Sara Bayramzadeh1, Sahar Ahmadpour2, Parsa Aghaei3. 1. Kent State University, College of Architecture and Environmental Design, Healthcare Design Program, 132 S Lincoln St, Kent, OH 44242, United States. Electronic address: sbayramz@kent.edu. 2. Kent State University, College of Architecture and Environmental Design, Healthcare Design Program, 132 S Lincoln St, Kent, OH 44242, United States. Electronic address: sahmadpo@kent.edu. 3. Kent State University, College of Architecture and Environmental Design, Healthcare Design Program, 132 S Lincoln St, Kent, OH 44242, United States. Electronic address: paghaei@kent.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This systematic review presented the current status of literature on the outcomes resulted from sensory stimuli in critical care environments as well as the environmental interventions that can improve or impede the impact of such sensory stimuli. METHODS: Articles found through a systematic search of PsycINFO, Web of Science, and PubMed databases, in combination with a hand search, were reviewed for eligibility by two independent coders. Reporting and quality appraisals were based on PRISMA and MMAT guidelines. RESULTS: Out of 1118 articles found, and only 30 were eligible. Final articles were comprised of issues related to noise, lighting, and temperature. Identified sensory stimuli resulted in psychological and physiological outcomes among both patients and staff. Examples include impacts on stress, delirium, sleep disturbances, poor performance and communication. The environmental factors that influence sensory stimuli included layout, room size, artificial lighting, presence of windows and acoustical interventions. CONCLUSION: Literature on the impact of sensory stimuli on staff is scarce compared to patients. Studies on environmental interventions are inadequate and lack structure. The physical environment can impact the patient and staff outcome resulting from noise, lighting, and temperature. When applied strategically, sensory stimuli can result in positive outcomes among patients and staff.
OBJECTIVES: This systematic review presented the current status of literature on the outcomes resulted from sensory stimuli in critical care environments as well as the environmental interventions that can improve or impede the impact of such sensory stimuli. METHODS: Articles found through a systematic search of PsycINFO, Web of Science, and PubMed databases, in combination with a hand search, were reviewed for eligibility by two independent coders. Reporting and quality appraisals were based on PRISMA and MMAT guidelines. RESULTS: Out of 1118 articles found, and only 30 were eligible. Final articles were comprised of issues related to noise, lighting, and temperature. Identified sensory stimuli resulted in psychological and physiological outcomes among both patients and staff. Examples include impacts on stress, delirium, sleep disturbances, poor performance and communication. The environmental factors that influence sensory stimuli included layout, room size, artificial lighting, presence of windows and acoustical interventions. CONCLUSION: Literature on the impact of sensory stimuli on staff is scarce compared to patients. Studies on environmental interventions are inadequate and lack structure. The physical environment can impact the patient and staff outcome resulting from noise, lighting, and temperature. When applied strategically, sensory stimuli can result in positive outcomes among patients and staff.