4.2 Article

Nurses' Perceptions of Rooming-in for Caregivers of Infants with CCHD

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.pedn.2020.08.008

关键词

Rooming in care; Congenital heart disease; Congenital heart defect; Discharge planning; Qualitative research

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Congenital heart disease (CHD) is common and infants with critical congenital heart disease (CCHD) require complex medical care. The rooming-in process allows caregivers to learn skills for safely caring for their child, but there is limited literature on its implementation in pediatric cardiac care settings. A qualitative study explored nurses' perceptions and strategies to enhance the rooming-in process for caregivers of infants with CCHD, aiming to improve outcomes for these infants.
Congenital heart disease (CHD) is the most common congenital defect. Infants with critical congenital heart disease (CCHD) require complex medical care, and their caregivers need extensive training before being discharged home to safely care for their child. The rooming-in process provides caregivers with an opportunity to learn, practice, and manage the skills required for discharge to home during hospitalization. Although the literature reflects positive implications for the use of the rooming-in process in other populations (e.g., neonatal abstinence syndrome), literature about the rooming-in process in a pediatric cardiac care setting is limited. There remains a gap in the literature pertaining to the viewpoints of nurses, specifically as it relates to implementing a rooming-in process. Therefore, a qualitative study design was chosen to explore the nurses' perceptions of the rooming-in process using focus groups. The purpose of this study was to gain insight from nurses as to strategies to enhance the rooming-in process for caregivers of infants with CCHD. Additionally, we explored potential education and interventions to improve outcomes for infants with CCHD preparing to be discharged home. (c) 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据