Professional Documents
Culture Documents
EDITED BY
A L L I S O N G . D E M P S E Y,
JOANNA C. M. COLE,
AND
SAGE N. SAXTON
iv
DOI: 10.1093/med-psych/9780197545027.001.0001
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
We also dedicate this book to the memory of Cheryl Ann Milford, Ed.S.,
our friend, colleague, and NNNP mentor. Ms. Milford was passionate
about education and envisioned a comprehensive textbook related to NICU
psychology and behavioral health support; it is our great honor to fulfill that
dream. Cheryl, you will always be remembered, you will always be treasured,
you will always be loved. We miss you every day.
Our hope is that this book, inspired by Dr. Hynan and Ms. Milford, will serve
developing and established professionals alike and will continue to improve
patient-and family-centered care in both fetal and neonatal settings. In
their honor.
To Alex, who is a role model for finding joy and living with grace even
through the toughest of times—you inspire me every day. And to the amazing
interprofessional team with whom I work and the families who allow us into
their lives. I count myself lucky to be part of such an incredible community.
AGD
JCMC
To my precious family Rob, Sophia, and Lillian for their ongoing love and
constant support; my mentors and colleagues; and to all the children and
families who have graciously shared their experience, thank you.
SNS
vi
vi
CONTENTS
Contributors xi
viii C ontents
10. Screening for Perinatal Mood and Anxiety Disorders Across Settings 147
Amy E. Baughcum, Olivia E. Clark, Shannon L. Gillespie, and Jeanne Decker
13. Addressing Perinatal Substance Use Across the Continuum of Care 196
Jennifer J. Paul, Jessalyn Kelleher, Susanne Klawetter, and Sarah Nagle-Yang
17. The Value of Peer Support for High-Risk Pregnant Women and Their NICU
Infants 261
Sue L. Hall, Jenny Landry, and Erin Thatcher
C ontents ix
24. Mental Health and Coping Challenges Among Families in the NICU 375
Jennifer Harned Adams, Stacey R. Bromberg, and Anna Zimmermann
28. After the NICU: Primary Care Behavioral Health Services 435
Verenea J. Serrano, Jonna H. von Schulz, Melissa Buchholz, Kristina Malik,
Amy Wrenn, and Ayelet Talmi
Index 451
x
xi
CONTRIBUTORS
xii C ontributors
C ontributors xiii
xiv C ontributors
C ontributors xv
xvi C ontributors
SECTION I
INTRODUCTION
HISTORY OF PSYCHOLOGICAL SERVICES IN
NEONATAL INTENSIVE CARE
M I C H A E L T. H Y N A N ■
That the goal of neonatal care would evolve from getting the baby home
in the best possible shape to getting the family home in the best pos-
sible shape.
—Sheri Nance (circa 1990)
4 M ichael T. H ynan
When my son, Chris, was born prematurely (30 weeks) in 1980, I felt that I had
been hit by an emotional freight train. Then, I was an academic clinical psychol-
ogist who knew nothing about NICUs. In the years that followed, I shifted my
research focus to the study of post-traumatic stress (PTS) symptoms in NICU
parents. Early on, I also wrote a book published in 1987 (The Pain of Premature
Parents: A Psychological Guide for Coping) to help parents adjust emotionally to
the NICU experience. At that time, books written for NICU parents were pri-
marily medical in nature. Through a series of fortuitous incidents and accidents,
I learned of an organization called Parent Care: Parents of Premature and
High-Risk Infants, International. I joined Parent Care and attended its first na-
tional meeting in 1984. There I met many parents (including the authors Helen
Harrison and Sheri Nance) along with a select set of nurses, social workers, and
neonatologists, all of whom were interested in promoting the physical and emo-
tional health of NICU parents, both during their infant’s hospitalization and af-
terward. Many of these parents and NICU professionals helped me in gathering
5
Introduction5
data for PTS research and in providing stories for my book. I owe many debts of
gratitude to these dedicated people. You will learn some of their names in this
chapter. I apologize to those whose names I have omitted.
A warning! I have never worked in a NICU. So, I know little from firsthand ex-
perience about the nuts and bolts of what a NICU psychologist must do routinely.
The other chapters of this book describe the typical activities of psychologists and
other behavioral health clinicians in perinatal care. Rather than firsthand expe-
rience, my sources include many conversations among NICU psychologists (and
social workers, nurses, neonatologists, occupational therapists, etc.) throughout
the years. I have also talked with hundreds of parents, primarily at regional and
national meetings of groups such as Parent Care. I have benefited greatly from the
ethos of the general perinatal community that typically welcomes everyone in a
multidisciplinary fashion, even a clinical psychologist/NICU parent.
My activities throughout the years have changed. At the beginning, I was
more directly involved in attempting to help high-risk parents adjust emotion-
ally through the guidance in my now outdated book. The book led to invitations
to give talks at conferences. As I began to publish PTS studies, I met other
researchers and I used the emerging internet technology to build an academic
home page housed in my psychology department. The home page allowed others
interested in psychology and PTS in the NICU to find me. I believe that my grad-
uate students and I (along with the neonatologists and parents who assisted with
data collection) authored the first publication (1996) in the medical and psycho-
logical literature that contained “symptoms of posttraumatic stress” and “mothers
of infants at high-risk” in the title.
Over time, I began to meet some of the first psychologists working in NICUs.
These contacts came through my internet page and chance meetings at confer-
ences I regularly attended—the National Perinatal Association (NPA) annual
conference and the Gravens Conference. Some of these psychologists were hired
using discretionary funds or grants by chiefs of neonatology, who recognized that
psychologists had an added value for the well-being of their NICU parents and
staff. Other psychologists, who spent only some of their hours in the NICU, were
full-time employees of larger children’s hospitals and had obligations in other
departments. Many of the first NICU psychologists were creating their own job
descriptions. I realized that communication among them could prove beneficial,
so I arranged periodic phone calls among them to discuss whatever they wished.
NPA allowed me to work more closely with parents of high-risk infants,
along with Erika Goyer, Becky Hatfield, and Kristy Love of the Family Advocacy
Network. NPA board membership gave me frequent contacts with wonderful,
caring perinatal professionals and parents. In the early 2010s, NPA began to
sponsor large multidisciplinary projects (e.g., “Guidelines for the Care of the Late
Preterm Infant”). I was fortunate enough to be at a board meeting when neo-
natologist Dr. Sue Hall proposed a project involving recommendations for psy-
chosocial programs for NICU parents. Sue asked me to co-chair the project with
her, and saying “Yes” was one of the best decisions I ever made—not only for the
work that was produced but also because Sue is the finest collaborator I have had
6
6 M ichael T. H ynan
the pleasure to work with professionally. The project culminated in articles that
appeared in a special issue of Journal of Perinatology (Hall & Hynan, 2015). These
articles continue to be cited widely in the United States and other countries. This
issue was one more step toward the evolving concept of the newborn intensive
parenting unit (NIPU), which I describe later (Hall et al., 2017).
I am now in my 70s. My son recently turned 40. So, from the perspective of
Drs. Dempsey, Cole, and Saxton, I qualify as a historian. Again, the reader should
know that what follows is not a traditional historical perspective from someone
educated in a medical field. I hope that I can convey, as a NICU parent and friend
of professionals, an appreciation of the changes in psychological services that have
occurred in perinatal medicine from a parent’s perspective and how parents have
contributed to this evolution. These psychological services include (a) peer-to-
peer support, (b) staff collaboration with parents, and (c) formal psychological
assessment and counseling by mental health professionals.
OVER VIEW
In this chapter, I describe the changing culture of neonatal care. In using the
term “culture,” I am referring to the prevailing goals and values of care during
certain time periods. Again, my reference point views culture shifts as reflecting
changes in how an infant’s parents/caregivers are involved in the overall neonatal
care team.
This historical progression includes stages that began with (a) “parents excluded
from the NICU” and proceeded to (b) parents as “observers/visitors” during only
a few hours of the day, (c) parents welcome for more hours (except during shift
changes and rounds) as partial care providers, (d) parents encouraged to be pri-
mary care providers for as many hours a day as possible, (e) NICU redesign
incorporating single-family rooms to facilitate skin-to-skin contact and comfort
of parents 24/7, and (f) a NIPU culture in which the health and emotional well-
being of NIPU staff and parents are valued as much as the health of the high-risk
infant (Hall et al., 2017).
Neonatologist Dr. Bob Cicco has aptly compared this historical progression
in the NICU as being akin to a “medical” house in which neonatology in the
early years would get the infant at the front door and the parents were told to
show up at the back door in a month after the infant was fixed by the medical
team. A decade later, parents were invited to a comfortably decorated living room,
where they were called into their infant’s large ward and allowed to “visit” for a
couple hours while they watched nurses and doctors attend to many infants. Then
research showed having parents around helped infants grow. Parents could now
go directly into their infant’s room without having to ask permission. These rooms
were smaller and held fewer infants. Parents were taught to feed their infant and
change diapers. There were also a few comfortable chairs available. If the infant
was healthy enough, parents could hold their infant in one of these chairs and
perhaps go to a special room down the hall to nurse their infant (or nurse behind
7
Introduction7
a portable curtain). Nowadays in the ideal NIPU, the family’s room looks like a
four-star hotel suite within a village. There is one comfortable living area for most
infants and families. Parents can stay the night if they wish. The village contains
cooking and laundry facilities, and some meals are provided. Over the infant’s
stay, the nurses and doctors come into the family’s room less frequently, as parents
do most of the infant’s care. The doctors, nurses, and the rest of the medical staff
have told the parents that they (along with the other parents) are the most impor-
tant caregivers in the building.
Along each step of this progression there has been a growing focus on the emo-
tional health of both NICU families and staff. This focus stems from a growing
body of research (Hall & Hynan, 2015) showing (a) the NICU experience is a po-
tentially traumatic one for parents, with elevated rates of perinatal mood and anx-
iety disorders for both mothers and fathers; (b) high rates of burnout and PTS in
NICU staff; (c) correlations of parental emotional distress with impaired growth
and development in their children; and (d) parental distress during the perinatal
period associated with an increased probability of psychological problems in
parents and children later in life.
The first official NICU in the United States was opened in October 1965 (although
one account states 1960) at Yale New Haven Hospital in New Haven, Connecticut.
Dr. Louis Gluck was named the Director of Neonatal Services and is credited
with being the “father of modern neonatology” in the United States. However,
there were “premature nurseries” in the United States before 1965. In the western
United States, there was a premature infant center at the University of Colorado
General Hospital that opened in 1947 with Dr. Lula Lubchenco and Dr. Joseph
Butterfield as early directors. Even earlier, in 1914, Dr. Julius Hess founded the
first premature unit at Michael Reese Hospital in Chicago. Hess was a close friend
to Dr. Martin Couney, who brought his traveling exposition of premature babies
to the United States at the turn of the century.
Two accounts of early neonatology, one from the United Kingdom (Christie
& Tansey, 2001) and one from the United States (Philip, 2005), are filled with
descriptions of medical advances and infant complications. One can read two-
thirds of the way through both lengthy documents before parents are mentioned.
The medical advances and complications described in the two accounts include
thermoregulation, assisted ventilation, surfactant, oxygen saturation monitors,
intraventricular hemorrhage, necrotizing enterocolitis, apnea, retinopathy of pre-
maturity, and neonatal infections. This last concern is one reason that parents were
generally restricted from coming into the NICU in the early history of neona-
tology. Indeed, one neonatal historian (Philip, 2005) writes of pediatric residents
seldom being allowed into the NICU in the early years.
In the late 1960s, only approximately one-third of NICUs allowed parents to
visit their infants. Klaus and Kennel’s (1970) seminal paper on mothers separated
8
8 M ichael T. H ynan
from their newborn infants was published the same year as a research study of
mothers being “allowed” into the NICU (Barnett et al., 1970). This second pub-
lication led to a recognition that (with sanitary precautions) mothers’ presence
in the NICU did not increase rates of infection in infants. So, the 1970s can be
described as a transition from fear that parents would hurt their infants to the
possibility that parental presence would be helpful for the bonding process and
perhaps even benefit their infant.
With parents excluded from many NICUs, treatment decisions for most NICU
babies were largely controlled by physicians. This created a hierarchical setting
that occasionally resulted in severe conflicts, often when neonatologists wished
to pursue aggressive treatment against parents’ wishes. In some of these cases, the
parents expressed that their infant was suffering through medical experiments
to prolong life. As a result, parents argued for the termination of treatment and
hoped for a peaceful death. In these situations, hospital ethics committees were
consulted for advice. An obvious case of this conflict came to light with the pub-
lication of a book in 1983, The Long Dying of Baby Andrew by Richard and Peggy
Stinson, which described the 6-month hospitalization of their infant in 1976 and
1977. The publication of this book, along with the experiences of other parents
in similar situations, contributed to the motivation for parents to advocate for an
equal role in decision-making for their child’s well-being.
Women in Neonatology
Most early neonatologists were concerned with research and focused on the health
of infants while hospitalized in NICUs. It has been pointed out to me that fe-
male neonatologists were more likely to have interest in both the well-being of the
infant’s family and the longer term outcomes of NICU graduates. Here is a brief
list of noteworthy female neonatologists: Drs. Virginia Apgar (technically an ob-
stetrical anesthesiologist), Mary Ellen Avery, Kathleen Kennedy, Lula Lubchenco,
Marie McCormick, Marie Delivoria Papadopolus (frequently referred to as the
“mother of neonatology”), Mildred Stahlman, and Betty Vohr.
THE 1980S
Concern for the emotional well-being of high-risk parents and their families
began in the late 1970s. This concern was facilitated by perinatal professionals
who recognized that parental involvement in NICU care was beneficial for their
9
Introduction9
infants and that high-risk families needed emotional support during their infant’s
hospitalization and separation from their child. Groups for parents of prema-
ture infants (and other high-risk infants) sprang up in various cities. Sheri Nance
(along with five other mothers and a perinatal social worker) started a commu-
nity group known as Parents of Prematures in Houston, Texas. Membership
grew and participants decided to write a book for parents, Premature Babies: A
Handbook for Parents, in 1982, with Sheri Nance as lead author. The book was
advertised in national parenting magazines, and the authors discovered that there
were similar groups in other cities (e.g., Concerned Parents Organization, Park
Ridge, IL; Neo-Fight, Indianapolis, IN; Pilot Parents of Prematures, Fort Dodge,
IA; CHOC Parent-to-Parent, Orange, CA; IVH Parents and Parent to Parent of
Miami, FL; Parents and Friends of Special Care Infants, Wichita, KS; Intensive
Caring Unlimited, Philadelphia, PA; Neo-Life, Lexington, KY; and Parent Support
Group, Boston, MA). The University of Utah in Salt Lake City was home to the
first hospital-based NICU parent support group in the United States, Parent-to-
Parent, founded in 1975 by Sandy Garrand, RN, and Becky Hatfield, NICU parent.
Leaders of these groups decided to form a national organization called Parent
Care: Parents of Premature and High-Risk Infants, International. Parent Care
held its first meeting in Salt Lake City, Utah, in 1984. In addition to many parent
leaders, attendees included family-friendly nurses, social workers, and notable
physicians (including Drs. T. Barry Brazelton, Peter Gorski, Stan Graven, Henry
Mangurten, and Richard Marshall). Parent Care held annual meetings until 1996
when lack of finances led it to be merged into the Association for the Care of
Children’s Health (ACCH), a larger organization founded by Dr. Brazelton and
others. Many nonprofits such as Parent Care depended on corporate sponsor-
ship for their continued existence. Dwindling financial support led to the end of
ACCH’s existence a few years later.
The 1980s bore witness to greater parental participation in perinatal care, espe-
cially neonatal care. Another noteworthy book published during this time (1984)
was The Premature Baby Book: A Parents’ Guide to Coping and Caring During
the First Years by Helen Harrison with Ann Kositsky. The number of hours that
parents were “allowed” into NICUs increased, and parents were encouraged to
engage in activities with their infants. The term family-centered care began to be
utilized as an ideal model, and the March of Dimes (MOD) continues to be one of
the leaders in promoting this concept. Many NICUs began to describe themselves
as promoting family-centered care, although some journal articles questioned
how well family-centered care was implemented in NICUs.
the Assessment of Preterm Infants’ Behavior Scale (Als, 1982), she was able to
teach NICU staff how to recognize an infant’s unique cues and respond appro-
priately to optimize self-regulation. Als and colleagues developed the Newborn
Individualized Developmental Care and Assessment Program (NIDCAP) in
the 1980s. As the NIDCAP program evolved, parents began to learn calming
techniques relevant to the developmental stage of their infant.
THE 1990S
Four events facilitated the growth of family-centered care in the 1990s: (a) a pub-
lication asserting the rights of parents as decision-makers in the NICU, (b) the
creation of an institute for family-centered care, (c) the growth of skin-to-skin
care, and (d) rethinking the optimal NICU design.
A seminal moment in the evolution of neonatal care occurred with the publi-
cation of an article titled “Principles of Family-Centered Neonatal Care” in the
journal Pediatrics (Harrison, 1993). In quoting a few paragraphs here, I empha-
size the impetus created by this article for a recognition of parents’ rights both
as decision-makers for their infant in the NICU and as equal partners (with
professionals) as care providers. Many of the 10 principles refer to professionals
and parents “working together” to affect change. The terms “unthinking medical
activism” and “poorly drafted laws” in the quote largely refer to the “Baby Doe
Rules” legislation (Harrison, 1993):
Introduction11
Not only did this Pediatrics article have an impact on the future of neonatal care
but also Helen Harrison served as a role model for parental advocates for years
to come. Harrison was fearless in challenging anyone, including world-famous
neonatologists and ethicists, who attempted to limit parents’ abilities to advocate
for the medical care of their children.
The second facilitator of family-centered care in the 1990s was the founding of
the Institute for Patient-and Family Centered Care (IPFCC) by Beverly Johnson,
BSN, FAAN, who had previously been an executive with ACCH. IPFCC is con-
cerned with all of health care delivery, but Johnson has played a major role in
making NICUs family friendly, both in architecture and in practices. She has also
been one of the leaders in addressing the issue of parents as visitors to the NICU.
Visitors go to museums where the rules mostly are “Look, but do not touch.”
Visitors as a term also puts parents in a role secondary to NICU staff, with the im-
plication that parents do not belong in the NICU full-time. Within all principles
of family-centered care, parents play a crucial role as equal members of the care
team, growing into the role of leader. Johnson and others have made many NICU
staff aware that visitor is not a term that should be applied to NICU parents and/
or any family members.
NICUs in the early years were bright and noisy environments. Some neonatologists
began investigating whether typical light and sound levels were good for infants’
health and development. Early indications were that bright lights and loud sounds
interfered with the development of most premature infants. Despite consistent
12
findings, there was initial resistance to changing the NICU “ward environment.”
Reasons included bright lights provided easy observation of many infants, lim-
ited hospital space, optimal nursing efficiency, and reluctance to purchase quieter
equipment (White & Whitman, 1992).
An editorial published in Pediatrics (White & Whitman, 1992) called for
changes in NICU design. Over the years, decibel levels were decreased in the
NICU along with constant light. Establishing a circadian rhythm for infants be-
came important. The Gravens Conference has consistently featured the latest
research on the effects of environmental changes in NICU care upon the devel-
opment and health of high-risk infants. Under Dr. Robert White’s leadership, the
ninth edition of “Recommended Standards for Newborn ICU Design” was re-
cently published (White, 2020). As new NICUs in the United States were built
(and older ones remodeled), both Bob White and Bev Johnson were consulted. As
a result, NICUs became more welcoming of families in both structure and func-
tion. Nowadays, many NICUs have a set of single-family rooms for care so parents
can room in with their infant 24/7.
Jerold Lucey, MD
Dr. Jerold Lucey was the editor-in-chief of the prestigious journal Pediatrics from
1974 to 2008. On at least two occasions, his decisions on publications in the
journal had a notable impact on the evolution of neonatal care. One, he accepted
the “Principles of Family-Centered Neonatal Care” (Harrison, 1993) without
sending the manuscript for review. The principles were the product of an exten-
sive discussion at a 2-day meeting among NICU parents and professionals. In the
issue in which the article appeared, Lucey simply stated that the article needed to
be published. In a comment he wrote for the issue, Lucey (1993) stated,
The discussion was open and frank, and there were several disagreements
without resolution. I think both groups learned from this encounter. The
parents were asked to rewrite their suggestions, and I agreed to publish these
in Pediatrics. The article was not to be reviewed or revised by Pediatrics.
I wanted the parents’ article to truly represent their viewpoints. Mrs. Harrison
spent a year revising the article and widening the input by soliciting views
from other parents and groups.
I anticipate this will be a controversial article. It should be recognized for
what it is, a sincere attempt to communicate with physicians in a construc-
tive fashion.
In the brave new world we are facing, patients are often referred to as
“customer.” We are “care providers.” It is obviously wise to listen to “cus-
tomer” viewpoints. I hope that this will be the beginning of a continuing
dialogue with concerned parents. In the future we might be able to form
a group working together to implement some of the parents’ suggestions.
(p. 724)
13
Introduction13
This quote certainly reflects earlier tensions between NICU parents and hierar-
chical decision-makers in the NICU. Dialogues between NICU parents and hos-
pital leadership continue to this day, often with staff “champions” joining parents
to promote change.
Lucey made a second executive decision that impacted NICU design. Bob White
told me that his editorial published in Pediatrics (White & Whitman, 1992) was
originally a traditional submission advocating NICU design changes that received
a great deal of criticism from reviewers. The reviewers recommended that the
manuscript be rejected as “unworkable,” among other things. In correspondence
about the reviews with White, Lucey decided that the manuscript was acceptable
as an editorial.
THE 2000S
The changes that began earlier in the United States continued to become more
widespread in the 2000s. And, as innovations from Europe became more well-
known, NICUs in the United States were more likely to implement the new
developments. One innovation became known as “couplet care,” which was skin-
to-skin care combined with individualized, developmental care. Couplet care
was initiated at the Karolinska NICU in Stockholm, Sweden. Couplet care, with
24/7 parental presence, was shown to reduce length of stay and infant morbidity
(Ortenstrand et al., 2010).
Interestingly, a nursing shortage in Eastern Europe led to a second innovation
in NICU care that continues to be researched. In 1979, a “mother–infant unit”
was created at Tallinn Children’s Hospital in Estonia. Due to the staff shortage,
mothers were trained to provide the majority of care for their high-risk infants.
Mothers were able to acquire most of the necessary skills rather quickly, over
a matter of a few days. Physicians from Canada observed this unit and later
conducted a pilot research study in Canada to determine if this family integrated
care (FICare) would be accepted by staff and lead to positive results. It worked
(Bracht et al., 2013). The effectiveness of FICare is currently being evaluated at
multiple sites throughout the world, including China, a country where parents are
still not allowed to enter many NICUs.
Newborn intensive care was transformed in Finland by a program called “Close
Collaboration with Parents.” This program stresses training as an important first
step to prepare NICU staff to interact with NICU parents in creating an atmos-
phere in which parents ultimately become the decision-makers for their infant’s
care in the hospital. Close Collaboration was well accepted by staff and led to
increased parental presence in the NICU and greater participation in providing
care for their infants (Huhtala et al., 2012). Phased research studies have tracked
the transformation of NICU care in Finland from the Turku University Hospital
to all hospitals in Finland.
14
In the early 2000s, increasingly more hospitals welcomed trained veteran NICU
parents as support volunteers, who would meet with new parents in the NICU.
Often, if there were sufficient volunteers, parent-to-parent matches could be
made that were often based on commonalities in the infant’s medical condition.
When hospitals were resistant to having parent volunteers come into the NICU,
resourceful veteran parents created community-based programs that would
make connections with parents. At first, these contacts were made by telephone
and then progressed to virtual communication as the technology evolved. A na-
tionwide boost to the movement of supporting NICU parents came from the
MOD NICU Family Support Program, which began in 2001. As MOD funding
declined, fewer hospitals were able to support the presence of a MOD family
support specialist within the NICU; however, MOD continues to provide edu-
cational support within the NICU and after hospital discharge along with vir-
tual support services.
The large network of virtual parent support of other NICU parents that currently
exists had its beginnings during the first decade of this century. Some parents who
had a child die in the NICU, and other parents of infants with extensive or rare
medical complications, created nonprofit organizations and/or foundations as a
way of bringing meaning to the trauma of their lives and their infant’s existence.
Many of these organizations were small in scope and excited to discover other
similar organizations. Realizing that they had much to learn from each other, a
national organization known as the Preemie Parent Alliance (PPA) was founded
15
Introduction15
by Keira Sorrels of the Zoe Rose Memorial Foundation and five other parent sup-
port organizations in 2010. PPA, essentially an umbrella organization composed
of a growing number of nonprofits, held yearly meetings and shared information
continuously. These smaller organizations also exchanged social media ideas to
both communicate their missions and raise funds.
Recognizing that a sizable number of NICU parents did not have premature
infants, PPA decided to change its name to the NICU Parent Network (NPN) in
2019 in order to become more inclusive and welcome other parent groups. Some
of the groups within NPN coordinate in-hospital NICU parent support repre-
sentatives. Many groups provide virtual one-on-one and group support services,
which have been extremely valuable during the COVID-19 pandemic. NPN and
NPA have also collaborated to provide educational presentations. There are cur-
rently 48 member organizations within NPN.
FICare to elucidate the concept of the NIPU. The name NIPU was coined by the
Vermont Oxford Network (VON), which invited NPA to collaborate on a pre-
sentation at the VON conference in 2016. A combination of NPA and VON
members collaborated to write an article introducing the culture of the NIPU
(Hall et al., 2017).
NIPU care consists of FICare and the six components of psychosocial support
described in the preceding paragraph. In the FICare model, parents are intimately
involved in their infant’s care. Incremental coaching is done by nurses and other
staff members. Mothers, fathers, and partners are mentored to provide almost all
the care for their infants, as many hours of the day as possible and a minimum of
6 hours per day (Bracht et al., 2013). Through bedside collaboration, parents gain
confidence in providing care for their infants (e.g., bathing and dressing their in-
fant, changing diapers, feeding, proper positioning, giving oral medications, and
monitoring and charting their infant’s progress). Maximum skin-to-skin contact
is encouraged along with participation with the medical team.
Care for parents in the NIPU incorporates Kazak’s (2006) pediatric psycho-
social preventative health model, which involves three levels of care: universal,
targeted, and clinical. Universal care, in the form of parent-to-parent support
and psychoeducation groups, is given to all parents. Approximately 40% of NICU
parents experience heightened symptoms of psychological distress, but at levels
that allow them to still function. These parents would receive additional targeted
care by specially trained nursing staff. Listening visits are a good example of
targeted care that has received support (Brock et al., 2017). It is estimated that
20–30% of parents have levels of symptoms that would lead to a Diagnostic
and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (American Psychiatric Association,
2013) clinical diagnosis of one of the perinatal mood and anxiety disorders (Hall
& Hynan, 2015). Social workers and psychologists would provide formal clinical
levels of care to these parents. If possible, clinical care should occur within the
NIPU setting.
The number of clinical psychologists who work in NICUs has grown throughout
the years. The handful of NICU psychologists that participated in the phone calls
15 years ago has grown to a group of more than 125. These psychologists re-
cently formed the National Network of NICU Psychologists (NNNP). Members
of NNNP have published a guide to the competencies and knowledge base that
are essential to the practice of NICU psychology (Saxton et al., 2020). NNNP is
sponsored by NPA. Many of the authors of chapters in this book are active NNNP
members.
CONCLUSION
I wrote most of this chapter in the winter of 2020 during the midst of the COVID-
19 pandemic. Currently, the evolution of perinatal care has been sidetracked
while health care is in survival mode. Going forward, perinatal care will change
in ways that are likely unpredictable. One clarity of the present moment is that
17
Introduction17
distress levels of both NICU parents and staff are at an all-time high. Currently,
the future need for greater levels of psychological services in perinatal care is
unmistakable.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
REFERENCES
Als, H. (1982). Toward a synactive theory of development: Promise for the assessment of
infant individuality. Infant Mental Health Journal, 3, 229–243.
Altimier, L., & Phillips, R. (2016). The neonatal integrative developmental care
model: Advanced clinical applications of the seven core measures for neuroprotective
family-centered developmental care. Newborn and Infant Nursing Reviews, 16(4),
230–244.
American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental
disorders (5th ed.).
Barnett, E. R., Leiderman, P. H., Grobstein, R., & Klaus, M. (1970). Neonatal separa-
tion: The maternal side of interactional deprivation. Pediatrics, 45, 197–205.
18
Bracht, M., O’Leary, L., Lee, S., & O’Brien, K. (2013). Implementing family-integrated
care in the NICU: A parent education and support program. Advances in Neonatal
Care, 13(2), 115–126. doi:10.1097/ANC.0b013e318285fb5b
Brock, R. L., O’Hara, M. W., & Segre, L. S. (2017). Depression treatment by non-mental-
health providers: Incremental evidence for the effectiveness of listening visits.
American Journal of Community Psychology, 59, 172–183.
Browne, J. V., Jaeger, C. B., & Kenner, C.; on behalf of the Consensus Committee on
Recommended Design Standards for Advanced Newborn Care. (2020). Executive
summary: Standards, competencies, and recommended best practices for in-
fant-and family-centered developmental care in the intensive care unit. Journal of
Perinatology, 40, 5–10.
Christie, D. A., & Tansey, E. M. (Eds.). (2001). Origins of neonatal intensive care in the
UK: A witness seminar held at the Wellcome Institute for the History of Medicine,
London, on 27 April 1999. http://www.neonatology.org/pdf/WellcomeVolume9Ne
oUK.pdf
Hall, S. L., & Hynan, M. T. (Guest Eds.). (2015). Interdisciplinary recommendations for
the psychosocial support of NICU parents. Journal of Perinatology, 35, S1–S36.
Hall, S. L., Hynan, M. T., Phillips, R., Lassen, S., Craig, J. W., Goyer, E., & Cohen,
H. (2017). The neonatal intensive parenting unit: An introduction. Journal of
Perinatology, 37(12), 1259–1264.
Harrison, H. (1993). The principles for family-centered neonatal care. Pediatrics, 92(5),
643–650.
Harrison, H., & Kositsky, A. (1984). The premature baby book: A parents’ guide to coping
and caring during the first years. St. Martin’s Griffin.
Huhtala, M., Korja, R., Lehtonen, L., Haataha, L., Lapinleimu, P., Rautava, P.; PIPARI
Study Group. (2012). Parental psychological well-being and behavioral outcomes of
very low birth weight infants at 3 years. Pediatrics, 129(4), e937–e944.
Hynan, M. T. (1987). The pain of premature parents: A psychological guide for coping.
University Press of America.
Kazak, A. E. (2006). Pediatric psychosocial preventative health model (PPPHM): Research,
practice, and collaboration in pediatric family system medicine. Family Systems
Health, 24, 381–395.
Klaus, M. H., & Kennell, J. H. (1970). Mothers separated from their newborn infants.
Pediatric Clinics of North America, 17, 1015–1037.
Lucey, J. (1993). Parent dissatisfaction with neonatal intensive care unit and suggestions.
Pediatrics, 92(5), 724.
Nance, S. (1982). Premature babies: A handbook for parents. Arbor House.
Ortenstrand, A., Westrup, B., Bronstrom, E., Sarman, I., Akerstrom, S., Brune, T.,
Lindberg, L., & Waldenstrom, U. (2010). The Stockholm Neonatal Family Centered
Care Study: Effects on length of stay and infant morbidity. Pediatrics, 125(2),
e278–e285.
Philip, A. G. S. (2005). The evolution of neonatology. Pediatric Research, 58, 799–815.
Saxton, S. N., Dempsey, A. G., Willis, T., Baughcum, A. E., Chavis, L., Hoffman, C.,
Fulco, C. J., Milford, C. A., & Steinberg Z. (2020). Essential knowledge and
competencies for psychologists working in neonatal intensive care units. Journal
of Clinical Psychology in Medical Settings, 27, 830–841. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10
880-019-09682-8
19
Introduction19
Stinson, R., & Stinson, P. (1983). The long dying of Baby Andrew. Little, Brown.
White, R. D.; on behalf of the Committee to Establish Recommended Standards for
Newborn ICU Design. (2020). Recommended standards for newborn ICU design,
9th edition. Journal of Perinatology, 40, 2–4.
White, R. D., & Whitman, T. L. (1992). Design of ICUs. Pediatrics, 89, 1267.
20
Continuity of care is vitally important and allows families to feel safe and supported
in a frequently changing environment. Mental health services across perinatal/ne-
onatal settings can address parental mental health concerns, infant development,
and infant–parent relationships. This chapter discusses the roles of a behavioral
health clinician (BHC) in providing continuity of care from pregnancy through
post-discharge follow-up of the infant.
directly to the infant’s or family’s mental health needs, and has an active presence
on the team. In contrast, the C/L model consists of a BHC who is involved with
the family upon referral by the medical team. The BHC often serves other areas
of the hospital and may not have any prior knowledge regarding the infant or the
family. After receiving a consultation referral, the BHC consults with the team
and provides intervention to the family. However, the BHC would not be a con-
stant pillar within the unit. The implementation of both delivery models can vary
across settings.
Fetal care centers (FCCs) designed to monitor and treat pregnant people and their
fetuses are growing without haste (Dempsey et al., 2021). Some provide compre-
hensive services from fetal diagnosis through initial neonatal intensive care inter-
vention across disciplines, whereas others may provide services anywhere along
the continuum.
A focus on perinatal mental health as a specialty in FCCs has increased
following recommendations from several national organizations (e.g., the
American Academy of Pediatrics and the American College of Obstetricians
& Gynecologists). Expectant parents in FCCs are at high risk for developing
a perinatal mood and anxiety disorder (PMAD) or needing additional psy-
chological support related to coping with a fetal diagnosis (Cole et al., 2018).
Because of this, it is recommended that a BHC be included as an integrated
member of the health care team (Dempsey et al., 2021) to provide screening,
assessment, and evidence-based psychological and behavioral interventions
to parents. Furthermore, BHCs in FCCs create opportunities for program
development, staff education, and support. This programmatic collaboration
builds a bridge of communication between FCCs, neonatal intensive care units
(NICUs), and follow-up settings.
NICU
Whereas social workers have long been a part of the NICU support staff, the rec-
ognition for needing psychologists in the NICU has grown since the 1970s (Saxton
et al., 2020). Currently, there are both integrated and C/L NICU psychologists in
select hospitals globally. Ideally, BHCs in the NICU should offer services from
a family-centered approach, which allows for the inclusion of parental support,
even though the infant is the identified patient (Hynan et al., 2015). In some
instances, the BHC in the NICU also provides service in the NICU follow-up
clinic, allowing for continuity of care. Continuity of care increases patient cooper-
ation across settings and enhances the therapeutic alliance between clinician and
patient (Haggerty, 2003).
2
When a high-risk infant is discharged from the hospital, they are often followed
by medical providers in a specialty clinic referred to as a NICU follow-up clinic.
In these clinics, BHCs continue to provide support utilizing a family-centered
care approach. Infants who are NICU graduates are at high risk for developmental
concerns (i.e., cognitive, socioemotional/ behavioral, language, and motor).
Socioemotional intervention provided by BHCs can enhance the parent–child re-
lationship and improve subsequent development. Furthermore, engagement with
a BHC allows families to gain knowledge and skills about developmental care,
behavioral challenges, and/or neurodevelopmental concerns (Saxton et al., 2020).
One study found that pregnant people with a diagnosis of a fetal anomaly have
an increased likelihood of experiencing depression (22%), anxiety (31%), and
traumatic distress symptoms (39%) compared to the general pregnant pop-
ulation, 11% of whom experience perinatal depression (Long et al., 2019).
Likewise, NICU parents have a three times increased risk of experiencing a
PMAD (S. Hall et al., 2015). This risk for a mental health crisis can continue
post NICU discharge and can directly affect the infant’s well-being, both med-
ically and developmentally. PMADs can interfere with a caregiver’s ability to
bond and create a secure attachment with their infant, thus disrupting healthy
developmental, cognitive, and emotional outcomes (S. Hall et al., 2015).
Research has shown that this disruption during a critical period of develop-
ment can cause lifelong consequences, even into future generations (S. Hall
et al., 2015). Therefore, screening for PMADs in the FCC, NICU, and NICU
follow-up clinic is imperative.
Early identification through screening, support, resources, and treatment
decreases the severity and length of a mental health episode (Austin & Kingston,
2016). The Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) is the most widely
accepted screening tool for perinatal and postpartum depression. The EPDS is
freely accessible online and translated in 18 different languages. The tool can
be administered quickly and has high validity and reliability, including three
questions that assess anxiety (Zhong et al., 2014). Whereas there is no universally
recommended time frame for administering mental health screening in the peri-
natal period, it is recommended that screening be completed at least once during
pregnancy and postpartum, at minimum (American College of Obstetricians and
Gynecologists, 2018). Screening has been shown to effectively identify parents
who are experiencing current symptoms of depression and anxiety (Maliszewska
et al., 2016), which makes it a key part of a person’s pregnancy and postpartum
experience.
23
A positive EPDS score indicates the need for further assessment and referral. It
is important to note that the EPDS was created for the general pregnant and post-
partum population, without taking into account the distress that occurs for many
parents in a fetal care, NICU, and/or NICU follow-up setting. Ideally, parents who
screen positive on the EPDS are referred to a BHC within the hospital system for
further assessment and treatment (Hynan et al., 2015). Seeing a BHC within the
health care setting correlates with patients rating their therapeutic alliance with
their BHC higher than their therapeutic alliance with previous therapists (Corso
et al., 2012). It is worth noting that screening should only be implemented when
it is also possible to conduct risk assessment and provide appropriate intervention
and/or referrals in a timely manner.
It is important that within the first week of the NICU stay or within the first
few appointments in an FCC, a BHC performs an evaluation of the family’s his-
tory, existing resources, and needs. It is also important that both parents receive
a screening for emotional distress. With this early assessment, a BHC can en-
gage necessary support services and make appropriate referrals. If a family needs
clinical support, they should be referred to an internal BHC (which is ideal) or
community-located mental health professional for individual, couple, or family
therapy. Assessment of a pregnant or postpartum parent’s mental health is best
completed by a BHC with training specific to perinatal mental health. The as-
sessment is completed with the parent and ideally their partner or primary sup-
port person. The BHC’s goal is to gather information about the parent’s birth
story, primary support systems (e.g., family, culture, spirituality, and profession),
personal strengths and weaknesses, past experiences with health care, social
determinants of health, trauma history, current or past substance use, and pre-
scription drug use—all indicators of a thorough perinatal mental health assess-
ment (Maliszewska et al., 2016). The BHC will attempt to gain an understanding
of how the parent was functioning prior to pregnancy. This provides insight into
the onset of symptoms, which may help with diagnosis and treatment planning.
As with any assessment process, it is important that the BHC have appropriate
training and understanding of assessment protocols, as well as psychometrics. It
is imperative to pay close attention to issues of confidentiality and privacy, time
and resources needed, and logistics of implementation and to have a clear plan
delineating how screening and assessment results will be handled, including in
instances of acute crisis identified during the assessment process.
NICU follow-up clinics throughout the United States vary in how they serve
NICU graduates. However, there are some basic consistencies found in most
24
NICU
and consultation in the NICU may involve (a) addressing caregivers’ experiences
of emotional distress; (b) engaging in dyadic work to support the parent–infant
relationship and parenting practices; (c) providing education, consultation, and
advocacy regarding the NICU environment and unit design, and its impact on
infant neurodevelopment; and (d) supporting, educating, and consulting with the
NICU staff (S. L. Hall et al., 2015).
The BHC may provide infant mental health interventions to the infant and family
drawn from multiple approaches and modalities, including CBT, psychodynamic
theory, family and couples therapy, and IPT (Hynan et al., 2015). At some institutions,
the parent will have a separate medical chart, in which documentation may be most
appropriate. However, in a children’s hospital setting, documentation will likely occur
in the chart of the infant who is the identified patient. Caution should be exercised
regarding documenting the details of the parent’s mental health. Information that
will be helpful to supporting and interacting with the family or treating the patient is
within reason to document. The BHC should remain well informed on hospital-wide
and community resources that would support further assessment and treatment of
parental emotional distress that goes beyond the scope of the family’s experience of
the infant’s NICU hospitalization or ongoing medical needs.
Dyadic work with families may center on (a) providing support around pos-
itive parenting in the context of a medical diagnosis or the NICU setting,
(b) facilitating and exploring infant mental health topics that address aspects of the
evolving parent–infant bond, and (c) supporting developmental neuroprotective
practices of daily caregiving. Additional recommendations for infant-and family-
centered developmental care practices are delineated in the Report of the First
Consensus Conference on Standards, Competencies and Best Practices for Infant
and Family Centered Developmental Care in the Intensive Care Unit (Consensus
Committee, 2019).
With a focus on protecting and supporting infant neurodevelopment, the
BHC is also uniquely positioned to advocate, support, and educate on NICU en-
vironmental practices and unit design standards that are evidenced-based and
neuroprotective. The Consensus Committee has provided the most recent updates
to the unit design recommendations in the Recommended Standards for Newborn
Intensive Care Unit Design 9th Edition, which focuses on optimizing unit design to
facilitate medical care for the infant while also supporting the needs of the family
and the staff (Consensus Committee, 2020).
Similar to the FCCs, BHCs can also facilitate care through the consultation, ed-
ucation, and direct support of the NICU staff, who may experience burnout, com-
passion fatigue, moral distress, secondary traumatic stress, and/or other forms of
distress (S. L. Hall et al., 2015).
BHCs in NICU follow-up clinics should have training and supervised experi-
ence in infant and young child development, ideally with an emphasis on medical
27
Program Development
Program development in an FCC, NICU, or NICU follow-up clinic begins with in-
vestment from the medical directors regarding the importance of mental and emo-
tional well-being for families and infants. There are many articles supporting the
need for mental health professionals in these settings; many of these can be found
on the National Perinatal Association (NPA) website (https://www.nationalperina
28
tal.org). Once administrative buy-in is acquired, there are four main areas of de-
velopment across all settings that may occur: family support, developmental care,
staff education and support, and quality improvement (Hynan et al., 2015). When
implementing behavioral health services in a fetal or neonatal setting, the existing
services will determine which area of development will serve as a priority. Utilizing
NPA’s NICU self-assessment tool is an excellent way to determine a unit’s strengths
and areas for growth and development. After completing this NICU self-assessment,
program development can be adjusted and/or initiated, as indicated.
Family Support
FCCs and NICUs are two distinct units; however, there is significant overlap in
the family support that is needed. The focus in both settings is prevention and in-
tervention of mental health sequela, parent–infant/fetal bonding, education, and
peer connection. It is important that families have the resources they need to cope
with the trauma of their experience. Peer-to-peer support is one form of sup-
port that is often available to families. Some NICUs and FCCs have family groups
that are more casual and include educational information, as well as provide
families the opportunity to receive support and provide support to one another.
Other institutions have a more formal mental health, provider-led group therapy.
Many hospitals also offer a one-on-one parent support program in which current
families are partnered with a veteran mentor family that can offer advice and sup-
port from a “lived” perspective. It is also important that families have a respite
space either on the unit or in the hospital where they can have solitude, quiet, and
decompress after or before a difficult procedure, surgery, or a challenging medical
report. Families should also have access to activities such as arts and crafts that
can be made for their infant’s bedside social gatherings (e.g., a family lunch event
or ice cream social). These types of events allow families to engage in self-care and
promote social engagement.
Spiritual care services is another important support service that should be made
available to families. Chaplains are spiritual leaders who can pray for and with
families and help them strengthen their faith, as well as process questions that
challenge their faith as a result of their infant’s NICU admission or fetal diagnosis.
Last, program development should include access to palliative care services. In an
FCC, NICU, and NICU follow-up clinic, there are risks for mortality. Palliative
care services provide families access to individuals who can support them across
the continuum of care as they endeavor into a world of having a fragile, medi-
cally complex, high-risk child. Palliative care support is an extension of the sup-
port from the BHC because palliative care can help guide decision-making from
a medical perspective as well as coordinate with the medical team regarding com-
fort care and end-of-life procedures and preferences.
Developmental Care
Developmental care in the NICU and NICU follow-up clinic setting is vitally
important. Infants in the NICU consequently forfeit regular engagement and
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
Josephineä kauhistutti. Hän tunsi vavistuksen käyvän ympärillään
seisovien läpi. Matkustajat olivat hänen puhuessaan tunkeutuneet
aivan hänen lähelleen. Tuntiessaan tuon yhtenäisen
mielenliikutuksen, joka näytti aiheutuvan siitä peloittavasta kuvasta,
jonka mustatukkaisen miehen sanat herättivät heidän
mielikuvituksessaan, huomasi Josephine, että matkustajat olivat
kokonaan piirittäneet mustatukkaisen miehen ja hänet, että kaikkien
kaulat kurkottivat häneen ja että noitten kurkottavien kaulojen
omistajat näyttivät kiihkeästi odottavan lisää mielipiteitten vaihtoa.
Ehkäpä heidän kaikkien mielessä oli halu vastustaa hirttämisaietta ja
he täten tahtoivat osoittamallaan mielenkiinnolla palkita häntä teosta,
johon heiltä itseltään oli puuttunut rohkeutta.
"Jos voitte saada hänet junaan, niin pidän hänestä sitten huolen."
"Palvelija!"
Kolmas luku.
Mutta joka tapauksessa oli hän tunteva atoomi, sillä vielä viikonkin
kuluttua oli pelko se tunne, joka oli hänessä vallitsevin.
Se oli pelkän valtavuuden pelkoa. Luoja oli käsitellyt maailmaansa
runsain, tuhlailevin käsin. Oli aivan kuin Hän olisi rajattomilla
välimatkoillaan antanut esineille jättimäiset mittasuhteet. Hän oli
myös tälle osalle maata antanut sellaiset lujuutta uhkuvat piirteet,
että ne näyttivät kestävän kokonaisen iankaikkisuuden. Ja vielä,
ikäänkuin Luoja olisi tiennyt rakentavansa erinomaisen taitavasti, oli
Hän pannut ilmalle ihmeellisen kuulakkuuden, joka lyhensi
suunnattomat välimatkat niin, että silmä saattoi käsittää Hänen
työnsä suuruuden.
Hän oli varma siitä, että sillä oli salaisuutensa. Hän tunsi sen
seudun hiljaisuudessa. Niitä toivat kuiskivat tuulenhenkäykset, jotka
ilmestyivät salaperäisiltä asuinsijoiltaan ja puhalsivat säännöllisesti
vasten hänen kasvojaan salviaruohon kirpeän tuoksun
kyllästyttäminä.
"Sinä olet istunut liian paljon sisällä tänne tultuasi, Jo", sanoi hän,
katsoen tutkivasti ystäväänsä. "Sinä olet katsellut tätä maata liian
paljon akkunasta, mutta et kylliksi satulasta. Nyt sinä lähdet
ratsastamaan kanssani."
Sitten meni hän kuistille vievää ovea kohti. Hän oli miltei perillä
kun hän näki ratsumiehen aivan aitauksen vieressä. Ratsastaja istui
poikkipäin satulassa heilutellen pitkiä sääriään. Hänen käsivartensa
olivat ristissä rinnalla ja hän hymyili Bettylle, joka seisoi lähellä
häntä.
Neljäs luku.