The location of the bathroom in a patient’s room affects everyone involved—patients, caregivers, and family. Yet little research exists about the effects of room variations.
The aim of this study was to gain some understanding of how non-designers and design professionals rank issues surrounding patient-room configurations.
This study tested a framework for the multidimensional assessment of variations in patient-room configurations. In May 2007, researchers used a list of issues and alternative room configurations to guide a four-step process during a 5-hour symposium of nondesigners (caregivers, patients, and their families) and design professionals. The researchers asked the participants to consider 23 issues (categorized within six domains of assessment): (1) patient safety, (2) staff efficiency, (3) circulation, (4) infection control, (5) patient considerations, and (6) family amenities. The investigators gave each participant a “placemat” that showed plan views of six room configurations that included: (1) three same-handed and three mirror-image rooms; (2) three outboard, two inboard, and one nested bathroom; and (3) three rooms with footwall bathrooms and three with headwall bathrooms. Fourteen experts from four institutions ranked the issues, discussed them in detail, and rated each room configuration against each issue on a 7-point suitability scale, and conducted an overall assessment of the six configurations.
The author reports that the participants found outboard bathroom locations were the most suitable, followed by nested and inboard configurations. Furthermore, the symposium participants rated configurations with patient bathrooms located on the footwall as more suitable than headwall locations. The author recommends, however, that the framework be used to determine a suitable room configuration in a specific context, rather than to identify configurations that will perform well universally.
The framework needs more precise operational definitions and measures for each of the dimensions. In addition, empirical evidence is needed to supplement participants’ subjective assessments, represented by numeric data. As a case-study, the author notes, the results should be considered true only for these symposium participants and for the six specific layouts they considered.