Best evidence statement (BESt). Skin to skin care in a level III-IV NICU.
General
Guideline Title
Best evidence statement (BESt). Skin to skin care in a level III-IV NICU.
Bibliographic Source(s)
- Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center. Best evidence statement (BESt). Skin to skin care in a level III-IV NICU. Cincinnati (OH): Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center; 2013 Apr 30. 6 p. [6 references]
Guideline Status
This is the current release of the guideline.
Recommendations
Major Recommendations
The strength of the recommendation (strongly recommended, recommended, or no recommendation) and the quality of the evidence (1a‒5b) are defined at the end of the “Major Recommendations” field.
- There is insufficient evidence and lack of consensus to make a recommendation on the use of skin to skin care (SSC) to decrease the number of days on non-invasive respiratory support or number of days on ventilation in a Level III-IV neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) in a high income country.
- There is insufficient evidence and lack of consensus to make a recommendation on the use of SSC to decrease infection in a Level III-IV NICU in a high income country.
- It is not recommended that SSC be used to reduce mortality or length of stay in a Level III-IV NICU in a high income country (Conde-Agudelo, Belizán, & Diaz-Rossello, 2011 [1a]; Moore et al., 2012 [1a]).
Note : Randomized control trials in high income countries reported lower mean duration in hours/day of intermittent SSC (Conde-Agudelo, Belizán, & Diaz-Rossello, 2011 [1a]).
Definitions:
Table of Evidence Levels
Quality Level | Definition |
---|---|
1a† or 1b† | Systematic review, meta-analysis, or meta-synthesis of multiple studies |
2a or 2b | Best study design for domain |
3a or 3b | Fair study design for domain |
4a or 4b | Weak study design for domain |
5a or 5b | General review, expert opinion, case report, consensus report, or guideline |
5 | Local Consensus |
†a = good quality study; b = lesser quality study
Table of Language and Definitions for Recommendation Strength
Language for Strength | Definition |
---|---|
It is strongly recommended that… It is strongly recommended that… not… |
There is consensus that benefits clearly outweigh risks and burdens (or visa-versa for negative recommendations). |
It is recommended that… It is recommended that… not… |
There is consensus that benefits are closely balanced with risks and burdens. |
There is insufficient evidence and a lack of consensus to make a recommendation…
|
Note : See the original guideline document for the dimensions used for judging the strength of the recommendation.
Clinical Algorithm(s)
None provided
Scope
Disease/Condition(s)
Diseases and conditions requiring care in a Level III-IV neonatal intensive care unit (NICU)
Guideline Category
- Management
- Prevention
- Treatment
Clinical Specialty
- Family Practice
- Obstetrics and Gynecology
- Pediatrics
- Preventive Medicine
Intended Users
- Advanced Practice Nurses
- Hospitals
- Nurses
- Physician Assistants
- Physicians
- Respiratory Care Practitioners
Guideline Objective(s)
To evaluate, among neonates in a Level III-IV neonatal intensive care unit (NICU), if receiving skin to skin care (SSC) compared to those not receiving SSC improves outcomes of decreased mortality, infection, length of hospital stay days on non-invasive respiratory support, or days on a ventilator
Target Population
Neonates in a Level III-IV neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) in a high income country
Note : These guidelines do not apply to the following populations:
- Neonates in the low acuity setting (such as a newborn nursery)
- Neonates in a resource limited setting (low income country)
Interventions and Practices Considered
Skin to skin care (SSC)
Major Outcomes Considered
- Mortality
- Infection
- Length of hospital stay
- Days on non-invasive respiratory support
- Days on a ventilator
Methodology
Methods Used to Collect/Select the Evidence
- Searches of Electronic Databases
Description of Methods Used to Collect/Select the Evidence
Search Strategy
Databases : Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Cochrane Library, Medline
Search Terms : Skin to Skin Care, Kangaroo Care, Kangaroo Mother Care
Filters : 1999 to 2012, Human, English
Search Dates : October 16, 2012
Number of Source Documents
Not stated
Methods Used to Assess the Quality and Strength of the Evidence
- Weighting According to a Rating Scheme (Scheme Given)
Rating Scheme for the Strength of the Evidence
Table of Evidence Levels
Quality Level | Definition |
---|---|
1a† or 1b† | Systematic review, meta-analysis, or meta-synthesis of multiple studies |
2a or 2b | Best study design for domain |
3a or 3b | Fair study design for domain |
4a or 4b | Weak study design for domain |
5a or 5b | General review, expert opinion, case report, consensus report, or guideline |
5 | Local Consensus |
†a = good quality study; b = lesser quality study
Methods Used to Analyze the Evidence
- Review of Published Meta-Analyses
- Systematic Review
Description of the Methods Used to Analyze the Evidence
Not stated
Methods Used to Formulate the Recommendations
- Expert Consensus
Description of Methods Used to Formulate the Recommendations
Not stated
Rating Scheme for the Strength of the Recommendations
Table of Language and Definitions for Recommendation Strength
Language for Strength | Definition |
---|---|
It is strongly recommended that… It is strongly recommended that… not… | There is consensus that benefits clearly outweigh risks and burdens (or visa-versa for negative recommendations). |
It is recommended that… It is recommended that… not… | There is consensus that benefits are closely balanced with risks and burdens. |
There is insufficient evidence and a lack of consensus to make a recommendation… |
Note : See the original guideline document for the dimensions used for judging the strength of the recommendation.
Cost Analysis
A formal cost analysis was not performed and published cost analyses were not reviewed.
Method of Guideline Validation
- Peer Review
Description of Method of Guideline Validation
This Best Evidence Statement has been reviewed against quality criteria by two independent reviewers from the Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center (CCHMC) Evidence Collaboration.
Evidence Supporting the Recommendations
References Supporting the Recommendations
- Conde-Agudelo A, Belizan JM, Diaz-Rossello J. Kangaroo mother care to reduce morbidity and mortality in low birthweight infants. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011;(3):CD002771. PubMed
- Moore ER, Anderson GC, Bergman N, Dowswell T. Early skin-to-skin contact for mothers and their healthy newborn infants. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;5:CD003519. PubMed
Type of Evidence Supporting the Recommendations
The type of supporting evidence is identified and graded for one recommendation (see the “Major Recommendations” field). For two outcomes, there was insufficient evidence to make a recommendation.
Benefits/Harms of Implementing the Guideline Recommendations
Potential Benefits
Appropriate use of skin to skin care (SSC) in a level III-IV neonatal intensive care unit (NICU)
Potential Harms
Not stated
Qualifying Statements
Qualifying Statements
This Best Evidence Statement addresses only key points of care for the target population; it is not intended to be a comprehensive practice guideline. These recommendations result from review of literature and practices current at the time of their formulation. This Best Evidence Statement does not preclude using care modalities proven efficacious in studies published subsequent to the current revision of this document. This document is not intended to impose standards of care preventing selective variances from the recommendations to meet the specific and unique requirements of individual patients. Adherence to this Statement is voluntary. The clinician in light of the individual circumstances presented by the patient must make the ultimate judgment regarding the priority of any specific procedure.
Implementation of the Guideline
Description of Implementation Strategy
Applicability Issues
Frequently, in the Level III-IV neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) environment, patients are unstable, admitted after, or stay beyond the optimal period for skin to skin care (SSC).
Further research is needed concerning effectiveness and safety of early onset SSC are in unstabilized low birth weight infants and long term neurodevelopmental outcomes.
Institute of Medicine (IOM) National Healthcare Quality Report Categories
IOM Care Need
- Getting Better
- Living with Illness
IOM Domain
- Effectiveness
- Patient-centeredness
Identifying Information and Availability
Bibliographic Source(s)
- Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center. Best evidence statement (BESt). Skin to skin care in a level III-IV NICU. Cincinnati (OH): Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center; 2013 Apr 30. 6 p. [6 references]
Adaptation
Not applicable: The guideline was not adapted from another source.
Date Released
2013 Apr 30
Guideline Developer(s)
- Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center - Hospital/Medical Center
Source(s) of Funding
No external funding was received for development of this Best Evidence Statement (BESt).
Guideline Committee
Not stated
Composition of Group That Authored the Guideline
Team Leader/Author : Michael Moyer BSN, RNC-NIC
Support/Consultant : Barbara K. Giambra, MS, RN, CPNP, Evidence-Based Practice Mentor, Center for Professional Excellence/Research and Evidence-Based Practice
Ad Hoc/Content Reviewers : Tammy Casper MSN, MEd, RN, Education Specialist II; Linda Lacina, RN, Education Specialist II, NIDCAP Trainer
Financial Disclosures/Conflicts of Interest
Conflicts of interest were declared for each team member. No financial conflicts of interest were found.
Guideline Status
This is the current release of the guideline.
Guideline Availability
Available from the Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Web site.
Availability of Companion Documents
The following are available:
- Judging the strength of a recommendation. Cincinnati (OH): Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center; 2008 Jan. 1 p. Available from the Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center.
- Grading a body of evidence to answer a clinical question. Cincinnati (OH): Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center; 1 p.
- Table of evidence levels. Cincinnati (OH): Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center; 2008 Feb 29. 1 p. Available from the Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center.
Patient Resources
None available
NGC Status
This NGC summary was completed by ECRI Institute on September 6, 2013.
Copyright Statement
This NGC summary is based on the original full-text guideline, which is subject to the following copyright restrictions:
Copies of this Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center (CCHMC) Best Evidence Statement (BESt) are available online and may be distributed by any organization for the global purpose of improving child health outcomes. Examples of approved uses of the BESt include the following:
- Copies may be provided to anyone involved in the organization’s process for developing and implementing evidence based care;
- Hyperlinks to the CCHMC website may be placed on the organization’s website;
- The BESt may be adopted or adapted for use within the organization, provided that CCHMC receives appropriate attribution on all written or electronic documents; and
- Copies may be provided to patients and the clinicians who manage their care.
Notification of CCHMC at EBDMInfo@cchmc.org for any BESt adopted, adapted, implemented or hyperlinked by the organization is appreciated.
Disclaimer
NGC Disclaimer
The National Guideline Clearinghouse™ (NGC) does not develop, produce, approve, or endorse the guidelines represented on this site.
All guidelines summarized by NGC and hosted on our site are produced under the auspices of medical specialty societies, relevant professional associations, public or private organizations, other government agencies, health care organizations or plans, and similar entities.
Guidelines represented on the NGC Web site are submitted by guideline developers, and are screened solely to determine that they meet the NGC Inclusion Criteria.
NGC, AHRQ, and its contractor ECRI Institute make no warranties concerning the content or clinical efficacy or effectiveness of the clinical practice guidelines and related materials represented on this site. Moreover, the views and opinions of developers or authors of guidelines represented on this site do not necessarily state or reflect those of NGC, AHRQ, or its contractor ECRI Institute, and inclusion or hosting of guidelines in NGC may not be used for advertising or commercial endorsement purposes.
Readers with questions regarding guideline content are directed to contact the guideline developer.