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.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sainz-Rozas et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: