Objectives To identify current ‘gaps’ in clinical practice or therapeutic knowledge of the care of neonatal neurointensive care patients and to determine the impact healthcare technologies can have on improving outcomes.
Design The Cambridge Institute for Manufacturing’s (IfM) roadmapping methodology.
Setting Cambridge, UK.
Participants 16 delegates were selected through professional networks. They provided coverage of academia and clinical skills, as well as expertise in neonatology, engineering and technology development.
Main outcome measures A ‘strategic landscape’ has been developed with ‘landmarks’ identified as ‘trends or drivers’, ‘patient pathway experience and unmet needs’ and ‘enabling project or resources’. Priorities were voted on by delegates.
Results 26 strategic ‘landmarks’ were identified, and of these 8 were considered ‘trends or drivers’, 8 ‘patient pathway experience and unmet needs’ and 10 as ‘enabling project or resources’. Of these, five priorities for the future of neonatal neurocritical care were identified by a voting process: real-time video monitoring for parents; individualised management of preterm infants in neonatal neurocritical care based on real-time multimodal monitoring; continuous electroencephalogram monitoring for early seizure diagnosis; neuroprotection: understanding basic mechanisms; and sleep measurement.
Conclusions Through the use of the IfM methodology, a list of priorities has been developed for future work into improving the experience and possible outcomes of newborn infants with brain injuries and their families. While not an exhaustive list, it provides the beginning for a national conversation on the topic.
- intensive care
Statistics from Altmetric.com
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Contributors CH is the corresponding author and guarantor of this work. CH completed the first and all subsequent drafts of the article. PJ and RP provided methodological expertise as well as in running the landscaping exercises. RP also contributed heavily to the Methodology section. MB organised the exercises and supported the final write-up. TA edited and contributed to all drafts, as well as setting the scope and running the landscaping exercise.
Funding This project was supported by the NIHR Brain Injury Healthcare Technology Co-operative as part of its portfolio of work. While this project was supported by the NIHR Brain Injury Healthcare Technology Co-operative, all authors had access to all information and had complete autonomy in the analysis and publication of this paper.
Competing interests None declared.
Patient consent Not required.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Data sharing statement Full data set and technical appendix available from the corresponding author at firstname.lastname@example.org. Participants gave informed consent for data sharing.