× You are not currently logged in. To receive all the benefits our site has to offer, we encourage you to log in now.

“Everything happens in the hallways”: Exploring user activity in the corridors at two rehabilitation units

Originally Published:
2017
Key Point Summary
Key Point Summary Author(s):
Johnson, Mark
Share
Key Concepts/Context

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).

Objectives

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. 

Methods

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.

Design Implications
Implications for the design from this study include: Incorporate bathrooms in patient rooms so patients do not have to cross corridors for personal care. Design team areas to allow interaction between healthcare professionals in a confidential secure area, not in a hallway. If conversations/interactions need to occur in a corridor, incorporate alcoves with white noise to promote confidentiality of patient information. Provide additional storage areas or alcoves to place equipment such as wheelchairs and other equipment out of the travel pathway. For rehabilitation facilities, design corridors to be wider than code minimum and entry/egress points (doorways and elevators) to accommodate wheelchairs. Perhaps a rule of thumb should be that rehabilitation unit corridors are wide enough for two-way traffic. Design rehabilitation units without corridors. Perhaps an open architectural concept may eliminate or reduce the number of corridors that patients must contend with. This would imply that medication, clean utility, soiled utility, and staff spaces may be designed to one side of a unit rather than centralized. In addition, placing satellite nurses’ documentation areas in proximity to a cluster of patient rooms would allow better staff observation of patient rooms. Deinstitutionalize the look and feel of rehabilitation units. One patient comment reported that “hallways give a first impression” of the unit. Incorporate therapy services into rehabilitation units themselves or within close proximity to the unit to prevent excessive travel by patients. If the unit has an outdoor patio or common area, do not have the access point through a patient room, as reported in the study. Use interactive virtual reality (VR) mockups during the design phase of the unit building/remodeling to allow staff and patients input to unit layout.
Findings

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.

Limitations

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.)

Key Point Summary Author(s):
Johnson, Mark
Primary Author
Colley, J.