Targeting discrepancies in linear growth measurements in the neonatal intensive care unit through nursing interventions: a quality improvement initiative.
{"title":"Targeting discrepancies in linear growth measurements in the neonatal intensive care unit through nursing interventions: a quality improvement initiative.","authors":"Gail Snyder, Rebekah Wilkinson, Raina Evans, Meagan Owen, Akram Yazdani, Covi Tibe, Catherine Perez, Lindsay F Holzapfel","doi":"10.1038/s41372-025-02327-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Accurate length measurements are essential for infants to identify growth deficiencies and adjust nutrition accordingly. The gold standard for length measurement in infants is using a length board with two people to obtain an accurate clinical assessment. We aimed to improve the number of measurements with the desired minimal difference, defined as a discrepancy ≤1 cm between nurse and audit measurements, in our center. Our secondary aim was to increase and maintain the number of length boards available.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This quality improvement (QI) study used a before-and-after intervention comparison design in a single-level IV neonatal intensive care unit between June 2023 and December 2023, completing two Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycles and one sustainability cycle that targeted nursing interventions. Blinded audits were performed by the QI team < 48 h after bedside nurse measurement and discrepancies between measurements were recorded. Chi-squared testing determined the significance between measurement discrepancies at each time point.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The QI team measured 34 infants at each time point for 136 total measurements. There was a significant improvement in the desired minimal difference between the pre-intervention and post-PDSA #2 groups (38% vs 74%, p = 0.003) and between the pre-intervention and sustainability cycle groups (38% vs 71%, p = 0.007). There was no significant difference between PDSA #2 and our sustainability cycle. There was a 32% improvement among infants with consistent length percentiles between nurse and audit measures after PDSA #2 (42% vs 74%, p = 0.012). The number of length boards was increased during the study. Anonymous nursing surveys revealed an improvement in the perceived ease of use of length boards (51-71%) and minimized knowledge gaps.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>During the time of our intervention, there was an improvement in the precision of linear measurements and length board usage. Future PDSA cycles will focus on increasing the availability of length boards and establishing continued length board education.</p>","PeriodicalId":16690,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Perinatology","volume":" ","pages":"680-685"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Perinatology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41372-025-02327-9","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/6/2 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objective: Accurate length measurements are essential for infants to identify growth deficiencies and adjust nutrition accordingly. The gold standard for length measurement in infants is using a length board with two people to obtain an accurate clinical assessment. We aimed to improve the number of measurements with the desired minimal difference, defined as a discrepancy ≤1 cm between nurse and audit measurements, in our center. Our secondary aim was to increase and maintain the number of length boards available.
Methods: This quality improvement (QI) study used a before-and-after intervention comparison design in a single-level IV neonatal intensive care unit between June 2023 and December 2023, completing two Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycles and one sustainability cycle that targeted nursing interventions. Blinded audits were performed by the QI team < 48 h after bedside nurse measurement and discrepancies between measurements were recorded. Chi-squared testing determined the significance between measurement discrepancies at each time point.
Results: The QI team measured 34 infants at each time point for 136 total measurements. There was a significant improvement in the desired minimal difference between the pre-intervention and post-PDSA #2 groups (38% vs 74%, p = 0.003) and between the pre-intervention and sustainability cycle groups (38% vs 71%, p = 0.007). There was no significant difference between PDSA #2 and our sustainability cycle. There was a 32% improvement among infants with consistent length percentiles between nurse and audit measures after PDSA #2 (42% vs 74%, p = 0.012). The number of length boards was increased during the study. Anonymous nursing surveys revealed an improvement in the perceived ease of use of length boards (51-71%) and minimized knowledge gaps.
Conclusions: During the time of our intervention, there was an improvement in the precision of linear measurements and length board usage. Future PDSA cycles will focus on increasing the availability of length boards and establishing continued length board education.
目的:准确的长度测量对婴儿识别生长缺陷并相应地调整营养至关重要。婴儿长度测量的黄金标准是使用两人的长度板来获得准确的临床评估。我们的目标是在我们的中心,以最小的差异(定义为护士和审计测量之间的差异≤1厘米)来改善测量的次数。我们的第二个目标是增加和保持可用的长度板的数量。方法:本质量改善(QI)研究采用干预前后比较设计,于2023年6月至2023年12月在单级新生儿重症监护病房进行,完成两个计划-做-研究-行动(PDSA)周期和一个针对护理干预的可持续性周期。结果:QI团队在每个时间点测量了34名婴儿,总共测量了136次。在干预前和pdsa #2后组(38% vs 74%, p = 0.003)以及干预前和可持续性周期组(38% vs 71%, p = 0.007)之间期望的最小差异有显著改善。PDSA #2和我们的可持续性循环之间没有显著差异。在PDSA #2后,在护士和审计措施之间长度百分位数一致的婴儿中,有32%的改善(42%对74%,p = 0.012)。在研究过程中,长度板的数量有所增加。匿名护理调查显示,在使用长度板的易用性方面有所改善(51-71%),并将知识差距降至最低。结论:在我们的干预期间,线性测量的精度和长度板的使用有了改善。未来的PDSA周期将侧重于增加长板的可用性,并建立持续的长板教育。
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Perinatology provides members of the perinatal/neonatal healthcare team with original information pertinent to improving maternal/fetal and neonatal care. We publish peer-reviewed clinical research articles, state-of-the art reviews, comments, quality improvement reports, and letters to the editor. Articles published in the Journal of Perinatology embrace the full scope of the specialty, including clinical, professional, political, administrative and educational aspects. The Journal also explores legal and ethical issues, neonatal technology and product development.
The Journal’s audience includes all those that participate in perinatal/neonatal care, including, but not limited to neonatologists, perinatologists, perinatal epidemiologists, pediatricians and pediatric subspecialists, surgeons, neonatal and perinatal nurses, respiratory therapists, pharmacists, social workers, dieticians, speech and hearing experts, other allied health professionals, as well as subspecialists who participate in patient care including radiologists, laboratory medicine and pathologists.