基于证据的设计中的权衡:“病人门辩论”。

Liesbeth van Heel, Milee Herweijer, Clarine van Oel
{"title":"基于证据的设计中的权衡:“病人门辩论”。","authors":"Liesbeth van Heel, Milee Herweijer, Clarine van Oel","doi":"10.3233/SHTI240949","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The door between the semi-public corridor and the single-occupancy patient room of a newly built University Medical Centre in the Netherlands has been heavily debated during its Evidence Based Design (EBD) and experience-informed design. It was also heavily debated since the wards came into use in 2018. It is well known that, regarding door design, a trade-off has to be made between aspects such as privacy, visibility, and safety. This makes our case study exemplary for the trade-offs to be made in EBD practice. This study traces back to how the design decisions for the door, dating from 2011, were made. Safety, privacy, control, and support for the social and emotional wellbeing of patients, relatives, and staff were the aim, but this is not experienced as such by all concerned. This case study evaluation highlights the tension between EBD principles and everyday practice, where the interplay between 'bricks, bytes, and behavior' has to be considered, and every consciously debated design solution might bring new and unforeseen challenges elsewhere. Our practice-based research combines the analysis of documentation on the design decision-making process with evaluation interviews with nurse managers in 2019. Our findings on 'the (Dutch) patient door debate' can contribute to awareness of trade-offs to be made in health facility design, complemented with supportive IT systems and efficient and effective staff workflows. It can enhance the understanding of the many aspects that need to come into consideration during design dialogues with experts and end-users.</p>","PeriodicalId":94357,"journal":{"name":"Studies in health technology and informatics","volume":"319 ","pages":"266-279"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Trade-offs in Evidence Based Design: 'the Patient Door Debate'.\",\"authors\":\"Liesbeth van Heel, Milee Herweijer, Clarine van Oel\",\"doi\":\"10.3233/SHTI240949\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The door between the semi-public corridor and the single-occupancy patient room of a newly built University Medical Centre in the Netherlands has been heavily debated during its Evidence Based Design (EBD) and experience-informed design. It was also heavily debated since the wards came into use in 2018. It is well known that, regarding door design, a trade-off has to be made between aspects such as privacy, visibility, and safety. This makes our case study exemplary for the trade-offs to be made in EBD practice. This study traces back to how the design decisions for the door, dating from 2011, were made. Safety, privacy, control, and support for the social and emotional wellbeing of patients, relatives, and staff were the aim, but this is not experienced as such by all concerned. This case study evaluation highlights the tension between EBD principles and everyday practice, where the interplay between 'bricks, bytes, and behavior' has to be considered, and every consciously debated design solution might bring new and unforeseen challenges elsewhere. Our practice-based research combines the analysis of documentation on the design decision-making process with evaluation interviews with nurse managers in 2019. Our findings on 'the (Dutch) patient door debate' can contribute to awareness of trade-offs to be made in health facility design, complemented with supportive IT systems and efficient and effective staff workflows. It can enhance the understanding of the many aspects that need to come into consideration during design dialogues with experts and end-users.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":94357,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Studies in health technology and informatics\",\"volume\":\"319 \",\"pages\":\"266-279\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Studies in health technology and informatics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3233/SHTI240949\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Studies in health technology and informatics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3233/SHTI240949","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在荷兰新建的大学医疗中心,半公共走廊和单人病房之间的门在其基于证据的设计(EBD)和经验的设计中受到了激烈的争论。自这些病房于2018年投入使用以来,也引发了激烈的争论。众所周知,关于门的设计,必须在隐私、可见性和安全性等方面做出权衡。这使得我们的案例研究成为EBD实践中权衡取舍的范例。这项研究可以追溯到2011年门的设计决策是如何做出的。安全、隐私、控制以及对患者、亲属和工作人员的社会和情感健康的支持是目标,但并非所有相关人员都能体验到这一点。这个案例研究评估强调了EBD原则和日常实践之间的紧张关系,必须考虑“砖块、字节和行为”之间的相互作用,并且每个有意识地争论的设计解决方案都可能在其他地方带来新的和不可预见的挑战。我们基于实践的研究结合了对设计决策过程的文件分析和2019年对护士经理的评估访谈。我们关于“(荷兰)病人门辩论”的研究结果有助于人们认识到卫生设施设计中需要做出的权衡取舍,并辅以支持性IT系统和高效的工作人员工作流程。它可以增强对与专家和最终用户进行设计对话时需要考虑的许多方面的理解。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Trade-offs in Evidence Based Design: 'the Patient Door Debate'.

The door between the semi-public corridor and the single-occupancy patient room of a newly built University Medical Centre in the Netherlands has been heavily debated during its Evidence Based Design (EBD) and experience-informed design. It was also heavily debated since the wards came into use in 2018. It is well known that, regarding door design, a trade-off has to be made between aspects such as privacy, visibility, and safety. This makes our case study exemplary for the trade-offs to be made in EBD practice. This study traces back to how the design decisions for the door, dating from 2011, were made. Safety, privacy, control, and support for the social and emotional wellbeing of patients, relatives, and staff were the aim, but this is not experienced as such by all concerned. This case study evaluation highlights the tension between EBD principles and everyday practice, where the interplay between 'bricks, bytes, and behavior' has to be considered, and every consciously debated design solution might bring new and unforeseen challenges elsewhere. Our practice-based research combines the analysis of documentation on the design decision-making process with evaluation interviews with nurse managers in 2019. Our findings on 'the (Dutch) patient door debate' can contribute to awareness of trade-offs to be made in health facility design, complemented with supportive IT systems and efficient and effective staff workflows. It can enhance the understanding of the many aspects that need to come into consideration during design dialogues with experts and end-users.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Service Thinking in Architectural Design for Dementia in the Finnish Context. Shaping the Typology of Modern Finnish Psychiatric Hospitals: Analyzing Design Briefs of Two Case Studies. Soundscape Augmentation in Dementia Care Design; Need for a Guideline. Stand(ing)still?! Exploring Motion Affordances in Learning Environments as a Lever for Better Motor Skills in Youngsters. The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly: The Journey of an Architect-Researcher in Palliative Environments.
×
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