Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T08:22:08.131Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Optimising motor development in the hospitalised infant with CHD: factors contributing to early motor challenges and recommendations for assessment and intervention

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 September 2023

Stefanie C. Rogers*
Affiliation:
Children’s Health Rehabilitation and Therapy Services, Children’s Medical Center Dallas, Dallas, TX, USA
Lauren Malik
Affiliation:
Primary Children’s Hospital, Salt Lake City, UT, USA
Jennifer Fogel
Affiliation:
Advocate Children’s Hospital, Oak Lawn, IL, USA
Bridy Hamilton
Affiliation:
Nemours Children’s Hospital, Wilmington, DE, USA
Darlene Huisenga
Affiliation:
Advocate Children’s Hospital, Oak Lawn, IL, USA
Christina Lewis-Wolf
Affiliation:
Children’s Hospitals and Clinics of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA
Dana Mieczkowski
Affiliation:
Nemours Children’s Hospital, Wilmington, DE, USA
Jennifer K. Peterson
Affiliation:
Johns Hopkins University School of Nursing, Baltimore, MD, USA
Sarah Russell
Affiliation:
Nemours Children’s Hospital, Wilmington, DE, USA
Anne C. Schmelzer
Affiliation:
Duke University Pediatric and Congenital Heart Center, Durham, NC, USA
Jodi Smith
Affiliation:
The Mended Hearts, Inc., Leesburg, GA, USA
Samantha C. Butler
Affiliation:
Harvard Medical School, Boston Children’s Hospital, Boston, MA, USA
*
Corresponding author: Stefanie C. Rogers; Email: Stefanie.rogers@childrens.com
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Background:

Neurodevelopmental challenges are the most prevalent comorbidity associated with a diagnosis of critical CHD, and there is a high incidence of gross and fine motor delays noted in early infancy. The frequency of motor delays in hospitalised infants with critical CHD requires close monitoring from developmental therapies (physical therapists, occupational therapists, and speech-language pathologists) to optimise motor development. Currently, minimal literature defines developmental therapists’ role in caring for infants with critical CHD in intensive or acute care hospital units.

Purpose:

This article describes typical infant motor skill development, how the hospital environment and events surrounding early cardiac surgical interventions impact those skills, and how developmental therapists support motor skill acquisition in infants with critical CHD. Recommendations for healthcare professionals and those who provide medical or developmental support in promotion of optimal motor skill development in hospitalised infants with critical CHD are discussed.

Conclusions:

Infants with critical CHD requiring neonatal surgical intervention experience interrupted motor skill interactions and developmental trajectories. As part of the interdisciplinary team working in intensive and acute care settings, developmental therapists assess, guide motor intervention, promote optimal motor skill acquisition, and support the infant’s overall development.

Type
Review
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press

Introduction

CHD, the most common birth defect diagnosed in infants, is present in approximately 40,000 live births annually in the United States of America. One-quarter of infants diagnosed have critical CHD and are hospitalised after birth or within the first few months for surgical and medical management. 1,2 Following cardiac surgery, infants with critical CHD are at risk for neurological and motor abnormalities that impact muscle tone, active movements, and motor skill development, and roughly one-third have delayed motor skills that can perpetuate as they age, with the most severe impairments seen in infants and very young children. Reference Stegeman, Sprong and Breur3Reference Butler, Sadhwani and Rofeberg7 At school entry, compared to children born very preterm, children with critical CHD are one-and-a-half times more likely to have motor delays. Reference Wehrle, Bartal and Adams8 Comparatively, studies have found that children and adolescents with critical CHD tend to have motor scores that are about one standard deviation lower than those of typically developing peers. Reference Bolduc, Dionne, Gagnon, Rennick, Majnemer and Brossard-Racine6

The aetiology of motor skill delays seen in infants with critical CHD is multifactorial. Prenatally, infants with critical CHD often exhibit brain dysmaturation, growth abnormalities, and genetic co-morbidities. Reference Jansen, Blom and Haak9Reference Thomason, Hect and Waller14 After birth, infants with critical CHD are at an increased risk of neurologic injury and events (e.g., seizure, hypotonia, hypertonia, and stroke) in the peri-operative period, associated with a higher risk of long-term motor delays. Reference Liamlahi and Latal15 Noxious environmental stimuli, painful procedures, sleep deprivation, and invasive lines and tubes impact infants’ brain development and affect their ability to calm, self-regulate, and maintain an optimal behavioural state for motor learning. Reference Cong, Wu and Vittner16 Further, a longer hospital stay predicts poor motor performance in infants independent of other risk factors, and infants with critical CHD who are hospitalised for more than 2 weeks are at increased risk for compounding global neurodevelopmental and motor delays. Reference Subedi, DeBoer and Scharf17Reference Gaynor, Stopp and Wypij19

With the knowledge of these ongoing motor delays, there is a focus on optimising motor outcomes through early developmental therapies of occupational therapy, physical therapy, and speech-language pathology in critical and acute care settings. This article begins with an overview of typical infant motor development and then aims to describe the contributors to motor skill disruptions and the roles of developmental therapists in addressing those disruptions. Motor assessment and interventions specific to hospitalised infants with critical CHD are recommended.

Typical infant motor development

Motor development begins prenatally when a fetus is in utero. Early fetal movements are necessary for proper physical development and vital to exercise muscles, flex joints, stretch skin, and circulate amniotic fluid. Reference Adolph, Robinson and Damon20 By 16 weeks, a full fetal movement repertoire is established, which includes startles, stretches, periodic breathing, and sucking and swallowing movements, and continues throughout gestation. As gestation progresses, at 34 weeks, the fetus can coordinate the suck/swallow/breathe pattern, allowing for non-nutritive sucking and efficient breast or bottle feeding after birth. Reference Jones, Desai and Fogel21 Once born, early infant experiences profoundly affect future motor skill development, and the extrauterine environment exposes infants to a range of physical and sensory input and motor demands, which prepare them for the development of new motor skills. Postural control, the ability of the infant to maintain head and trunk stability while coordinating extremity movements against gravity, is the foundation upon which motor skill development occurs. Infants learn to maintain a stable position while performing more complex motor movements as postural control matures (see Table 1). Reference Adolph, Robinson and Damon20,Reference Dusing22 For infants with critical CHD, these early opportunities for variations in motor movements that shape future motor skills may occur in ICUs. Reference Hadders-Algra23

Table 1. Infant postural control and facilitation of motor development

Motor development interruptions in the critical care setting

During the perinatal and peri-operative period, multiple factors affect typical motor patterns and developmental experiences of infants with critical CHD. Reference Marino, Lipkin and Newburger24

Infant sensory experiences

Intrauterine fetal experiences do not prepare infants for the bright and loud intensive care setting or excessive or inappropriate social interactions. The Synactive Theory of Newborn Behavioral Organization and Development suggests that the infant is in constant interaction with the physical (i.e., temperature, lights, noise, and other sensory stimuli) and social (i.e., family, healthcare professionals, and other caregivers) environment, and development is a result of the balance and regulation between the two. Infants actively strive for the next steps in development and depend on the environment and care to promote their developmental trajectory. Reference Als25 When an infant is repeatedly exposed to ongoing environmental stressors or less than ideal caregiving, there is the potential for changes to brain development and long-term neurodevelopmental consequences. Reference Nist, Harrison and Steward26

Autonomic dysregulation, often measured via heart rate variability, is an imbalance of the autonomic nervous system and a gauge of autonomic nervous system maturity as it responds to sensory stimulation. Reference Cardoso, Silva and Guimarães27 Autonomic dysregulation increases muscle tone, decreases movement tolerance, and impacts an infant’s ability to integrate new motor experiences. Disruption of early newborn development through sensory overstimulation may negatively impact the newborn’s ability to achieve regulation of cyclical processes and integrate sensory experiences, which is crucial to achieving more complex developmental tasks and motor progression. Reference Geva and Feldman28

Inadequate or lack of positive sensory experiences also can lead to physiological and psychological stress for the infant. Signals of infant stress may include changes in colour or vital signs (autonomic signs of stress), disorganised patterns of body movements or sudden muscle tone changes between flaccidity and tension (motor signs of stress), or gaze aversion and irritability (state signs of stress). In the intensive care setting, infants can experience unpredictable, intense, atypical, and complex sensory stimuli (see Table 2), which is challenging for the developing sensory system to integrate. Stress can impact the infant’s regulation and motor development.

Table 2. Sensory experiences of the infant with CHD in the critical care setting

Infant movement experiences

In transitional and post-operative periods, the infant’s clinical status, or ability to maintain physiological stability, impacts caregiving such as touch, movement, and therapeutic positioning. Life-sustaining medical interventions also limit activity and movement opportunities, resulting in prolonged supine, asymmetric, or extended postures and deprivation of movement, which is adverse to the typical progression of motor sequences. Reference Sweeney and Gutierrez29 Peri-operative low cardiac output syndrome may result in physiological intolerance to movement. Delayed sternal closure limits position changes, resulting in prolonged periods where the infant is supine. Reference Pye and McDonnell30 Post-operative analgesia and neuromuscular blockage result in active movement limitations. Reference Naguib, Dewhirst, Winch, Simsic, Galantowicz and Tobias31 Often, common practice is to limit movement or stimulation to decrease autonomic instability. However, there is evidence that positive touch and gentle passive range of motion in infants following sternal closure are safe, feasible, and may have positive benefits. Conversely, non-reciprocal interactions, sudden position changes, movement without preparatory touch, and negative touch and sensory stimulation are more likely to result in irregular autonomic patterns and traumatic movement experiences for the infant. Reference Lambert, Pemberton and Trachtenberg32

Lines, tubes, and respiratory support devices are important to maintain physiological stability but also limit typical infant movement patterns within and outside the crib. Restrictive measures, such as placing socks on an infant’s hands or wrapping their arms to their sides, hinder the infant’s ability to self-regulate. By limiting their movements, they are unable to bring their hands to midline and mouth, touch their face, and soothe themselves. This can impede the infant’s ability to self-regulate and manage pain and discomfort in a non-pharmacological way. Further, improper use of positioning devices in practices that trap, weight, or limit normal movement patterns like physiological flexion, symmetry, hands to mouth and face, palmar grasp, and body movements against gravity impedes sensorimotor development, musculoskeletal integrity, and developing postural control.

Congenital heart surgery and critical CHD have many potential adverse complications, including haemodynamic instability, persistent hypoxaemia, infection, arrhythmias, cardiac arrest, seizures, and cardiovascular collapse requiring extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. Each intervention that is necessary and imperative for the infant’s survival also has resulting implications on motor function and the infant’s ability to interact with their surroundings. All complications may lead to further movement limitations, activity restrictions, decreased opportunities for normal movement patterns, and a longer length of stay in the critical care setting resulting in an increased risk for motor delays. Reference DeWitt, Rossano and Bailly33 When the infant lacks feedback from actively moving their muscles against gravity, stretching against boundaries, and coordinating successful movement patterns, there is often a resulting impact on the development of typical motor, cognitive, sensory, and self-regulation skills. Reference Field34

Neurological injury

Infants with critical CHD are subject to potential neurological insult from pre-existing brain anomalies, abnormal perfusion from cardiac physiology, hypoxia, and injury to developing brain structures. Reference Wernovsky and Licht35 During the third trimester, fetuses with some forms of critical CHD exhibit gestationally immature brain volume, weight, and development compared to those without. Reference Limperopoulos, Tworetzky and McElhinney36 Peri-operative brain injury has been identified in approximately 55% of infants with single ventricle critical CHD, primarily affecting white matter, and neurologic complications ranging from 36 to 44% inclusive of other critical CHD defects. Reference Andropoulos, Stayer, Diaz and Ramamoorthy37Reference Beca, Gunn and Coleman39 Cardiopulmonary bypass, hypothermic circulatory arrest, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, or other temporary circulatory support pose risks for thrombotic, embolic, or haemorrhagic neurological complications. Reference Svrckova, Meshaka and Holtrup40 Additionally, seizures from neurological injury lead to an increased risk for mortality and neurodevelopmental delays. Reference Naim, Gaynor and Chen41

Injury to developing brain structures in infants with critical CHD is linked to delayed motor performance and milestone achievement. Reference Peyvandi, Chau and Guo38 Some infants with critical CHD display neurological and motor concerns such as hypotonia, hypertonia, abnormal suck, oral motor discoordination, and asymmetrical body movements following cardiac surgery and are at significant risk of fine and gross motor delays. Reference Gorantla, Chan, Shen, Wilkes and Bratton5,Reference Butler, Sadhwani and Rofeberg7,Reference Jones, Desai and Fogel21,Reference Khalil, Suff, Thilaganathan, Hurrell, Cooper and Carvalho42 Additionally, sedatives and neuromuscular blocking agents can compromise motor tone to maintain physiological flexion or move freely, affecting the infant’s ability to calm, move to comfortable positions, and self-regulate.

Musculoskeletal integrity

Typical infant motor skill development depends on maintaining and protecting musculoskeletal structural integrity, symmetry, midline, and physiological flexion. Reference Sweeney and Gutierrez29 The hospitalised infant with critical CHD is subject to many factors that can interrupt this alignment, and musculoskeletal complications develop quickly in infants who experience movement limitations. Hospitalised infants who spend a significant time supine instead of side-lying or prone are particularly at risk. When one joint or muscle group is affected, the entire musculoskeletal complex can become stressed and misaligned.

Musculoskeletal misalignment of shoulders, hips, trunk, and head and neck asymmetry creates a cascading effect by disrupting typical motor patterns and fine, gross, and oral motor milestone attainment, for instance:

  • Shoulder immobility disrupts self-soothing skills like bringing hands to the mouth or clasping hands at midline. Reference Sweeney and Gutierrez29

  • Hip immobility and misalignment of lower extremities result in delayed gross motor transition movements and milestones such as rolling, crawling, standing, and walking. Reference Rajantie, Laurila and Pollari43

  • Extension-dominant or poorly supported physiological flexion positioning can affect oral muscle tone, result in poor proprioceptive awareness of oral structures, and increase fatigue, making it challenging for infants to latch on to a nipple for non-nutritive suck or feeding. Reference Jones, Desai and Fogel21

  • Neck hyperextension and head turn preference can lead to postural or acquired torticollis (neck range of motion limitation caused by asymmetrical positioning over time leading to a muscular imbalance), positional deformational plagiocephaly (changes in the shape and structure of the cranium, often with facial asymmetry), and exaggerated cervical spinal lordosis. Reference Sweeney and Gutierrez29 Torticollis and plagiocephaly may cause visual range of motion deficits, inner ear structural anomalies, primitive reflex interruption, compound fine, gross, and oral motor delays and are linked to brain asymmetries and worse developmental outcomes. Reference Cabrera-Martos, Valenza and Valenza-Demet44-Reference Sargent, Kaplan and Coulter46

Sternal and prone precautions

Haemodynamic instability, neuromuscular blockade, and positioning restrictions due to an open sternum or sternotomy limit movement in infants with critical CHD post-operatively. It is important to recognise the difference between sternal precautions that limit picking an infant up from under their arms or pulling on their arms, and prone precautions that restrict tummy time. Reference Clifton, Cruz, Patel, Cahalin and Moore47 There is high variability in both implementation and duration of sternal and prone precaution practices in paediatric cardiac surgical institutions across the country, and those precautions are largely based on institution-specific preferences versus evidence-based research. Reference Rodman Uher, Nguyen and Monge48

When prone positioning is restricted, it may contribute to motor delays in infants. Reference Hewitt, Kerr, Stanley and Okely49 After cardiac surgery, infants who were permitted more than 15 minutes of prone positioning daily exhibited a significantly greater motor score than those with less. Reference Uzark, Smith and Yu50 Active, awake, and engaged time in the prone position influences and even predicts the onset of walking in infants with critical CHD. Reference Dagenais, Materassi and Desnous51 Prone strengthens the upper extremity, neck, and back muscles and promotes development of the chest and rib cage, improves ability to sit and stand, and facilitates the progression of locomotive activities. Reference Hewitt, Kerr, Stanley and Okely49 Clearly defining the difference between sternal and prone precautions and encouraging evidence-based practices regarding activity limitations post-sternotomy help support earlier mobility and long-term developmental outcomes.

Contextual challenges to normal infant experiences

Parents of hospitalised infants with critical CHD face challenges in supporting their child’s motor development. Reference Mitteregger, Wehrli and Theiler52 The critical care setting creates contextual and temporal obstacles for families to fulfil their parental roles, bond with their infant, provide calming and nurturing comfort, and promote motor development. Reference Mitteregger, Wehrli and Theiler52,Reference Lisanti, Golfenshtein and Medoff-Cooper53 Challenges to touch, holding and providing sensory, motor, and social interactions with their infant may adversely impact motor development. Further, hospitalisation in a critical care environment is stressful for families and may lead to anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress, and trauma symptoms, which are associated with poorer infant neurodevelopmental outcomes, including motor milestone achievement in infants with critical CHD. Reference Lisanti, Allen, Kelly and Medoff-Cooper54Reference Wu, Lu and Jacobs56 Families face uncertainty, altered roles, medical complexity, and varied emotions as their infant grows. Reference Mitteregger, Wehrli and Theiler52 It is essential that families have opportunities to care for, bond with, and participate in typical parenting activities with their hospitalised infant to support normalised infant motor movement experiences. Reference Mitteregger, Wehrli and Theiler52Reference Wu, Lu and Jacobs56

Addressing social determinants of health that affect diversity, equity, and inclusion for under-represented minority families of infants with critical CHD is necessary as they are at a higher risk for worse medical outcomes, increased re-hospitalisations, and are less likely to receive follow-up services, including developmental therapies. Reference Lopez, Baker-Smith and Flores57,Reference Neukomm, Ehrler and Feldmann58 Families face many barriers to their presence at the bedside such as financial concerns (difficulty taking time off of work, transportation, and housing near the hospital), caring for other children and family members at home, and emotional challenges (difficulty seeing child ill, mental health challenges). While there are no published studies investigating the correlation between early motor development and social determinants of health in hospitalised infants with critical CHD, it is crucial to consider the influence of these factors on infant development. Families with limited engagement at the bedside, whatever the barrier may be, likely have fewer opportunities to hold their infant, provide positive social interaction, provide breastfeeding or breast milk, and bond with their infant. These interactions and experiences are critical for promoting early motor development, as well as the overall health and well-being of the infant and family. COVID-19 increased barriers for at-risk families through visitation limits and fewer financial, medical, and psychosocial resources. Reference Cena, Biban and Janos59,Reference Litmanovitz, Silberstein, Butler and Vittner60

Supporting motor development in the hospitalised infant with critical CHD

Holistic motor support for hospitalized infants with critical CHD considers how the infant’s body systems work together, combines neuroprotective measures for physiological and developmental support, is individualized to each infant and family unit, and is understood within the context of the critical and acute care setting. Although healthcare professionals’ responsibilities may vary within and between institutions, a multi-disciplinary approach provides a robust avenue for collaboration and information sharing. Reference Miller, Lisanti and Witte61Reference Butler, Huyler and Kaza63 All healthcare professionals providing medical and developmental care benefit from knowing infant behavioural patterns, how they impact neurobehavioural functioning, and how motor development evolves as a result. Developmental therapists work with hospitalised infants with critical CHD and with other developmental specialists like medical professionals, psychologists, child life therapists, and music therapists.

Developmental therapies

Developmental therapists are increasingly involved in the care of critically ill children with a focus on early mobility, assessing and regaining functional skills after illness or injury, and dysphagia management that interferes with safe oral intake. Reference Wieczorek, Ascenzi and Kim64,Reference Hanna, Zhao, Shannon and Betters65 Typically, developmental therapists are occupational therapists, physical therapists, and speech-language pathologists as they are specifically trained to provide neurodevelopmental, fine and gross motor, oral motor, and feeding interventions to support hospitalised infants in intensive and acute care units. Reference Ubeda Tikkanen, Nathan and Sleeper66Reference Ross, Heiny, Conner, Spener and Pineda68 Hospitalised infants often work on recovering lost skills, along with acquiring new skills that form building blocks for future milestones while also healing from invasive interventions. Reference Lisanti, Vittner, Medoff-Cooper, Fogel, Wernovsky and Butler69 This is a habilitative approach and is implemented to support the infant’s developing brain, body, and sensory systems to encourage motor milestone development and limit deficits. Reference Craig and Smith70 Developmental therapists have in-depth knowledge of typical infant developmental milestones and trajectories, recognising that motor development is the result of behavioural patterns that build upon one another to support the infant’s progression to the next stage of development.

Developmental therapists support infant development and provide early holistic interventional therapeutic strategies to mitigate the many motor interruptions noted for children with critical CHD. Reference Ross, Heiny, Conner, Spener and Pineda68,Reference Borges Nery, Snider and Camelo71 All infants with critical CHD would benefit from close assessment of their motor abilities on admission in order to provide appropriate referral to occupational therapy, physical therapy, and/or speech-language therapy. Developmental therapies play a vital role in creating developmental plans and ensuring the continuity of interventions throughout an infant’s hospitalisation. Reference Lisanti, Vittner and Peterson72 The following descriptions aim to promote a shared understanding and encourage referrals by providing information on the areas targeted by each developmental discipline, as well as the corresponding methods used to achieve the desired outcomes:

  • Occupational Therapy: Employs sensory, neuromotor, neurobehavioural, developmental, and social-emotional interventions to enhance infant and family participation in daily activities and co-occupations (holding, skin-to-skin, soothing, and adapted infant care tasks) within the hospital. Reference Carroll, Ludwig and Sturdivant73

  • Physical Therapy: Applies movement science principles to optimise progressive postural and motor skill development in alignment with the infant’’s neurobehavioural and neuromotor systems. Reference Byrne and Garber74-Reference Sweeney, Heriza, Blanchard and Dusing76

  • Speech-Language Pathology: Utilises sensory, neuromotor, neurobehavioural, and oral motor interventions to improve infant communication, speech, feeding, and swallowing skills to promote infant-driven experiences. Reference Craig and Smith70,Reference Barbosa77

Promoting motor skill development requires a family-centred and multi-disciplinary team that considers the infant’s unique sensory, movement, and bonding experiences. This approach integrates concepts of infant mental health, such as building trust with the infant and family, particularly in an environment which is different from what the infant’s brain is expecting and atypical for early experiences. Reference Als78,Reference Als, Lawhon, Duffy, McAnulty, Gibes-Grossman and Blickman79 Developmental therapies use standardised and non-standardised assessments to determine specific areas for interventions to support the acquisition of motor skills; provide developmentally supportive environmental modifications, facilitate essential self-care activities such as oral motor skills for feeding, self-calming, and state regulation; provide hands-on therapeutic interventions to mitigate atypical musculoskeletal changes; and promote typical motor movement patterns and sensory experiences. During a critical period of brain development, developmental therapies promote family bonding and interaction through shared participation in activities that encourage the infant to attain long-term motor milestones and encourage the typical development of functional skills. Reference Barbosa77,Reference Sturdivant80

Motor skill assessment

Standardised neurobehavioural and neuromotor evaluations are recommended for hospitalised infants between 0 and 12 months diagnosed with critical CHD before discharge home. Reference Ware, Butcher and Latal81 Standardised assessments provide objective, accurate, reliable, consistent, and criterion-referenced measurements and are best practice to identify early neurodevelopmental challenges, tone and motor discrepancies, predict future developmental outcomes, and guide discharge referral to early intervention, home health, or outpatient developmental therapies. Reference Noble and Boyd82Reference Desai, Jones and Fogel84 Several standardised assessments are recommended to assess the skills of hospitalised infants (see Table 3).

Table 3. Standardised assessments of motor skill development for the hospitalised infant with CHD

In situations where an infant is sedated, ill, or medically unstable, a standardised assessment is often contraindicated, and a non-standardised assessment following many of the components of individualised developmental care is used to gather information and guide inpatient therapy goals, interventions, and discharge therapy recommendations (see Table 4). Reference Lisanti, Vittner, Medoff-Cooper, Fogel, Wernovsky and Butler69,Reference Als, Lawhon, Duffy, McAnulty, Gibes-Grossman and Blickman79 In addition, early infant motor assessment supports individualised developmental care, family knowledge of the infant’s motor developmental trajectory, and neurodevelopmental follow-up recommendations. Reference Lisanti, Vittner, Medoff-Cooper, Fogel, Wernovsky and Butler69 When families are encouraged to support their infant’s motor development, they become more attuned to their infant’s strengths and weaknesses, specific developmental goals, adjust caregiving tasks to meet those goals, and incorporate customised interventions into their daily routines.

Table 4. Variables to assess/observe in support of motor skill development for the hospitalised infant with CHD

Motor skill interventions

Motor interventions in the critical care setting (see Table 5) are individualised and adapted after careful and repeated observation of the infant’s behavioural cues in response to therapeutic activities and engagement with their family. Interventions continually evolve and change based on factors such as medical acuity of the infant (the level of medical care and attention that a patient requires based on the severity and complexity of their medical condition), surgical timing, infant response, and family comfort. The developmental therapy provided by occupational therapists, physical therapists, and speech-language pathologists is a specialised field that requires competence and adaptability to address many factors, including the medical diagnosis, individualised infant and family dynamics, and the rapidly changing clinical stability of a critically ill infant with CHD in the complex hospital environment. Reference Sturdivant80,Reference Desai, Jones and Fogel84

Table 5. Interventions to support motor skill development for the hospitalised infant with CHD

Interventions to support optimal environment for motor learning

Environmental modification interventions (see Table 5) decrease noxious stimuli and help the infant maintain a calm and optimal behavioural state for motor learning. Providing developmentally supportive stimuli enhances active engagement in motor activities and exploration. For example, light cycling, visual stimulation, and positional devices encourage the infant to interact and connect to the people and objects around them, thus promoting motor development. The appropriateness of all stimulation is determined by reading the infant’s cues and responses. Reference Als and Goldson85

Interventions to support infant self-regulation

Infant neurobehavioural cues guide therapeutic interventions, as learning is hindered when cues are misrepresented and an infant is overwhelmed, stressed, or physiologically unstable. Supporting infant strengths and utilising non-pharmacological calming and regulation activities like developmentally supportive positioning, environmental modifications, positive touch experiences, and family co-occupations create a healing environment for the infant (see Table 5). Reference Cardin86Reference Altimier and Phillips88 Careful, detailed, and repeated observation of infant behavioural patterns and motor responses are essential for individualised adaptation and planning of care, taking into account strengths and vulnerabilities to tailor interventions for the individual infant. Reference Noble and Boyd82,Reference Als and Goldson85 Utilising behavioural assessments prior to any handling or engagement ensures the infant is well regulated and calm in order to best receive intervention.

Interventions to support optimal infant movement experiences

Interventions for infant motor development are two-fold; graded body movements and weight-bearing activities require support for physiological stability and neurobehavioural readiness. Reference Altimier and Phillips88 Infants first tolerate static touch, progressing to body and extremity movements, then position changes and facilitated targeted motor skills (see Table 5). Reference Hadders-Algra89 It is also important to engage the infant’s sensory systems while engaging in motor movement – paying close attention to what the infant sees, hears, smells, touches, feels, and tastes along with how they respond during therapeutic handling and postural control activities. Reference Hadders-Algra89 The goal is active engagement of the muscles and joints to participate in stretching, reaching, and kicking; visual tracking and head control in prone, supine, and sitting; integration of sensory experiences into motor movements; and safe exploration of new movement patterns. Reference Altimier and Phillips88

Interventions to support the musculoskeletal system

Developmentally supportive positioning interventions facilitate midline development and symmetrical support of the musculoskeletal system (see Table 5). Long-term motor and functional interruptions are created by positioning-related facial, neck, skull, and skeletal abnormalities. Using a standardised positioning assessment like the Infant Positioning Assessment Tool 90 guides positioning interventions, communication among all caregivers, and creates a standard for infant positioning; further, it may have predictive capabilities for early identification of acquired positional deformities like torticollis and plagiocephaly. Reference Spilker, Hill and Rosenblum91,Reference Madlinger-Lewis, Reynolds, Zarem, Crapnell, Inder and Pineda92

Developmental therapies work with families and bedside caregivers to help the infant experience a variety of positions, including prone and modified prone, as soon as possible. It is especially beneficial when paired with family holding and skin-to-skin. Additionally, interventions to stretch and strengthen soft tissues through progressive movement experiences help limit contractures, positional deformities, and asymmetrical extended postures. Congenital hand or foot anomalies may require hard or soft splints or taping interventions to facilitate alignment.

Supporting family engagement and education

All infants expect comfort, well-being, and security from their families as the stable, familiar, and predictable caregiver. Reference Als78,Reference Als, Lawhon, Duffy, McAnulty, Gibes-Grossman and Blickman79,Reference Als and Goldson85,Reference Als, Duffy and McAnulty93 Family-centred early motor interventions for hospitalised infants with critical CHD may improve motor development and counteract parental overprotection and stress. Reference Mitteregger, Dirks, Theiler, Kretschmar and Latal94 Establishing care partnerships between the family and developmental therapy professionals fosters parent/family engagement, bonding, attachment, and advocacy during the hospitalisation, which can persist beyond discharge home. Reference Als, Duffy and McAnulty93,Reference Klug, Hall and Delaplane95 Therapeutic interventions occur in collaboration with families (see Table 5).

Conclusion

Beginning in utero, infants with critical CHD often have a different motor developmental trajectory than infants without a heart condition. Infants with critical CHD at 1 year of age commonly have delays in motor milestones and difficulties with motor skills, which may continue and evolve throughout life. This article summarises the early motor skill challenges and the impact of the critical care experience on the infant’s developing motor system. The challenges include limitations related to infant care, pre-operative co-morbidities, and peri-operative fragility. As members of the interdisciplinary healthcare team, occupational therapists, physical therapists, and speech-language pathologists have specialised training to perform standardised and non-standardised assessments to measure and monitor factors that influence motor skill development in the critical care setting. Interventions encompass environmental modifications, facilitating infant self-regulation, motor development activities, musculoskeletal interventions, and family engagement and education. Interdisciplinary collaboration and communication are vital to ensure optimal outcomes for hospitalised infants with critical CHD and their families.

There is currently a knowledge gap in research and dissemination of findings related to the impact of motor therapies and interventions to improve the short and long-term developmental outcomes for hospitalised infants with heart disease. Most of the literature on interventions to support neurodevelopmental outcomes has originated from populations within the neonatal ICU or with healthy infants. Although there is certainly some applicability to these populations, the underlying mechanisms of developmental delays and the unique physiology of newborns with critical CHD mean that one cannot assume these interventions are immediately transferrable between populations. Multi-centre collaboration is a strong tool to support robust prospective research in this vulnerable population.

Acknowledgements

We want to thank Tom Miller of Maine Medical Center for his expert advice, edits, and support of this project. Additionally, we want to thank Karen Uzark of the University of Michigan Mott Children’s Hospital for her time, patience, and guidance during the final edits. Last, we are grateful to the Publications Committee of the Cardiac Neurodevelopmental Outcome Collaborative for their comments and suggestions to improve this manuscript.

Financial support

This project received no specific grant from any funding agency, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Competing interests

None.

Footnotes

From the Cardiac Newborn Neuroprotective Network Special Interest Group of the Cardiac Neurodevelopmental Outcome Collaborative.

References

Centers-for-Disease-Control-and-Prevention. Data and statistics on congenital heart defects. Available at: https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/heartdefects/data.html.Google Scholar
Centers-for-Disease-Control-and-Prevention. Critical congenital heart defects in the United States. Available at: https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/heartdefects/features/cchd-keyfindings.html.Google Scholar
Stegeman, R, Sprong, MC, Breur, JM, et al. Early motor outcomes in infants with critical congenital heart disease are related to neonatal brain development and brain injury. Dev Med Child Neurol 2022; 64: 192199.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Butler, SC, Sadhwani, A, Stopp, C, et al. Neurodevelopmental assessment of infants with congenital heart disease in the early postoperative period. Congenit Heart Dis 2019; 14: 236245.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gorantla, SC, Chan, T, Shen, I, Wilkes, J, Bratton, SL. Current epidemiology of vocal cord dysfunction after congenital heart surgery in young infants. Ped Crit Care Med 2019; 20: 817825.10.1097/PCC.0000000000002010CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bolduc, M-E, Dionne, E, Gagnon, I, Rennick, JE, Majnemer, A, Brossard-Racine, M. Motor impairment in children with congenital heart defects: a systematic review. Pediatrics 2020; 146: e20200083.10.1542/peds.2020-0083CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Butler, SC, Sadhwani, A, Rofeberg, V, et al. Neurological features in infants with congenital heart disease. Dev Med Child Neurol 2022; 64: 762770.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wehrle, FM, Bartal, T, Adams, M, et al. Similarities and differences in the neurodevelopmental outcome of children with congenital heart disease and children born very preterm at school entry. J Pediatr 2022; 250: 29–37.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jansen, F, Blom, N, Haak, M. Prevalence of prenatal brain abnormalities in fetuses with congenital heart disease: a systematic review. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2016; 48: 538539.10.1002/uog.16022CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Leon, RL, Mir, IN, Herrera, CL, et al. Neuroplacentology in congenital heart disease: placental connections to neurodevelopmental outcomes. Pediatr Res 2022; 91: 787794.10.1038/s41390-021-01521-7CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sadhwani, A, Wypij, D, Rofeberg, V, et al. Fetal brain volume predicts neurodevelopment in congenital heart disease. Circulation 2022; 145: 11081119.10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.121.056305CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Williams, IA, Fifer, WP, Andrews, H. Fetal growth and neurodevelopmental outcome in congenital heart disease. Pediatr Cardiol 2015; 36: 11351144.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ko, JM. Genetic syndromes associated with congenital heart disease. Korean Circ J 2015; 45: 357361.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thomason, ME, Hect, J, Waller, R, et al. Prenatal neural origins of infant motor development: associations between fetal brain and infant motor development. Dev Psychopathol 2018; 30: 763772.10.1017/S095457941800072XCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Liamlahi, R, Latal, B. Neurodevelopmental outcome of children with congenital heart disease. Handb Clin Neurol 2019; 162: 329345.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cong, X, Wu, J, Vittner, D, et al. The impact of cumulative pain/stress on neurobehavioral development of preterm infants in the NICU. Early Hum Dev 2017; 108: 916.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Subedi, D, DeBoer, MD, Scharf, RJ. Developmental trajectories in children with prolonged NICU stays. Arch Dis Child 2017; 102: 2934.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Uzark, K, Smith, C, Donohue, J, et al. Infant motor skills after a cardiac operation: the need for developmental monitoring and care. Ann Thorac Surg 2017; 104: 681686.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gaynor, JW, Stopp, C, Wypij, D, et al. Neurodevelopmental outcomes after cardiac surgery in infancy. Pediatrics 2015; 135: 816825.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Adolph, KE, Robinson, SR. Motor development. In: Damon, W (ed). Handbook of Child Psychology and Developmental Science, 7thed. John Wiley & Sons, New York, 2015.Google Scholar
Jones, CE, Desai, H, Fogel, JL, et al. Disruptions in the development of feeding for infants with congenital heart disease. Cardiol Young 2021; 31: 589596.10.1017/S1047951120004382CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dusing, SC. Postural variability and sensorimotor development in infancy. Dev Med Child Neurol 2016; 58: 1721.10.1111/dmcn.13045CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hadders-Algra, M. Variation and variability: key words in human motor development. Phys Ther 2010; 90: 18231837.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marino, BS, Lipkin, PH, Newburger, JW, et al. Neurodevelopmental outcomes in children with congenital heart disease: evaluation and management: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation 2012; 126: 11431172.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Als, H. A synactive model of neonatal behavioral organization: framework for the assessment of neurobehavioral development in the premature infant and for support of infants and parents in the neonatal intensive care environment. Phys Occup Ther Pediatr 1986; 6: 353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nist, MD, Harrison, TM, Steward, DK. The biological embedding of neonatal stress exposure: a conceptual model describing the mechanisms of stress-induced neurodevelopmental impairment in preterm infants. Res Nurs Health 2019; 42: 6171.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cardoso, S, Silva, MJ, Guimarães, H. Autonomic nervous system in newborns: a review based on heart rate variability. Childs Nerv Syst 2017; 33: 10531063.10.1007/s00381-017-3436-8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Geva, R, Feldman, R. A neurobiological model for the effects of early brainstem functioning on the development of behavior and emotion regulation in infants: implications for prenatal and perinatal risk. J Child Psychol Psychiatry 2008; 49: 10311041.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sweeney, JK, Gutierrez, T. Musculoskeletal implications of preterm infant positioning in the NICU. J Perinat Neonatal Nurs 2002; 16: 5870.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pye, S, McDonnell, M. Nursing considerations for children undergoing delayed sternal closure after surgery for congenital heart disease. Crit Care Nurse 2010; 30: 5061.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Naguib, AN, Dewhirst, E, Winch, PD, Simsic, J, Galantowicz, M, Tobias, JD. Pain management after comprehensive stage 2 repair for hypoplastic left heart syndrome. Pediatr Cardiol 2013; 34: 5258.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lambert, LM, Pemberton, VL, Trachtenberg, FL, et al. Design and methods for the training in exercise activities and motion for growth (TEAM 4 growth) trial: a randomized controlled trial. Int J Card 2022; 359: 2834.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
DeWitt, AG, Rossano, JW, Bailly, DK, et al. Predicting and surviving prolonged critical illness after congenital heart surgery. Crit Care Med 2020; 48: e557.10.1097/CCM.0000000000004354CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Field, T. Touch. London: A Bradford Book. The MIT Press, London, Massachusetts, 2003.Google Scholar
Wernovsky, G, Licht, DJ. Neurodevelopmental outcomes in children with congenital heart disease-what can we impact? Pediatr Crit Care Med 2016; 17: S232.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Limperopoulos, C, Tworetzky, W, McElhinney, DB, et al. Brain volume and metabolism in fetuses with congenital heart disease: evaluation with quantitative magnetic resonance imaging and spectroscopy. Circulation 2010; 121: 2633.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Andropoulos, DB, Stayer, SA, Diaz, LK, Ramamoorthy, C. Neurological monitoring for congenital heart surgery. Anesth Analg 2004; 99: 13651375.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Peyvandi, S, Chau, V, Guo, T, et al. Neonatal brain injury and timing of neurodevelopmental assessment in patients with congenital heart disease. JACC 2018; 71: 19861996.10.1016/j.jacc.2018.02.068CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Beca, J, Gunn, JK, Coleman, L, et al. New white matter brain injury after infant heart surgery is associated with diagnostic group and the use of circulatory arrest. Circulation 2013; 127: 971979.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Svrckova, P, Meshaka, R, Holtrup, M, et al. Imaging of cerebral complications of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in infants with congenital heart disease—ultrasound with multimodality correlation. Pediatr Radiol 2020; 50: 9971009.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Naim, MY, Gaynor, JW, Chen, J, et al. Subclinical seizures identified by postoperative electroencephalographic monitoring are common after neonatal cardiac surgery. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2015; 150: 169180.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Khalil, A, Suff, N, Thilaganathan, B, Hurrell, A, Cooper, D, Carvalho, JS. Brain abnormalities and neurodevelopmental delay in congenital heart disease: systematic review and meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2014; 43: 1424.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rajantie, I, Laurila, M, Pollari, K, et al. Motor development of infants with univentricular heart at the ages of 16 and 52 weeks. Ped Phys Ther 2013; 25: 444450.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cabrera-Martos, I, Valenza, MC, Valenza-Demet, G, et al. Impact of torticollis associated with plagiocephaly on infants’ motor development. J Craniofac Surg 2015; 26: 151156.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Du, Q, Zhou, X, Sun, K. Randomized controlled trial of a home-based exercise program for children with congenital heart disease following interventional cardiac catheterization: a preliminary study. Ann Phys Rehabil Med 2018; 61: e278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sargent, B, Kaplan, SL, Coulter, C, et al. Congenital muscular torticollis: bridging the gap between research and clinical practice. Pediatrics 2019; 144: e20190582.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clifton, A, Cruz, G, Patel, Y, Cahalin, LP, Moore, JG. Sternal precautions and prone positioning of infants following median sternotomy: a nationwide survey. Pediatr Phys Ther 2020; 32: 339345.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rodman Uher, L, Nguyen, N, Monge, M. Sternal precautions after pediatric cardiac surgery: a survey of current practice. Am J Occup Ther 2016; 70: 7011510235p70115102317011510235p7011510231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hewitt, L, Kerr, E, Stanley, RM, Okely, AD. Tummy time and infant health outcomes: a systematic review. Pediatrics 2020; 145: e20192168.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Uzark, K, Smith, C, Yu, S, et al. Evaluation of a, tummy time, intervention to improve motor skills in infants after cardiac surgery. Cardiol Young 2022; 32: 12101215.10.1017/S1047951121003930CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dagenais, L, Materassi, M, Desnous, B, et al. Superior performance in prone in infants with congenital heart disease predicts an earlier onset of walking. J Child Neurol 2018; 33: 894900.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mitteregger, E, Wehrli, M, Theiler, M, et al. Parental experience of the neuromotor development of children with congenital heart disease: an exploratory qualitative study. BMC Pediatr 2021; 21: 113.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lisanti, AJ, Golfenshtein, N, Medoff-Cooper, B. The pediatric cardiac intensive care unit parental stress model: refinement using directed content analysis. Adv Nurs Sci 2017; 40: 319336.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lisanti, AJ, Allen, LR, Kelly, L, Medoff-Cooper, B. Maternal stress and anxiety in the pediatric cardiac intensive care unit. Am J Crit Care 2017; 26: 118125.10.4037/ajcc2017266CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Roberts, SD, Kazazian, V, Ford, MK, et al. The association between parent stress, coping and mental health, and neurodevelopmental outcomes of infants with congenital heart disease. Clin Neuropsychol 2021; 35: 948972.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wu, Y, Lu, Y-C, Jacobs, M, et al. Association of prenatal maternal psychological distress with fetal brain growth, metabolism, and cortical maturation. JAMA Netw Open 2020; 3: e1919940e1919940.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lopez, KN, Baker-Smith, C, Flores, G, et al. Addressing social determinants of health and mitigating health disparities across the lifespan in congenital heart disease: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association. J Am Heart Assoc 2022; 11: e025358.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Neukomm, A, Ehrler, M, Feldmann, M, et al. Perioperative course and socioeconomic status predict long-term neurodevelopment better than perioperative conventional neuroimaging in children with congenital heart disease. J Pediatr 2022; 251: 140148, e143.10.1016/j.jpeds.2022.07.032CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cena, L, Biban, P, Janos, J, et al. The collateral impact of COVID-19 emergency on neonatal intensive care units and family-centered care: challenges and opportunities. Front Psychol 2021; 12: 630594.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Litmanovitz, I, Silberstein, D, Butler, S, Vittner, D. Care of hospitalized infants and their families during the COVID-19 pandemic: an international survey. J Perinat 2021; 41: 981987.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Miller, TA, Lisanti, AJ, Witte, MK, et al. A collaborative learning assessment of developmental care practices for infants in the cardiac intensive care unit. J Pediatr 2020; 220: 93100.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lisanti, AJ, Cribben, J, Connock, EMM, Lessen, R, Medoff-Cooper, B. Developmental care rounds: an interdisciplinary approach to support developmentally appropriate care of infants born with complex congenital heart disease. Clin Perin 2016; 43: 147156.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Butler, SC, Huyler, K, Kaza, A, et al. Filling a significant gap in the cardiac ICU: implementation of individualised developmental care. Card Young 2017; 27: 17971806.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wieczorek, B, Ascenzi, J, Kim, Y, et al. PICU Up!: impact of a quality improvement intervention to promote early mobilization in critically ill children. Pediatr Crit Care Med 2016; 17: e559e566.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hanna, ES, Zhao, S, Shannon, CN, Betters, KA. Changes in provider perceptions regarding early mobility in the PICU. Pediatr Crit Care Med 2020; 21: e30e38.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ubeda Tikkanen, A, Nathan, M, Sleeper, LA, et al. Predictors of postoperative rehabilitation therapy following congenital heart surgery. J Am Heart Assoc 2018; 7: e008094.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Haseba, S, Sakakima, H, Nakao, S, et al. Early postoperative physical therapy for improving short-term gross motor outcome in infants with cyanotic and acyanotic congenital heart disease. Disabil Rehabil 2018; 40: 16941701.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ross, K, Heiny, E, Conner, S, Spener, P, Pineda, R. Occupational therapy, physical therapy and speech-language pathology in the neonatal intensive care unit: patterns of therapy usage in a level IV NICU. Red Dev Disabil 2017; 64: 108117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lisanti, AJ, Vittner, D, Medoff-Cooper, B, Fogel, J, Wernovsky, G, Butler, S. Individualized family-centered developmental care: an essential model to address the unique needs of infants with congenital heart disease. J Cardiovasc Nurs 2019; 34: 8593.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Craig, JW, Smith, CR. Risk-adjusted/neuroprotective care services in the NICU: the elemental role of the neonatal therapist (OT, PT, SLP). J Perinatol 2020; 40: 549559.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Borges Nery, P, Snider, L, Camelo, JS, et al. The role of rehabilitation specialists in Canadian NICUs: a 21st-century perspective. Phys Occup Ther Pediatr 2019; 39: 3347.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lisanti, AJ, Vittner, DJ, Peterson, J, et al. Developmental care pathway for hospitalised infants with CHD: on behalf of the Cardiac Newborn Neuroprotective Network, a Special Interest Group of the Cardiac Neurodevelopmental Outcome Collaborative. Cardiol Young, 2023, 118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carroll, S, Ludwig, S, Sturdivant, C. Occupational therapy’s role in the neonatal intensive care unit. Am J Occup Ther 2018; 72: 19.Google Scholar
Byrne, E, Garber, J. Physical therapy intervention in the neonatal intensive care unit. Phys Occup Ther Pediatr 2013; 33: 75110.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sweeney, JK, Heriza, CB, Blanchard, Y. Neonatal physical therapy. Part I: Clinical competencies and neonatal intensive care unit clinical training models. Pediatr Phys Ther 2009; 21: 296307.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sweeney, JK, Heriza, CB, Blanchard, Y, Dusing, SC. Neonatal physical therapy. Part II: Practice frameworks and evidence-based practice guidelines. Pediatr Phys Ther 2010; 22: 216.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barbosa, VM. Teamwork in the neonatal intensive care unit. Phys Occup Ther Pediatr 2013; 33: 526.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Als, H. Toward a synactive theory of development: promise for the assessment and support of infant individuality. Infant Mental Health Journal. 1982; 3: 229243.3.0.CO;2-H>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Als, H, Lawhon, G, Duffy, FH, McAnulty, GB, Gibes-Grossman, R, Blickman, JG. Individualized developmental care for the very low-birth-weight preterm infant: medical and neurofunctional effects. JAMA 1994; 272: 853858.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sturdivant, C. A collaborative approach to defining neonatal therapy. Newborn Infant Nurs Rev, 2013; 13: 2326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ware, J, Butcher, JL, Latal, B, et al. Neurodevelopmental evaluation strategies for children with congenital heart disease aged birth through 5 years: recommendations from the cardiac neurodevelopmental outcome collaborative. Card Young 2020; 30: 16091622.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Noble, Y, Boyd, R. Neonatal assessments for the preterm infant up to 4 months corrected age: a systematic review. Dev Med Child Neurol 2012; 54: 129139.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Spittle, AJ, Doyle, LW, Boyd, RN. A systematic review of the clinimetric properties of neuromotor assessments for preterm infants during the first year of life. Dev Med Child Neurol 2008; 50: 254266.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Desai, H, Jones, CE, Fogel, JL, et al. Assessment and management of feeding difficulties for infants with complex CHD. Cardiol Young 2023; 33: 110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Als, H. Reading the premature infan. In: Goldson, E (eds). Developmental interventions in the neonatal intensive care nursery. Oxford University Press, 1999: 1885.Google Scholar
Cardin, AD. Parents’ perspectives: an expanded view of occupational and co-occupational performance in the neonatal intensive care unit. Am J Occup Ther 2020; 74: 7402205030p74022050317402205030p7402205012.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cardin, AD, Rens, LA, Stewart, S, Danner-Bowman, K, McCarley, R, Kopsas, R. Neuroprotective core measures 1-7: a developmental care journey: transformations in NICU design and caregiving attitudes. Newborn Infant Nurs Rev 2015; 15: 132141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Altimier, L, Phillips, R. The neonatal integrative developmental care model: advanced clinical applications of the seven core measures for neuroprotective family-centered developmental care. Newborn Infant Nurs Rev 2016; 16: 230244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hadders-Algra, M. Early diagnostics and early intervention in neurodevelopmental disorders—age-dependent challenges and opportunities. J Clin Med 2021; 10: 861.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Koninklijke-Philips-NV. Infant positioning assessment tool (IPAT). Philips, 2018. https://images.philips.com/is/content/PhilipsConsumer/Campaigns/HC20140401_DG/Documents/ipat_sheet.pdf Google Scholar
Spilker, A, Hill, C, Rosenblum, R. The effectiveness of a standardised positioning tool and bedside education on the developmental positioning proficiency of NICU nurses. Intensive Crit Care Nurs 2016; 35: 1015.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Madlinger-Lewis, L, Reynolds, L, Zarem, C, Crapnell, T, Inder, T, Pineda, R. The effects of alternative positioning on preterm infants in the neonatal intensive care unit: a randomized clinical trial. Res Dev Disabil 2014; 35: 490497.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Als, H, Duffy, FH, McAnulty, GB, et al. Early experience alters brain function and structure. Pediatrics 2004; 113: 846857.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mitteregger, E, Dirks, T, Theiler, M, Kretschmar, O, Latal, B. A family-tailored early motor intervention (EMI-Heart) for infants with complex congenital heart disease: study protocol for a feasibility RCT. Pilot Feasibility Stud 2022; 8: 112.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Klug, J, Hall, C, Delaplane, EA, et al. Promoting parent partnership in developmentally supportive care for infants in the pediatric cardiac intensive care unit. Adv Neonatal Care. 2020; 20: 161170.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hedberg, Å., Forssberg, H, Hadders-Algra, M. Postural adjustments due to external perturbations during sitting in 1-month-old infants: evidence for the innate origin of direction specificity. Exp Brain Res 2004; 157: 1017.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hadders-Algra, M. Development of postural control during the first 18 months of life. Neural Plast 2005; 12: 99108.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McEwan, MH, Dihoff, RE, Brosvic, GM. Early infant crawling experience is reflected in later motor skill development. Percept Mot Skills 1991; 72: 7579.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hadders-Algra, M. Early human motor development: from variation to the ability to vary and adapt. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 2018; 90: 411427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Piper, M, Darrah, J. Motor assessment of the developing infant: Alberta Infant Motor Scale (AIMS). Elsevier, St. Louis, 2021.Google Scholar
Long, SH, Harris, SR, Eldridge, BJ, Galea, MP. Gross motor development is delayed following early cardiac surgery. Cardiol Young 2012; 22: 574582.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fourdain, S, Simard, M, Dagenais, L, et al. Gross motor development of children with congenital heart disease receiving early systematic surveillance and individualized intervention: brief report. Dev Neurorehabil 2021; 24: 5662.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lester, BM, Tronick, EZ, Brazelton, TB. The neonatal intensive care unit network neurobehavioral scale procedures. Pediatrics 2004; 113: 641667.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hogan, WJ, Winter, S, Pinto, NM, et al. Neurobehavioral evaluation of neonates with congenital heart disease: a cohort study. Dev Med Child Neurol 2018; 60: 12251231.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gakenheimer-Smith, L, Glotzbach, K, Ou, Z, et al. The impact of neurobehavior on feeding outcomes in neonates with congenital heart disease. J Pediatr 2019; 214: 7178.e2.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Campbell, K, Malik, L, Jones, C, et al. Abnormal infant neurobehavior and later neurodevelopmental delays in children with critical CHD. Cardiol Young 2022; 33: 110.Google ScholarPubMed
Campbell, SK. The test of infant motor performance: Test user’s manual version 3.0 for the TIMP version 5. Infant Motor Performance Scales, LLC, 2012.Google Scholar
Tripathi, T, Harrison, TM, Simsic, JM, Cabral, TI, Heathcock, JC. Screening and evaluation of neurodevelopmental impairments in infants under 6 months of age with congenital heart disease. Pediatr Cardiol 2022; 43: 489496.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Huisenga, DC, Van Bergen, AH, Sweeney, JK, Wu, Y-C, Hadders-Algra, M. The quality of general movements in infants with complex congenital heart disease undergoing surgery in the neonatal period. Early Hum Dev 2020; 151: 105167.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dubowitz, L, Dubowitz, V, Mercuri, E. The neurological assessment of the preterm & full-term newborn infant, 2nd edn. 1999, 148, London, Mac Keith.Google Scholar
Figure 0

Table 1. Infant postural control and facilitation of motor development

Figure 1

Table 2. Sensory experiences of the infant with CHD in the critical care setting

Figure 2

Table 3. Standardised assessments of motor skill development for the hospitalised infant with CHD

Figure 3

Table 4. Variables to assess/observe in support of motor skill development for the hospitalised infant with CHD

Figure 4

Table 5. Interventions to support motor skill development for the hospitalised infant with CHD