Iterative evaluation improved patient room workflows and design feedback from clinical teams.
Objectives: This study evaluated a standardized patient room designed for multiple acuity levels in a quaternary care academic medical center by actively engaging clinical teams through an iterative simulation-based evaluation process using physical mock-ups. Background: Patient rooms are replicated multiple times in hospitals, and their design impacts patient and staff outcomes. Balancing often-conflicting needs and designing for future flexibility can be challenging. Simulation-based mock-up evaluations can help engage clinicians to obtain feedback about healthcare facility design in the context of clinical work. Methods: Focus groups, surveys, and observations collected input on a patient room design in three phases. The first phase assessed the bathroom location (inboard versus outboard) and room layout. The second phase evaluated five critical areas of the patient room: the bathroom, family zone, handwashing sink, dry work surface, and headwall. The third phase evaluated whether an outboard bathroom on the headwall or footwall supported patient care delivery better. Results: The study found that an outboard bathroom provided a better connection to the corridor, more functional space in the room, better equipment flow, and dedicated family space. Through the simulations, the team identified spatial challenges in the context of clinical scenarios and provided recommendations for refining design features. Clinicians preferred the footwall bathroom configuration due to better workflow support during the enacted patient care scenarios. Conclusion: Overall, an outboard footwall bathroom supported staff workflows and care activities. The iterative simulation-based evaluation process was highly effective for obtaining clinicians' design feedback within the context of their everyday work.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Joseph et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: