ArticleFrontiers in pediatrics2026
Development-centred neonatal care: validation study of the patient safety checklist.
Article in Frontiers in pediatrics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: The Neonatal Patient Safety Checklist (NPSC) is a quality tool designed to assess compliance with care interventions by defining and operationalising neonatal quality and safety indicators. While many indicators have previously been validated and implemented in various international safety checklists, the NPSC is unique in including a set of safety indicators related to development-centred care (DCC), ensuring the quality and safety dimensions advocated by person-centred care. The aim of this study was to validate the NPSC indicators by ensuring consensus through representativeness and relevance to the neonatal care context. Methodology: The Delphi method was selected for this study. A sample of 19 experts participated in two rounds of structured questionnaires, which were administered individually in sequence. Researchers analysed and systematised the responses from each round, providing feedback in the form of a synthesis of the group's previous responses. This process aimed to develop a cumulative collective response and ensure a consensual construct. Results: Of the initial 56 indicators, only four had a content validity index (CVI) < 80%, indicating that the construct was not adequately represented. However, the qualitative input of the expert panel enabled the remaining indicators to be reformulated, achieving a CVI of at least 85.7%. This demonstrates that the NPSC is a robust, representative tool for neonatal care, with consensus achieved among experts. Conclusions: Implementing this methodology resulted in the creation of a tool strongly linked to quality and safety. This was achieved by operationalising a set of innovative indicators that are representative of the neonatal intensive care unit target population. This approach moves away from static instruments that are not applicable in the neonatal context and incorporates indicators that are inherent to developmental care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.