This research study focused on recording activities occurring in corridors of a Spinal Cord Injury Unit and a Brain Injury Unit and how the design of the corridor influences the activities affecting patients and staff experience. The study results focused on three factors: mobility/movement, delivery of care and experience of that care, and finally “spillover space” activities (activities occurring in the corridor other than mobility/movement).
The objective of this research study was to determine the role of corridors of a spinal cord injury (SIU) and a brain injury (BIU) rehabilitation units to influence the future design of patient units.
There were two methodological components to this study: Observation of corridor activities at various intervals, and interviews of staff, patients, and visitors at a “major metropolitan” SIU and BIU. The sample size for the Spinal Injury Unit was 12 patients and 23 staff members, while the Brain Injury Unit was 12 patients and 10 staff members. Analysis of the data was “thematic.” There were three themes identified in this rehabilitation corridor use: movement, delivery and experience of quality care, and “spillover space.” There were no confounding variables identified or controlled in this study.
For Observer User Activity, the total number of observations was 1144 for the SIU and 509 for the BIU. In the SIU, staff and patient activities were considered independent 70% of the time, while 30% of the time they were engaged in activities with others. For the BIU, staff and patient activities were considered engaged with others about 56% of the time, while 42% of the time they were engaged in independent activities. More in-depth statistical analysis was not offered.
For the Observer User Activity, observer times varied by unit and the mere presence of the observer may have impacted observations. For the interview portion of the study, location of the interviews and the details/severity of the brain injuries were not known to the researcher. Also acknowledged in the study was the small sample size, and the use of only two units limit the generalization of the study results. Additional limitations include when the units were constructed (1980s) vs. the time of the study (2010), any consideration of life safety issues, and national/cultural approach to patient care. (Presumably this study was conducted in Australia where the study was published.)