AIM: Our review evaluated both the effects of single-occupancy patient rooms (SPRs) on patient outcomes for hospitalized adults and user opinion related to SPRs. BACKGROUND: In 2006, a requirement for SPRs in hospitals was instituted in the United States. This systematic literature review evaluates research published since that time to evaluate the impact of SPRs. METHODS: The review adheres to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement. Databases searched included MEDLINE, CINAHL, and Scopus. Supplemental searches were performed. We included studies reporting patient outcomes or user opinion related to SPRs. Appraisal was conducted using a dual appraisal system of evidence levels and methodological quality. RESULTS: Forty-three studies qualified for appraisal. Three were excluded due to methodological quality (no appraisal score). One study was appraised for three individual outcomes (i.e., falls, infections, and user opinion). Eleven studies with low methodological quality scores were not included in the narrative synthesis. Overall, 87% of studies reported advantages associated with SPRs (some a combination of advantages and disadvantages or a combination of advantages and neutral results). Outcomes with the best evidence of benefit include communication, infection control, noise reduction/perceived sleep quality, and preference/perception. CONCLUSION: SPRs seem to result in more advantages than disadvantages. However, healthcare is a complex adaptive system, and decisions for 100% SPRs should be reviewed alongside related issues, such as necessary workflow modifications, unit configuration and other room layout decisions, patient populations, staffing models, and inherent trade-offs (e.g., the advantages of privacy compared to disadvantage of isolation).
AIM: Our review evaluated both the effects of single-occupancy patient rooms (SPRs) on patient outcomes for hospitalized adults and user opinion related to SPRs. BACKGROUND: In 2006, a requirement for SPRs in hospitals was instituted in the United States. This systematic literature review evaluates research published since that time to evaluate the impact of SPRs. METHODS: The review adheres to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement. Databases searched included MEDLINE, CINAHL, and Scopus. Supplemental searches were performed. We included studies reporting patient outcomes or user opinion related to SPRs. Appraisal was conducted using a dual appraisal system of evidence levels and methodological quality. RESULTS: Forty-three studies qualified for appraisal. Three were excluded due to methodological quality (no appraisal score). One study was appraised for three individual outcomes (i.e., falls, infections, and user opinion). Eleven studies with low methodological quality scores were not included in the narrative synthesis. Overall, 87% of studies reported advantages associated with SPRs (some a combination of advantages and disadvantages or a combination of advantages and neutral results). Outcomes with the best evidence of benefit include communication, infection control, noise reduction/perceived sleep quality, and preference/perception. CONCLUSION:SPRs seem to result in more advantages than disadvantages. However, healthcare is a complex adaptive system, and decisions for 100% SPRs should be reviewed alongside related issues, such as necessary workflow modifications, unit configuration and other room layout decisions, patient populations, staffing models, and inherent trade-offs (e.g., the advantages of privacy compared to disadvantage of isolation).
Entities:
Keywords:
healthcare facility design; patient and staff perception; patient and staff preference; patient outcomes; patient room design; patient safety; private rooms; room-occupancy; systematic literature review
Authors: Ashley Darcy Mahoney; Robert D White; Annalyn Velasquez; Tyson S Barrett; Reese H Clark; Kaashif A Ahmad Journal: J Perinatol Date: 2020-09 Impact factor: 2.521