Qualities of inpatient hospital rooms: patients’ perspectives

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Devlin, A. S.
Data de Publicação: 2016
Outros Autores: Andrade, C. C., Carvalho, D.
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: eng
Título da fonte: Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
Texto Completo: http://hdl.handle.net/10071/11377
Resumo: Objectives: The aim of this qualitative study was to investigate what design features of hospital rooms are valued by inpatients. Background: Little research has explored how patients evaluate the physical environment of their hospital rooms. Most responses are captured by the Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems survey, which includes only two questions about the physical environment. Method: Two hundred thirty-six orthopedic patients (78 in the United States and 158 in Portugal) listed three features of their hospital room that influenced their level of satisfaction with their hospital stay, indicating whether the feature was positive or negative. Results: The comments were more positive (71.4%) than negative (28.6%). Using the framework of supportive design from Ulrich, over half the comments (64.31%) could be categorized in one of the three dimensions: 33.2% (positive distraction), 22.4% (perceived control), and 6.0% (social support). This total includes Internet (2.7%), which could be categorized as either social support or positive distraction. Comments called “other aspects” focused on overall environmental appraisals, cleanliness, and functionality and maintenance. Conclusions: The majority of comments could be accommodated by Ulrich’s theory, but it is noteworthy that other aspects emerge from patients’ comments and affect their experience. Cross-cultural differences pointed to the greater role of light and sun for Portuguese patients and health status whiteboard for U.S. patients. Qualitative research can add significantly to our understanding of the healthcare experience and may inform design decisions.
id RCAP_f41e91f347e64e9306b0e8a642ce44c8
oai_identifier_str oai:repositorio.iscte-iul.pt:10071/11377
network_acronym_str RCAP
network_name_str Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
repository_id_str 7160
spelling Qualities of inpatient hospital rooms: patients’ perspectivesTheory of supportive designInpatient roomsCross-cultural differencesPatient satisfactionOrthopedic patientsObjectives: The aim of this qualitative study was to investigate what design features of hospital rooms are valued by inpatients. Background: Little research has explored how patients evaluate the physical environment of their hospital rooms. Most responses are captured by the Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems survey, which includes only two questions about the physical environment. Method: Two hundred thirty-six orthopedic patients (78 in the United States and 158 in Portugal) listed three features of their hospital room that influenced their level of satisfaction with their hospital stay, indicating whether the feature was positive or negative. Results: The comments were more positive (71.4%) than negative (28.6%). Using the framework of supportive design from Ulrich, over half the comments (64.31%) could be categorized in one of the three dimensions: 33.2% (positive distraction), 22.4% (perceived control), and 6.0% (social support). This total includes Internet (2.7%), which could be categorized as either social support or positive distraction. Comments called “other aspects” focused on overall environmental appraisals, cleanliness, and functionality and maintenance. Conclusions: The majority of comments could be accommodated by Ulrich’s theory, but it is noteworthy that other aspects emerge from patients’ comments and affect their experience. Cross-cultural differences pointed to the greater role of light and sun for Portuguese patients and health status whiteboard for U.S. patients. Qualitative research can add significantly to our understanding of the healthcare experience and may inform design decisions.SAGE Publications2016-05-25T10:04:41Z2016-01-01T00:00:00Z20162019-04-12T12:26:28Zinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/articleapplication/pdfhttp://hdl.handle.net/10071/11377eng1937-586710.1177/1937586715607052Devlin, A. S.Andrade, C. C.Carvalho, D.info:eu-repo/semantics/embargoedAccessreponame:Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)instname:Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informaçãoinstacron:RCAAP2023-11-09T17:28:44Zoai:repositorio.iscte-iul.pt:10071/11377Portal AgregadorONGhttps://www.rcaap.pt/oai/openaireopendoar:71602024-03-19T22:12:52.531633Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) - Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informaçãofalse
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Qualities of inpatient hospital rooms: patients’ perspectives
title Qualities of inpatient hospital rooms: patients’ perspectives
spellingShingle Qualities of inpatient hospital rooms: patients’ perspectives
Devlin, A. S.
Theory of supportive design
Inpatient rooms
Cross-cultural differences
Patient satisfaction
Orthopedic patients
title_short Qualities of inpatient hospital rooms: patients’ perspectives
title_full Qualities of inpatient hospital rooms: patients’ perspectives
title_fullStr Qualities of inpatient hospital rooms: patients’ perspectives
title_full_unstemmed Qualities of inpatient hospital rooms: patients’ perspectives
title_sort Qualities of inpatient hospital rooms: patients’ perspectives
author Devlin, A. S.
author_facet Devlin, A. S.
Andrade, C. C.
Carvalho, D.
author_role author
author2 Andrade, C. C.
Carvalho, D.
author2_role author
author
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Devlin, A. S.
Andrade, C. C.
Carvalho, D.
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv Theory of supportive design
Inpatient rooms
Cross-cultural differences
Patient satisfaction
Orthopedic patients
topic Theory of supportive design
Inpatient rooms
Cross-cultural differences
Patient satisfaction
Orthopedic patients
description Objectives: The aim of this qualitative study was to investigate what design features of hospital rooms are valued by inpatients. Background: Little research has explored how patients evaluate the physical environment of their hospital rooms. Most responses are captured by the Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems survey, which includes only two questions about the physical environment. Method: Two hundred thirty-six orthopedic patients (78 in the United States and 158 in Portugal) listed three features of their hospital room that influenced their level of satisfaction with their hospital stay, indicating whether the feature was positive or negative. Results: The comments were more positive (71.4%) than negative (28.6%). Using the framework of supportive design from Ulrich, over half the comments (64.31%) could be categorized in one of the three dimensions: 33.2% (positive distraction), 22.4% (perceived control), and 6.0% (social support). This total includes Internet (2.7%), which could be categorized as either social support or positive distraction. Comments called “other aspects” focused on overall environmental appraisals, cleanliness, and functionality and maintenance. Conclusions: The majority of comments could be accommodated by Ulrich’s theory, but it is noteworthy that other aspects emerge from patients’ comments and affect their experience. Cross-cultural differences pointed to the greater role of light and sun for Portuguese patients and health status whiteboard for U.S. patients. Qualitative research can add significantly to our understanding of the healthcare experience and may inform design decisions.
publishDate 2016
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2016-05-25T10:04:41Z
2016-01-01T00:00:00Z
2016
2019-04-12T12:26:28Z
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv http://hdl.handle.net/10071/11377
url http://hdl.handle.net/10071/11377
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv 1937-5867
10.1177/1937586715607052
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/embargoedAccess
eu_rights_str_mv embargoedAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv SAGE Publications
publisher.none.fl_str_mv SAGE Publications
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv reponame:Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
instname:Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação
instacron:RCAAP
instname_str Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação
instacron_str RCAAP
institution RCAAP
reponame_str Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
collection Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
repository.name.fl_str_mv Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) - Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação
repository.mail.fl_str_mv
_version_ 1799134684241723392