Mock-Ups as “Interactive Laboratories”: Mixed Methods Research Using Inpatient Unit Room Mock-Ups

Abstract

Objective:

To establish evidence-based design (EBD) guidelines for inpatient rooms at Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) facilities.

Background:

Simulation allows clients, designers, and researchers to visualize how users might interact with a proposed design before actual construction of the design. This study used mock-ups as a simulation technique during a study of the VA inpatient room standards. The participants used the inpatient room mock-ups as “interactive laboratory” environments to maximize opportunities for participatory design, qualitative research, and quantitative research of project-specific EBD solutions.

Methods:

The research used questionnaires, scenarios, on-demand modifications, and observations to evaluate and confirm EBD solutions for inpatient room mock-ups. A total of 71 participants responded to a questionnaire administered across five mock-up work sessions. These 71 participants consisted of administrators, nurses, physicians, support staff, environment and maintenance staff, and patient and staff safety representatives from throughout the VA healthcare system.

Results and Discussion:

EBD solutions were tested, evaluated, and modified for each inpatient room type and were applicable to two or more of the inpatient room types. The latter included the location of patient beds and standard headwall position, technology and spaces for nurse charting activities, clearances (e.g., equipment, wheelchair, and bariatric patient), universal rooms, and patient and family amenities. Also, EBD solutions were tested, validated, and modified to the needs of each inpatient room.

Conclusion:

The mock-ups allowed researchers and designers to evaluate and confirm EBD solutions and strategies for the development of VA inpatient room standards. When used as a means for mixed-methods research, mock-ups can successfully integrate research and design during project-related work. EBD research using mock-ups not only addresses project- or organization-specific concerns, but it may contribute to the knowledge base of the healthcare design community.

Keywords

Simulation mock-up mixed-methods methodology universal room

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

The Advisory Board Company. (2006). Patient room investment blueprint. Washington, DC: The Advisory Board.

Bajaj

Mirka

G. A.

Sommerich

C. H.

, & Khachatoorian

(2006). Evaluation of a redesigned self-checkout station for wheelchair users. Assistive Technology, 18(1), 15–24.

Battisto

Allison

, & Oka

(2007). The clinical learning and research center: An interdisciplinary, design-based research project for a simulated clinical environment. The Academy Journal, 10. Retrieved June 14, 2008, from http://www.aia.org/aah_a_jrnl_0401_article2

Bell

(2007, May). Mock-ups: Giving hospital clients the ultimate reality check. Healthcare Design.

Cahnman

(2006). Key considerations in patient room design, part 1. Healthcare Design, 7(4), 24–30.

DeVita

M. A.

Schaefer

Lutz

Wang

, & Dongilli

(2005). Improving medical emergency team (MET) performance using a novel curriculum and a computerized human patient simulator. Quality and Safety in Health Care, 14, 326–331.

Evans

(2007). Spatial relationships. Advance for Nurses, 4(21), 16.

Garg

Owen

Beller

, & Banaag

(1991). A biomechanical and ergonomic evaluation of patient transferring tasks: Wheelchair to shower chair and shower chair to wheelchair. Ergonomics, 34(4), 407–419.

Geboy

, & Keller

A. B.

(2006, November). Research in practice: The design researcher's perspective. Implications, 4(11), 1–7.

10.

Groat

, & Wang

(2002). Architectural research methods. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

11.

Hignett

(2006). Spatial requirements in hospital shower and toilet rooms. Nursing Standard, 21(3), 43–48.

12.

Hignett

, & Lu

(2007). Evaluation of critical care space requirements for three frequent and high-risk tasks. Critical Care Nursing Units of North America, 19(2), 167–175.

13.

Macedonia

C. R.

Gherman

R. B.

, & Satin

A. J.

(2003). Simulation laboratories for training in obstetrics and gynecology. Obstetrics & Gynecology, 102(2), 388–392.

14.

Marberry

(Ed.). (2006). Improving healthcare with better building design. Chicago: The Center for Health Design and Health Administration Press.

15.

Maslovitz

Barkai

Lessing

J. B.

Ziv

, & Many

(2007). Recurrent obstetric management mistakes identified by simulation. Obstetrics & Gynecology, 109(6), 1296–1300.

16.

Nelson

A. L.

Malassigne

, & Murray

(1994). Comparison of seat pressures on three bowelcare/shower chairs in spinal cord injury. SCI Nursing, 11(4), 105–107.

17.

Rashid

(2006). A decade of adult intensive care unit design: A study of the physical design features of the best-practice examples. Critical Care Nursing Quarterly, 29(4), 282–311.

18.

Reiling

(2007). Safe by design. Oak Brook, IL: Joint Commission Resources.

19.

Shavit

Keidan

Hoffmann

Mishuk

Rubin

Ziv

(2007). Enhancing patient safety during pediatric sedation: The impact of simulation-based training of nonanesthesiologists. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 161(8), 740–743.

20.

Strauss

, & Corbin

(1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. London: Sage.

21.

Tashakkori

, & Teddlie

(Eds.). (2003). Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

22.

US Department of Veterans Affairs. (2001). 2001 national survey of veterans. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.

23.

Watkins

, & Keller

(2008). Lost in translation: Bridging gaps between design and evidence-based design. Health Environments Research & Design Journal, 1(2), 39–46.