Tiina Jouppila1. 1. The Hospital District of South Ostrobothnia, Finland.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This is a concluding part of an action research study to evaluate the impact on healthcare staff participation in the design of a new intensive care unit (ICU). Staff participated with multiple tools in the design; during the predesign phase utilizing co-design and virtual mock-ups, and also participating in the predesign evaluation (PDE) and postoccupancy evaluation (POE). Both the ICU design and evaluations were based on the principles of evidence-based design studies. METHOD: Staff satisfaction was evaluated with an online survey comprising 116 statements on 13 different topics used both in PDE and POE. There was space for open-ended comments after each topic. RESULTS: There was a statistically significant difference (<.001) between PDE and POE results. There were considerable improvements in privacy, accessibility, safety and security, and acoustics. It was assumed that participation in the predesign phase would positively influence POE results, but there were no statistical differences in any topics. However, as a result of collaborative predesign phase, the staff was satisfied with these jointly designed patient rooms. Open-ended questions revealed the importance to continue functional and technical support for staff after commissioning and ensure that technical solutions are practical and well-functioning. CONCLUSION: The use of PDE and POE assists to set predetermined criteria and evaluate the success of design. Healthcare providers should see POE as a valuable part of design and commissioning process. Additionally, the use of POE should be made more effortless and the results more easily accessible to promote increased interest and usage.
OBJECTIVE: This is a concluding part of an action research study to evaluate the impact on healthcare staff participation in the design of a new intensive care unit (ICU). Staff participated with multiple tools in the design; during the predesign phase utilizing co-design and virtual mock-ups, and also participating in the predesign evaluation (PDE) and postoccupancy evaluation (POE). Both the ICU design and evaluations were based on the principles of evidence-based design studies. METHOD: Staff satisfaction was evaluated with an online survey comprising 116 statements on 13 different topics used both in PDE and POE. There was space for open-ended comments after each topic. RESULTS: There was a statistically significant difference (<.001) between PDE and POE results. There were considerable improvements in privacy, accessibility, safety and security, and acoustics. It was assumed that participation in the predesign phase would positively influence POE results, but there were no statistical differences in any topics. However, as a result of collaborative predesign phase, the staff was satisfied with these jointly designed patient rooms. Open-ended questions revealed the importance to continue functional and technical support for staff after commissioning and ensure that technical solutions are practical and well-functioning. CONCLUSION: The use of PDE and POE assists to set predetermined criteria and evaluate the success of design. Healthcare providers should see POE as a valuable part of design and commissioning process. Additionally, the use of POE should be made more effortless and the results more easily accessible to promote increased interest and usage.