Scoping Review: Association of Inpatient Hospital Design Features With Patients' Clinical Outcomes.

IF 1.7 4区 医学 Q3 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH Herd-Health Environments Research & Design Journal Pub Date : 2025-01-01 Epub Date: 2024-12-05 DOI:10.1177/19375867241302799
Esther Jiin Oh, Alice J Liu, LaTeesa James, David Varon, Mitchell Mead, Andrew M Ibrahim
{"title":"Scoping Review: Association of Inpatient Hospital Design Features With Patients' Clinical Outcomes.","authors":"Esther Jiin Oh, Alice J Liu, LaTeesa James, David Varon, Mitchell Mead, Andrew M Ibrahim","doi":"10.1177/19375867241302799","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Objective:</b> To identify associations between inpatient hospital design features and empirical patient clinical outcomes as well as changes over time. <b>Background:</b> A growing body of literature has emerged evaluating the association of hospital design features with measurable clinical outcomes during inpatient hospital admissions. However, there has been limited effort to evaluate the scope and quality of studies examining individual, inpatient hospital design features on empirical patient clinical outcomes. <b>Methods:</b> Primary research articles published in English between 1980 and 2021 evaluating inpatient clinical outcomes were included. Key terms for hospital designs and clinical outcomes were used. Ovid Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, Scopus, Cochrane Library, Elsevier Embase, and Google Scholar were searched on May 28, 2021. Data were independently extracted by two authors, with arbitration from the third author. <b>Results:</b> Forty-six research articles were included for analysis. Predominantly studied inpatient hospital design features included: single versus multibedded rooms/wards, windows, furnishings, installed lighting, ward size and spatial arrangement, noise level, air ventilation, and patient visibility. Although nearly half (43%) of the articles lack appropriate methods to account for residual confounding, a trend of improvement in the use of appropriate methods was identified with 68% of studies in the last decade having appropriate methods. Studies demonstrating positive associations were more likely to be cited than those with negative associations (average citation per article, 508 vs. 27). <b>Conclusion:</b> Our study demonstrates the use of empirical patient clinical outcomes as a feasible approach to evaluate hospital design features, and identified an incremental improvement in the methods being applied.</p>","PeriodicalId":47306,"journal":{"name":"Herd-Health Environments Research & Design Journal","volume":" ","pages":"157-175"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Herd-Health Environments Research & Design Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/19375867241302799","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/12/5 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To identify associations between inpatient hospital design features and empirical patient clinical outcomes as well as changes over time. Background: A growing body of literature has emerged evaluating the association of hospital design features with measurable clinical outcomes during inpatient hospital admissions. However, there has been limited effort to evaluate the scope and quality of studies examining individual, inpatient hospital design features on empirical patient clinical outcomes. Methods: Primary research articles published in English between 1980 and 2021 evaluating inpatient clinical outcomes were included. Key terms for hospital designs and clinical outcomes were used. Ovid Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, Scopus, Cochrane Library, Elsevier Embase, and Google Scholar were searched on May 28, 2021. Data were independently extracted by two authors, with arbitration from the third author. Results: Forty-six research articles were included for analysis. Predominantly studied inpatient hospital design features included: single versus multibedded rooms/wards, windows, furnishings, installed lighting, ward size and spatial arrangement, noise level, air ventilation, and patient visibility. Although nearly half (43%) of the articles lack appropriate methods to account for residual confounding, a trend of improvement in the use of appropriate methods was identified with 68% of studies in the last decade having appropriate methods. Studies demonstrating positive associations were more likely to be cited than those with negative associations (average citation per article, 508 vs. 27). Conclusion: Our study demonstrates the use of empirical patient clinical outcomes as a feasible approach to evaluate hospital design features, and identified an incremental improvement in the methods being applied.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Herd-Health Environments Research & Design Journal
Herd-Health Environments Research & Design Journal PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
22.70%
发文量
82
期刊最新文献
Trauma-Informed Design: Lessons Through a Life-Altering Lens. The Study on the Chinese Environmental Audit Tool (C-EAT) for Long-Term Care Facilities. Design of a Cancer Infusion Center: Results from a Pre- and Post-Occupancy Evaluation. Sources of Innovation in Healthcare Design: How Can it Happen? Baseline Study of Ultra-Clean Air Change Rate, Number, and Type of Microorganisms and Level of Particles During Trauma Surgery.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1