Traditional open-bay versus single-family room neonatal intensive care unit: a comparison of selected nutrition outcomes

Erickson, Christina L.; Kattelmann, Kendra; Remington, Jessica; Ren, Chunhui; Helseth, Carol C; Stevens, Dennis C.

doi:10.2147/rrn.s15539

Cited by 5 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 16 publications

(31 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Most (n=14) were before-and-after studies and the remainder were contemporaneous studies. 10 12 17 18 21 43–60 Three studies were low quality and only one had a high-quality score. Many of these studies included statistically assessed findings, with most favouring single rooms or showing no difference between accommodation types.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…Overall, only 25 of the studies included reported p values for differences in baseline characteristics between patients admitted to multibed versus single-bed rooms. Of these 25, only 5 reported significant differences in any parameters (p≤0.05): one study reports lower caregiver’s age at the time of patient’s admission, 9 three report lower gestational age of infants admitted to single rooms in neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) 10–12 and one reports a higher proportion of female patients were admitted to single rooms. 13 The latter study however also notes that patients admitted to single rooms were more frail due to multiple comorbidities and functional dependence.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Fourteen papers reported on outcomes in neonatal care. 10 12 17 21 43 46–48 51 56–60 Many of the results for neonates in ICUs showed no differences in outcomes between accommodation types. Significant improvements were seen in breastfeeding outcomes 17 21 58 61 and weight gain 51 61 in favour of single rooms.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Twenty-three studies were found that assessed maternity and neonatal care (see figure 3 and online supplemental table 4). Most (n=14) were before-and-after studies and the remainder were contemporaneous studies 10 12 17 18 21 43–60. Three studies were low quality and only one had a high-quality score.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Fourteen papers reported on outcomes in neonatal care 10 12 17 21 43 46–48 51 56–60. Many of the results for neonates in ICUs showed no differences in outcomes between accommodation types.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Clinical, humanistic and economic outcomes, including experiencing of patient safety events, associated with admitting patients to single rooms compared with shared accommodation for acute hospital admissions: a systematic review and narrative synthesis

Bertuzzi¹,

Martin²,

Clarke³

et al. 2023

BMJ Open

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivesAssess the impact of single rooms versus multioccupancy accommodation on inpatient healthcare outcomes and processes.DesignSystematic review and narrative synthesis.Data sourcesMedline, Embase, Google Scholar and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence website up to 17 February 2022.Eligibility criteriaEligible papers assessed the effect on inpatients staying in hospital of being assigned to a either a single room or shared accommodation, except where that assignment was for a direct clinical reason like preventing infection spread.Data extraction and synthesisData were extracted and synthesised narratively, according to the methods of Campbellet al.ResultsOf 4861 citations initially identified, 145 were judged to be relevant to this review. Five main method types were reported. All studies had methodological issues that potentially biased the results by not adjusting for confounding factors that are likely to have contributed to the outcomes. Ninety-two papers compared clinical outcomes for patients in single rooms versus shared accommodation. No clearly consistent conclusions could be drawn about overall benefits of single rooms. Single rooms were most likely to be associated with a small overall clinical benefit for the most severely ill patients, especially neonates in intensive care. Patients who preferred single rooms tended to do so for privacy and for reduced disturbances. By contrast, some groups were more likely to prefer shared accommodation to avoid loneliness. Greater costs associated with building single rooms were small and likely to be recouped over time by other efficiencies.ConclusionsThe lack of difference between inpatient accommodation types in a large number of studies suggests that there would be little effect on clinical outcomes, particularly in routine care. Patients in intensive care areas are most likely to benefit from single rooms. Most patients preferred single rooms for privacy and some preferred shared accommodation for avoiding loneliness.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42022311689.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 98%