4.5 Article

Patient safety begins with proper planning: a quantitative method to improve hospital design

Journal

QUALITY & SAFETY IN HEALTH CARE
Volume 19, Issue 5, Pages 462-465

Publisher

B M J PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/qshc.2008.031013

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. HRSA [C76HF10860-01-00]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background A quantitative methodology that enhances design of patient-safe healthcare facilities is presented. The prevailing paradigm of evaluating the design of healthcare facilities relies mainly on postconstruction criticism of design flaws; by then, design flaws may have already negatively affected patient safety. The methodology presented here utilises simulation-based testing in real-size replicas of proposed hospital designs. Other simulations to assess design solutions generated mainly qualitative data about user experience. To assess the methodology, we evaluated one patient safety variable in a proposed hospital patient room. Method Fifty-two physicians who volunteered to participate were randomly assigned to examine a standardised patient in two hospital room settings using a replica of the proposed architectural plan; the two settings differed only by the placement of the alcohol-based hand-rub dispenser. The primary outcome was the hand hygiene compliance rate. Results When the dispenser was in clear view of the physicians as they observed the patient, 53.8% sanitised their hands. When the dispenser was not in their field of view (as in the original architectural plan), 11.5% sanitised their hands (p=0.0011). Based on these results, the final architectural plans were adjusted accordingly. Conclusion The methodology is an effective and relatively inexpensive means to quantitatively evaluate proposed solutions, which can then be implemented to build patient-safe healthcare facilities. It enables actual users to proactively identify patient safety hazards before construction begins.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available