Transcript Document
Forum -- Hälsofrämjande vårdmiljöer Skånes universitetssjukhus, Malmö
Evidence-based design:
Recent developments
Roger S. Ulrich, Ph.D.
Center for Healthcare Building Research Department of Architecture Chalmers University of Technology
Design/research questions:
•
Is the ‘attractiveness’ of health care interior spaces important?
•
Does attractiveness affect patient outcomes?
BACKGROUND THEORY and RESEARCH: Why room attractiveness should matter
1. The ‘Beautiful Room Effect’
(Maslow and Mintz, 1956) •
Study methods:
Participants (who were not patients) were assigned to either a ‘beautiful’ room (well-decorated and well lit), average room, or ‘ugly’ room (undecorated walls and poor lighting) • While seated in the rooms, participants were asked to make judgments or evaluations about several persons shown in photos
‘Beautiful Room Effect’ -- continued
(Maslow and Mintz, 1956) •
Findings:
Participants in the beautiful room gave the most positive evaluations of the persons in the photos •
Implication:
produce a more positive emotional state and judgment disposition that generalizes to more favorable perceptions of other persons in the space
‘Beautiful Room Effect’ -- continued
• Consistent with Maslow and Mintz’ early research, studies have found that attractive patient rooms and clinic waiting rooms increase patients’ perceived quality of healthcare staff For example, doctors are judged to have more skill and knowledge when patients are examined in attractive rooms, compared to when the same doctors give similar treatment in unattractive rooms (Swan et al., 2003; Becker and Douglass, 2008; Becker et al., 2008)
BACKGROUND THEORY and RESEARCH: Why room attractiveness should matter
2. Service Quality Theory and Research
(Parasuraman et al., 1985; Berry and Bendapudi, 2003)
Much research has shown that patients
base their judgments of satisfaction and quality on information which they can personally perceive and
evaluate, and which provides them with concrete, meaningful information they understand provides tangible and meaningful evidence (Berry and Bendapudi, 2003)
Service Quality Theory and Research -- continued --
But healthcare is a highly complex and technical service. Many aspects remain unknown to patients or are only vaguely perceived and are not understandable.
These aspects have little or no impact on satisfaction or quality judgments Examples of abstract or unknowable factors include the quality of care processes, and levels of clinician training and experience
Service Quality Theory and Research -- continued
Compared to abstract or unknowable technical aspects,
environmental factors
such as noise or privacy are easy to perceive and understand, and provide meaningful information that strongly impacts patient satisfaction Other perceivable and meaningful information comes from
staff behavior
Service Quality Theory and Research -- continued
The attractiveness or comfort of a hospital waiting room, for example, is directly perceived and understandable evidence, and therefore can be expected to affect patient satisfaction
Research findings:
Consistent with service quality theory, a growing amount of research has shown that attractive waiting rooms increase patients’ overall satisfaction with care
Study:
Effects of Waiting Room Comfort on Overall Satisfaction with Care
(
Hospital and Family Medicine Clinics
)
From: K. M. Leddy (2005) Press Ganey Associates
Based on data from 1,201,559 treated at 4,392 patients medical practice offices throughout U.S. (January - December, 2004)
Satisfaction with Care Experience by Amount of Time Spent in Waiting Room and Comfort of Clinic Waiting Room +117% 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 <10 R. Ulrich. Data source: Press Ganey, 2005 10 to 14 15 to 19 20 to 30 >30 Very GOOD Good FAIR Poor Very POOR
Emergency department waiting room where stress, long waits, and low satisfaction are problems
Providence St. Vincent Hospital Portland, Oregon Emergency Department Waiting Room - with garden views to reduce stress, aggression, increase satisfaction
Design: ZGF and Robert Murase
More research needed on
attractiveness
Research has not yet clearly identified what attractiveness is Some studies use terms such as “comfort” and “attractiveness” interchangeably with defining them Research has not yet identified for designers and healthcare managers the most important and cost-effective design factors for achieving attractiveness Other research suggests that many architects judge attractiveness differently than the public
Given limits in current research, what design factors may affect attractiveness?
Lighting quality, including daylight Presence/absence of appealing art or wall decoration Comfort and quality of seating, and whether chairs are movable Acoustics (probably) Crowding (probably) Other (very likely)
Attractiveness: conclusions
Attractiveness remains a vague concept, but research suggests it is important to patients and families (and staff) Whatever attractiveness is, research implies it should be given considerable attention or priority Many architects perceive attractiveness differently than the public, indicating the need for designers to listen carefully to patients and other groups
Part 2:
Comments on the report from HTA-centrum (Sahlgrenska) titled:
“Enklerum eller flerbäddsrum på sjukhusavdelning”
Research examples:
Increased infection risk from
having one roommate with a positive
culture
exposure to one room mate with MRSA
increased risk by 20 times
(
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology
)
McFarland et al (1989):
C. difficile
risk increased by 73%
(
New England J. Medicine
)
patients substantially reduces risk of
Chang and Nelson (2000):
C. difficile
risk increased by 86%
(
Clinical Infectious Diseases
)
Byers et al (2001):
VRE risk increased by 149%
(
Infection Control & Hosp. Epidemiology
)
STUDY : Converting an intensive care unit to single rooms substantially reduces infection (Teltsch et al. 2011, Archives of Internal Medicine)
•
Study site:
25-bed intensive care unit before and after renovation to all single rooms (Well-controlled, rigorous research design.) •
Main findings:
C. difficile
decreased 43%
MRSA decreased 47%
Overall average length of stay decreased 10%
(all patients in intensive care)
STUDY :
Exposure to hospital roommates as a risk factor for healthcare-associated infection
(Hamel, Zoutman, and O’Callaghan, 2010) • •
Study population:
94,784 adult hospital patients in Canada
Main findings:
The number of roommate exposures per day was significantly and strongly associated with MRSA, VRE, and
C. difficile
infection Having one roommate increased infection risk by
11%, even if the roommate was not infected.
Exposure to 6 roommates increased risk by
87%.
Examples of studies reporting that single rooms reduce MRSA, VRE, and/or
C. difficile
Ben-Abraham, Keller, Szold, Vardi, Weinberg, Barzilay, et al. (2002). Journal of Critical Care.
Berild, D., Smaabrekke, L., Halvorsen, D. S., Lelek, M., Stahlsberg, E. M. & Ringertz, S. H. (2003). Journal of Hospital Infection.
Byers, Anglim, Anneski, Teresa, Gold, & Durbin (2001). Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology.
Cheng, Tai, Chan, Lau, Chan, et al. (2010). BMC Infectious Diseases. Gastmeier, Schwab, Geffers & Ruden (2004). Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology.
Jernigan, Titus, Groschel, Getchell-White, & Farr (1996). American Journal of Epidemiology.
Wigglesworth & Wilcox (2006). Journal of Hospital Infection. Zhou et al. (2008). Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology.
C. difficile
Infection Control Practice Guidelines PIDAC CDC SHEA AIA 2006 2007 1995 2006 Best Practices Document for the Management of
Clostridium difficile
Prevention in All Healthcare Settings Guidelines for Isolation Precautions: Preventing Transmis sion of Infectious Agents in Healthcare Settings -- In acute care hospitals, place patients who require contact precautions in a single patient room when available (84).
Clostridium Difficile-
Associated Diarrhea and Colitis -- All patients suspected of having CDAD should be placed in a single room with dedicated toileting facilities, if available (7).
-- Isolation of patients with CDAD in available . . .
private rooms is recommended if private rooms are Guidelines for Design and Construction of Health Care Facilities -- In new construction, the maximum number of beds per room shall be one unless the functional program demonstrates the necessity of a two-bed arrangement.
Single Rooms Enhance Family Presence, Staff Communication, and Privacy
(Kaldenburg, 1999; Chaudhury et al., 2003)
Single-bed vs. Multi-bed Patient Rooms (Ulrich, 2004) Single Multi-bed Healthcare associated infections Medical errors Falls Staff observation of patients Staff/patient communication Confidentiality of information Presence of family Patient privacy and dignity End-of-life with dignity Noise Sleep quality
Single-bed vs. Multi-bed Patient Rooms (Ulrich, 2004) Single Multi-bed Pain Patient stress Daylight exposure Patient satisfaction Choice Staff satisfaction Staff work effectiveness Reducing room transfers Adapt to handle high acuity Managing bed availability Initial construction costs Operations and whole life costs
Widely held beliefs obstructing adoption of single-bed rooms
•
Beliefs are not evidence-based
•
Published evidence contradicts these beliefs
• Many patients (up to 50%) like having
roommates
•
Single rooms prevent visual observation of patients, therefore worsening safety
•
Single rooms require much higher nurse
staffing levels (41%),
greatly increasing costs
Dr. Charles McLauglan in
Hospital Doctor
(February 2006)
Director of professional standards, Royal College of Anaesthetists “With single rooms, we need state-of the-art monitoring equipment because we have not got line-of-sight for the nursing staff.”
‘State-of-the-art monitoring equipment’ in a Canadian hospital built 40 years ago
Single rooms designed for high visual access Toronto General Hospital
Line-of-sight monitoring in an open bay
Do patients like having roommates?
• Studies show that 85%-90% of the time roommates are source of
stress
not positive social support Stress examples: roommate who is unfriendly or seriously ill Roommates generate much noise and reduce privacy Roommate incompatibility causes many
room transfers
Preferences for Multi-bed vs Single Rooms Findings from Two UK Studies
100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%
Adults with little or no experience with single rooms
source: NHS Estates & BMRB, 2002 Single-bed Multi-beds
Patients with experience with both multi-bed and single rooms
source: Lawson and Phiri, 2003
Overall Care Satisfaction – Female Patients (after Kaldenburg, 1999-2003)
With roommate Single room
84 82 80 78 76 74 72 0-17
Age
18-34 35-49 50-64 65-79 >80
Key Policy Changes Affecting Financial Outcomes of UK Public (NHS) Hospitals
Patient Choice
Patients can choose where to go for care. Revenues flow with patients. Two sources of competition: NHS and private providers Payment by results (by quality) Costs of infections, falls, errors, longer stays paid to greater extent by trusts
Case study: Effects of patient choice on public and private hospital revenues in one UK health region (2005)
Study:
Financial Impact of Patient Choice in the Birmingham and Black Country Strategic Health Authority
(
SHA
)
MORI Social Research Institute, 2005
Report prepared for U.K. National Health
Services (NHS)
U.K. Public Awareness of Patient Choice
(in 2004)
How much have you heard about the patient choice initiative?
A great deal 4 % A fair amount 8%
25% Just a little Nothing at all 62%
How much do you think the private sector is better than the NHS in these areas of activity?
source: 1,201 residents, MORI Birmingham SHA study, 2005 Single room Lower MRSA risk Nice environment Flexibility on visiting Respectful care Quality of information
0% 10%
Single rooms improve all these outcomes
20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Comparing persons ‘easy to persuade’ vs ‘hard to persuade’ to choose a private sector hospital
Private room is important: 79% of easy to persuade 47% of hard to persuade Flexibility about visiting important: 91% of easy to persuade 77% of hard to persuade
NHS better Flexibility about visiting Private sector better Neither Nice environment
Based on the survey findings, the private sector was estimated to make £35 million in revenues the first year from patient choice in the Birmingham and Black Country area (source: Independent Healthcare Forum)
> SEK 600,000,000 at 2005 currency rates
• The findings are ‘a major wake-up call for the NHS’ • Both primary care facilities and hospitals ‘need to take implications of choice on board immediately’ -- Peter Pilsbury, Director of Strategy, Birmingham/Black Country SHA (in HSJ)
Marketing brochure for two London private hospitals 156 single rooms 167 single rooms
Golden Jubilee National Hospital (NHS) Glasgow
Major Healthcare Trends in Europe, N. America, and Australia
Increasingly serious challenges from antibiotic resistant infections Sicker patients (rising acuity) Increasing importance of patient privacy and dignity
increase quality
Payment by results (by quality) More and more emphasis on
patient safety
Conclusion
Concerning the report from HTA-centrum titled: “Enklerum eler flerbäddsrum på sjukhusavdelning” My opinion is that the report is narrow, does not use appropriate criteria for evaluating research quality, omits relevant and strong published studies, misinterprets some information, and does not adequately address certain outcomes and healthcare issues of growing and major importance internationally.
Conclusion
The HTA-centrum report is a gift to the private sector, and to those who may believe that many hospitals should be private.
What To Do When A Hospital Has Many Multi-Bed Rooms
• Upgrade ceiling tiles to reduce noise and voice travel, increase privacy Eliminate noise sources • Convert a patient room to a refuge for privacy and good communication • Consider installing additional free standing handwashing basins • Provide comfortable family waiting areas