Mardelle McCuskey Shepley1, Angela Watson2, Francis Pitts3, Anne Garrity2, Elizabeth Spelman2, Janhawi Kelkar4, Andrea Fronsman4. 1. College of Human Ecology, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, 14850, USA. Electronic address: mshepley@cornell.edu. 2. Shepley Bulfinch Architects, 2 Seaport Lane, Boston, MA, 02210, USA. 3. Architecture Plus, 297 River Street, Troy, NY, 12180, USA. 4. College of Human Ecology, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, 14850, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of the study was to identify features in the physical environment that are believed to positively impact staff and patients in psychiatric environments and use these features as the foundation for future research regarding the design of mental and behavioral health facilities. METHODS: Pursuant to a broad literature review that produced an interview script, researchers conducted 19 interviews of psychiatric staff, facility administrators and architects. Interview data were analyzed using the highly structured qualitative data analysis process authored by Lincoln and Guba (1985). Seventeen topics were addressed ranging from the importance of a deinstitutionalized environment to social interaction and autonomy. RESULTS: The interviewees reinforced the controversy that exists around the implications of a deinstitutionalized environment, when the resulting setting diminishes patient and staff safety. Respondents tended to support open nurse stations vs. enclosed stations. Support for access to nature and the provision of an aesthetic environment was strong. Most interviewees asserted that private rooms were highly desirable because lower room density reduces the institutional character of a unit. However, a few interviewees adamantly opposed private rooms because they considered the increased supervision of one patient by another to be a deterrent to self-harm. The need to address smoking rooms in future research received the least support of all topics. CONCLUSION: Responses of interviews illustrate current opinion regarding best practice in the design of psychiatric facilities. The findings emphasize the need for more substantive research on appropriate physical environments in mental and behavioral health settings.
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of the study was to identify features in the physical environment that are believed to positively impact staff and patients in psychiatric environments and use these features as the foundation for future research regarding the design of mental and behavioral health facilities. METHODS: Pursuant to a broad literature review that produced an interview script, researchers conducted 19 interviews of psychiatric staff, facility administrators and architects. Interview data were analyzed using the highly structured qualitative data analysis process authored by Lincoln and Guba (1985). Seventeen topics were addressed ranging from the importance of a deinstitutionalized environment to social interaction and autonomy. RESULTS: The interviewees reinforced the controversy that exists around the implications of a deinstitutionalized environment, when the resulting setting diminishes patient and staff safety. Respondents tended to support open nurse stations vs. enclosed stations. Support for access to nature and the provision of an aesthetic environment was strong. Most interviewees asserted that private rooms were highly desirable because lower room density reduces the institutional character of a unit. However, a few interviewees adamantly opposed private rooms because they considered the increased supervision of one patient by another to be a deterrent to self-harm. The need to address smoking rooms in future research received the least support of all topics. CONCLUSION: Responses of interviews illustrate current opinion regarding best practice in the design of psychiatric facilities. The findings emphasize the need for more substantive research on appropriate physical environments in mental and behavioral health settings.
Authors: Gala True; Rosemary Frasso; Sara W Cullen; Richard C Hermann; Steven C Marcus Journal: Gen Hosp Psychiatry Date: 2017-07-27 Impact factor: 3.238
Authors: Lydia Oeljeklaus; Hannah-Lea Schmid; Zachary Kornfeld; Claudia Hornberg; Christine Norra; Stefan Zerbe; Timothy McCall Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-01-28 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Clara Weber; Virna Monero Flores; Theresa Poppy Wheele; Elke Miedema; Emma Victoria White Journal: Front Psychiatry Date: 2022-01-03 Impact factor: 4.157