ABSTRACT
Objective: To compare the Neonatal Behavior Assessment Scale results in two groups of infants with or without somatic disorder (N = 26). Method: The Neonatal Behavior Assessment Scale was administered to two groups (clinical and control) of 13 infants each, aged from 5 to 18 weeks, matched 2 by 2 according to sex, age, rank among siblings, and parental socio-professional category. The first group includes infants with somatic disorder (clinical) and is matched with a second group of "healthy infants" (control). Results: Results indicate that the mean score of the control group is significantly higher than that of the clinical group. Most of the items are affected by the presence of a somatic disorder. Indeed, five out of the six categories present a statistically significant difference in favor of the control group, more specifically for the items "state regulation," "motor system," and "orientation/interaction." Conclusion: This exploratory research enables a precise description of infants' difficulty in regulating excitations and the impact of somatic disorders on their development. This innovative knowledge will assist pediatricians and health professionals in the understanding of infants' characteristics to develop an adapted-care.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To identify the psychological repercussions of an error on professionals in intensive care and to understand their evolution. To identify the psychological defense mechanisms used by professionals to cope with error. DESIGN: Qualitative study with clinical interviews. We transcribed recordings and analysed the data using an interpretative phenomenological analysis. SETTING: Two ICUs in the teaching hospitals of Besançon and Dijon (France). SUBJECTS: Fourteen professionals in intensive care (20 physicians and 20 nurses). INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We conducted 40 individual semistructured interviews. The participants were invited to speak about the experience of error in ICU. The interviews were transcribed and analyzed thematically by three experts. In the month following the error, the professionals described feelings of guilt (53.8%) and shame (42.5%). These feelings were associated with anxiety states with rumination (37.5%) and fear for the patient (23%); a loss of confidence (32.5%); an inability to verbalize one's error (22.5%); questioning oneself at a professional level (20%); and anger toward the team (15%). In the long term, the error remains fixed in memory for many of the subjects (80%); on one hand, for 72.5%, it was associated with an increase in vigilance and verifications in their professional practice, and on the other hand, for three professionals, it was associated with a loss of confidence. Finally, three professionals felt guilt which still persisted at the time of the interview. We also observed different defense mechanisms implemented by the professional to fight against the emotional load inherent in the error: verbalization (70%), developing skills and knowledge (43%), rejecting responsibility (32.5%), and avoidance (23%). We also observed a minimization (60%) of the error during the interviews. CONCLUSIONS: It is important to take into account the psychological experience of error and the defense mechanisms developed following an error because they appear to determine the professional's capacity to acknowledge and disclose his/her error and to learn from it.
