Objectives: During hospitalization in neonatal intensive care units, neonates are exposed to many painful procedures within a stressful environment. To date, many evidence-based guidelines are available. However, the quality of these guidelines and their clinical application remain unclear. This systematic review aimed to determinie the quality of existing guidelines on the management of procedural pain in neonates and to summarize the recommendations provided by these guidelines. Materials and Methods: A structured search was conducted in Embase, PubMed, CINAHL, JBI database, and gray literature resources in November 2018 to identify relevant guidelines published from 2007 onward. Published guidelines and guidelines from complementary searches were included in the treating assessment or management of procedural pain in neonates. The methodological quality was analyzed using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II Instrument. Results: A total of 1154 records were identified. After screening for eligibility, 17 guidelines were included in this review. Among these, 11 were identified to be high-quality guidelines. Besides the usual recommendations for pharmacological and nonpharmacological treatments, the inclusion of parents, improving interprofessional collaboration, and considering the setting were identified as important elements. Discussion: The results of this review show that there is a need to improve the methodological quality of guidelines for procedural pain in newborns. The set of recommendations for procedural pain prevention needs to involve not only pharmacological and nonpharmacological pain treatment but also parents and interprofessional collaboration. It is also essential to take into account facilitators, barriers, and the context to improve pain management.

Introduction: Newborns are subject to many painful procedures. Pharmacological and non-pharmacological approaches alone are not enough, and it is necessary to consider other contributing elements such as the environment, interprofessional collaboration and parental involvement. The aim of this feasibility study was to explore interprofessionality and the role of parents in improving the management of painful procedures in newborns and pain management strategies. Materials and Methods: a pre-post feasibility study using a mixed method approach was conducted. Questionnaires, interviews and focus groups were used to describe the parents' views on their child's pain management and involvement in care as well as to explore the level of interprofessionality and feasibility. Results: Collaboration between physicians and nurses improved following the implementation of a complex interprofessional intervention involving professionals, parents and newborns. In spite of improving professional collaboration in procedural pain management, parents were attributed a passive role or only marginally involved in in the infant's pain management. However, parents stated—as elicited by the questionnaires and interviews—that they wished to receive more information and be included in painful procedures executed on their infant. Discussion: Management of painful procedures in neonates needs to be changed. Interprofessional collaboration contributes to improved procedural pain management in neonates. It is essential to include parents as active members in the interprofessional healthcare team.

Background: During the Covid-19 pandemic, nurses experienced increased pressure. Consequently, ethical concerns and psychological distress emerged. This study aimed to assess nurses’ ethical conflict, resilience and psychological impact, and compare these variables between nurses who worked in Covid-19 wards and nurses who did not. Methods: Design—Multicentre online survey. Setting—Multi-site public hospital; all nursing staff were invited to participate. The survey included validated tools and a novel instrument to assess ethical conflict. Spearman’s rho coefficient was used to assess correlations between ethical conflict and psychological distress, logistic regressions to evaluate relationships between nurses’ characteristics and outcome variables, and the Mann–Whitney/t-test to compare groups. Results: 548 questionnaires out of 2039 were returned (275 = Covid-19; 273 = non-Covid-19). We found a low–moderate level of ethical conflict (median = 111.5 [76–152]), which emerged mostly for seeing patients dying alone. A moderate and significant positive correlation emerged between ethical conflict and psychological distress rs (546) = 0.453, p < 0.001. Nurses working in Covid-19-ICUs (OR = 7.18; 95%CI = 3.96–13.01; p < 0.001) and Covid-19 wards (OR = 5.85; 95%CI = 3.56–9.6; p < 0.001) showed higher ethical conflict. Resilience was a protective factor for ethical conflict. Conclusions: Ethical conflict was significantly linked to psychological distress, while a higher level of resilience was found to be a protective factor. These results can be informative for nursing management in future similar crises.

During hospitalization, neonates are exposed to a stressful environment and a high number of painful procedures. If pain is not treated adequately, short‐ and long‐term complications may develop. Despite evidence about neonatal pain and available guidelines, procedural pain remains undertreated. This gap between research and practice is mostly due to limited implementation of evidence‐based knowledge and time constraints. This study describes in detail the development process of a complex interprofessional intervention to improve the management of procedural pain in neonates called NEODOL© (NEOnato DOLore). The framework of the Medical Research Council (MRC) for the development and evaluation of complex interventions was used as a methodological guide for the design of the NEODOL© intervention. The development of the intervention is based on several steps and multiple methods. To report this process, we used the Criteria for Reporting the Development of Complex Interventions in Healthcare (CReDECI 2). Additionally, we evaluated the content of the intervention using a Delphi method to obtain consensus from experts, stakeholders, and parents. The complex interprofessional intervention, NEODOL©, is developed and designed for three groups: healthcare professionals, parents, and neonates for a level IIb neonatal unit at a regional hospital in southern Switzerland. A total of 16 panelists participated in the Delphi process. At the end of the Delphi process, the panelists endorsed the NEODOL© intervention as important and feasible. Following the MRC guidelines, a multimethod process was used to develop a complex interprofessional intervention to improve the management of painful procedures in newborns. Complex interprofessional interventions need theoretical bases, careful development, and integration of stakeholders to provide a comprehensive approach. The NEODOL intervention consists of promising components and has the potential to improve the management of painful procedures and should facilitate the knowledge translation into practice.

The COVID-19 pandemic is a major public health problem with millions of confirmed cases and deaths described. Nurses are among the health care professionals most involved at the front line, caring for those affected by COVID-19. Patients and families have been subjected to a high emotional burden of fear, anxiety, and uncertainty. The COVID-19 pandemic has had a significant impact on the approach to patients, the organisation of care, and communication with patients and their families, all requiring considerable adaptation on the part of nurses and health care professionals. The overall aim of this research was to find out the needs of patients with COVID-19, the nursing interventions provided and their outcomes, and to explore the experiences of the nurses, patients, and caregivers. A mixed method study will be performed with a convergent design. The study was divided into three phases. Quantitative methods involved nurses and patients affected by COVID-19 with a questionnaire. Qualitative methods involved nurses, patients, and caregivers with interviews and finally a quantitative analysis of the nursing documentation of the interviewed patients. We hope that this study will help us to understand and identify the main nursing and support needs expressed by patients and their families at different stages of their illness.

The COVID-19 pandemic heavily impacted nursing care. This study aimed to understand which nursing interventions were instrumental in responding to COVID-19 patients’ needs by exploring the experiences of patients and nurses. In this mixed-method study with an explanatory sequential design, we involved nurses caring for COVID-19 patients in intensive and sub-intensive care units and patients. In the first phase, we collected data through a survey that assessed patients’ needs from the perspective of nurses and patients, as well as patient satisfaction. In the second phase, qualitative data were collected through interviews with patients and nurses. In the third phase, we extracted quantitative data from patients’ records. Our sample included 100 nurses, 59 patients, 15 patient records, and 31 interviews (15 patients, 16 nurses). The results from the first phase showed patients and nurses agreed on the most important difficulties: “breathing”, “sleep/rest”, and “communication”. Nursing care was rated positively by 90% of the patients. In the second phase, four themes were identified through the patients’ interviews: “my problems”, “my emotions”, “helpful factors”, and “nursing care”. Five themes were identified through the nurses’ interviews: “the context”, “nurses’ experiences and emotions”, “facilitators and barriers to patient care”, “nursing care”, and “the professional role”. From the third phase, the analysis of the clinical documentation, it was not possible to understand the nursing care model used by the nurses. In conclusion, nurses adopted a reactive-adaptive approach, based on experience/knowledge, pursuing generalized objectives, and adapting their response to the clinical evolution. In difficult contexts, nursing care requires a constant competent technical-relational presence at the patient’s bedside.