Quality Indicators for Evaluation of Neonatal Basic Care in Nutrition and Feeding: A Scoping Review and Modified Delphi Study

Background/Objectives: Despite the clinical relevance of nutrition and feeding in neonatal intensive care, no consensus-based set of quality indicators currently exists to systematically evaluate basic nutritional care in hospitalised neonates. This study aimed to identify, agree through expert consensus and prioritise a structured set of nursing-sensitive quality indicators for this domain. Methods: A two-phase methodological study combined a Scoping Review (Joanna Briggs Institute methodology; prospectively registered on OSF; reported per PRISMA-ScR) and a two-round modified Delphi study based on the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method. Four databases (PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane Library; 2020–2025) were searched, complemented by snowball and the grey literature. Twenty-seven candidate indicators synthesised inductively into eight domains were rated by 23 expert nurses across three dimensions (appropriateness, clinical validity, and feasibility) on a nine-point Likert scale. Results: Retention from Round 1 to Round 2 was 87% (n = 20). Twenty-two indicators (81.5%) were classified as appropriate and five (18.5%) as uncertain, in all cases because of feasibility. The overall median for appropriateness and clinical validity was 9.0 in both rounds. Feasibility showed greater variability, with an 18% mean IQR reduction after Round 2. Indicators reaching consensus were distributed across structure (n = 3, 13.6%), process (n = 16, 72.7%) and outcome (n = 3, 13.6%) dimensions. An exploratory post-hoc prioritisation analysis identified four implementation tiers; the five Tier 1 indicators ranked in the top five under every weighting scheme tested. Conclusions: This consensus-based set provides a structured basis for monitoring neonatal nutritional care quality and for reducing clinical variability. Validation by a broader interdisciplinary panel including families, and prospective testing in routine practice, are required before its use in clinical dashboards or benchmarking.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Nutrients
Published
2026-09-30
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3390/nu18193230
Primary Topic
Infant Nutrition and Health
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
article

Quality Indicators for Evaluation of Neonatal Basic Care in Nutrition and Feeding: A Scoping Review and Modified Delphi Study

Pablo García‐Molina, Evelin Balaguer‐López, Sergio Alonso‐Fernández, Dimelza Osorio Sánchez et al.
Nutrients
Infant Nutrition and Health
article

Quality Indicators for Evaluation of Neonatal Basic Care in Nutrition and Feeding: A Scoping Review and Modified Delphi Study

Pablo García‐Molina, Evelin Balaguer‐López, Sergio Alonso‐Fernández, Dimelza Osorio Sánchez, Pablo Buck Sainz-Rozas
article en

Abstract

Background/Objectives: Despite the clinical relevance of nutrition and feeding in neonatal intensive care, no consensus-based set of quality indicators currently exists to systematically evaluate basic nutritional care in hospitalised neonates. This study aimed to identify, agree through expert consensus and prioritise a structured set of nursing-sensitive quality indicators for this domain. Methods: A two-phase methodological study combined a Scoping Review (Joanna Briggs Institute methodology; prospectively registered on OSF; reported per PRISMA-ScR) and a two-round modified Delphi study based on the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method. Four databases (PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane Library; 2020–2025) were searched, complemented by snowball and the grey literature. Twenty-seven candidate indicators synthesised inductively into eight domains were rated by 23 expert nurses across three dimensions (appropriateness, clinical validity, and feasibility) on a nine-point Likert scale. Results: Retention from Round 1 to Round 2 was 87% (n = 20). Twenty-two indicators (81.5%) were classified as appropriate and five (18.5%) as uncertain, in all cases because of feasibility. The overall median for appropriateness and clinical validity was 9.0 in both rounds. Feasibility showed greater variability, with an 18% mean IQR reduction after Round 2. Indicators reaching consensus were distributed across structure (n = 3, 13.6%), process (n = 16, 72.7%) and outcome (n = 3, 13.6%) dimensions. An exploratory post-hoc prioritisation analysis identified four implementation tiers; the five Tier 1 indicators ranked in the top five under every weighting scheme tested. Conclusions: This consensus-based set provides a structured basis for monitoring neonatal nutritional care quality and for reducing clinical variability. Validation by a broader interdisciplinary panel including families, and prospective testing in routine practice, are required before its use in clinical dashboards or benchmarking.

NutrientsVol. 18(19)
Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (ES), Universitat de València (ES), Instituto de Salud Carlos III (ES), Institut d'Investigació Biomédica de Bellvitge (ES), Hospital Clínico Universitario de Valencia (ES), Vall d'Hebron Institut de Recerca (ES), Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red de Epidemiología y Salud Pública (ES)
Zero hunger
Openalex Percentile: Top 13%
Infant Nutrition and Health
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.