Family‐centred care change during COVID‐19

Abstract

Background: Family-centred care (FCC) is an approach to promote family and health care provider partnership. This has been incorporated into neonatal intensive care units (NICUs) worldwide. However, FCC in low resource health settings, such as Thailand, is challenging and further impacted by coronavirus disease 2019 .Aims: To evaluate FCC innovations to improve respect, collaboration and support in a Thai NICU. Study design: A quasi-experimental study was conducted in an NICU in southern Thailand. Pre-implementation was prior to COVID-19, and parental and staff perceptions of FCC were measured via Perceptions of Family Centred Care-Parent (PFCC-P) and -Staff (PFCC-S) survey. The FCC innovations were developed by stakeholders based on the COVID-19 restrictions, pre-survey results, parents' and clinicians' interviews and integrative review, then implemented via a flowchart. Post-implementation evaluation was via repeated surveys. Comparisons were made pre-and post-implementation, with Mann-Whitney U-test statistics for parents and Wilcoxon's Rank Sum for staff.Results: A total of 185 (85 pre; 100 post) parents and 20 (pre and post; paired group) health care professionals participated. Because of COVID-19, many planned interventions were unfeasible, however, other innovations achieved (e.g., structured telephone updates, information booklet revision). There was an increase in parents' perception of respect ([median] 2.50-3.50), collaboration (2.33-3.33) and support (2.60-3.60) domains and overall (2.50-3.43; p < .001; 95% CI: 2.93-3.11). Interdisciplinary professionals' perception of FCC did not significantly change pre-and post-implementation/COVID-19 pandemic for respect (3.00-2.92), collaboration . Conclusion:Despite the challenges of COVID-19 restricting NICU access, the provision of FCC was maintained and even improved.

Interventions to maintain essential services for maternal, newborn, child, and adolescent health during the COVID-19 pandemic: A scoping review of evidence from low- and middle-income countries

“…The most represented region was Africa (34%), with three studies being conducted in Zambia [ 12 – 14 ], three in Zimbabwe [ 15 – 17 ], two in Nigeria [ 15 , 18 ], and one in Cameroon [ 19 ], Kenya [ 15 ], and South Africa [ 20 ] each. Further, 31% of the interventions were carried out in Southeast Asia, including six in India [ 21 - 26 ], two in Indonesia [ 27 , 28 ], and one in Thailand [ 29 ] and Bangladesh [ 30 ] each. Five interventions were conducted in the Eastern Mediterranean (16%), and one each in Iran [ 31 ], Jordan [ 32 ], Lebanon [ 33 ], Pakistan [ 34 ], and Somalia [ 35 ].…”