatal care, there are few studies that have examined the effects of a shared decision-making support strategy. Further studies that include antepartum and intrapartum settings, which include common perinatal decisions such as induction of labor, are needed. In addition, clear guidance and strategies for successfully integrating shared decision-making and practice recommendations would help women and health care providers navigate these complex decisions.
OBJECTIVES: Sucking problems in preterm infants can be specified by means of visual observation. The Neonatal Oral-Motor Assessment Scale (NOMAS) is the visual observation method most commonly used to assess the non-nutritive sucking (NNS) and nutritive sucking (NS) skills of infants up to approximately 8 weeks postterm. During the first 2 min of a regular feeding the infant's sucking skill is assessed, either immediately or on video. Although NOMAS has been used since 1993, little is known about the method's reliability. The aim of our study was to determine the test-retest and inter-rater reliability of NOMAS.METHODS: The 75 infants included in this study were born at 26-36 weeks postmenstrual age (PMA). Four observers participated in the study. They were trained and certified to administer NOMAS in the Netherlands by M.M. Palmer between 2000 and 2002.RESULTS: We found the test-retest agreement of NOMAS to be 'fair' to 'almost perfect' (Cohen's kappa [kappa] between 0.33 and 0.94), whereas the inter-rater agreement with respect to the diagnosis was 'moderate' to 'substantial' (Cohen's kappa, between 0.40 and 0.65). As a diagnostic tool, however, the current version of NOMAS cannot be used for both full-term and preterm infants. For a measuring instrument such as NOMAS, one should aim at reliability coefficients for inter-rater and test-retest agreement of at least 0.8. A Cohen's kappa of 0.6 or less we find unacceptable. Nonetheless, by observing sucking and swallowing according to a protocol much useful information can be gathered about the development of an infant's sucking skills. For instance, whether the infant is able to co-ordinate sucking and swallowing, whether the infant can maintain sucking, swallowing and breathing during the continuous phase and whether the infant is able to suck rhythmically with equally long bursts. In addition, NOMAS offers useful aids for intervention.CONCLUSIONS: NOMAS should be re-adjusted in order to improve inter-rater agreement, and at the same time current insights into the development of sucking and swallowing should be incorporated in the method.
Het aantal alarmen dat afgaat op een Neonatale Intensive Care Unit (NICU) is hoog omdat de vitale fysiologische parameters van de neonaten als vanzelfsprekend continu gemonitord worden door medische apparatuur. Dit leidt tot een enorme alarmdruk bij NICU-verpleegkundigen, want elk alarm moet beoordeeld worden. Echter, slechts 20% van de klinische alarmen is relevant, wat niet alleen leidt tot inefficiënte werkprocessen, maar ook tot alarmmoeheid en daarmee bedreiging van patiëntveiligheid. Literatuur- en praktijkonderzoek door studenten HBO-ICT en onderzoekers van het lectoraat ICT-innovaties in de Zorg (Hogeschool Windesheim) op de NICU van Isala ziekenhuis in Zwolle laat zien dat er winst lijkt te behalen in het slim combineren van alarmen en het aanpassen van grenswaarden. Hier kan uiteraard niet zomaar mee geëxperimenteerd worden in de werkelijke klinische setting. Isala heeft daarom behoefte aan een testomgeving waarin de impact van alarmaanpassingen op alarmreductie gemeten kan worden zonder dat patiëntveiligheid daarmee in gevaar komt. Een digital twin kan hier een oplossing bieden. Dit is een replica van de fysieke, dynamische NICU-setting waarin data van patiënten, apparaten en hun onderlinge interacties gesimuleerd kunnen worden en artificial intelligence voorspellingen kan doen over de impact van veranderingen. In de gezondheidszorg wordt de potentie van digital twins de laatste twee jaar gezien en het aantal publicaties en best practices neemt toe, maar toepassingen op de intensive care-setting zijn nog dun gezaaid. Dit project, waarvoor Windesheim, Isala en data science agency Little Rocket de krachten bundelen, levert hier een bijdrage aan
