Research Summaries
Funding Cycle : 2015 – 2017
-
Designing Emergency Departments to Provide Efficient,
Patient-Centered Care: An Analysis of Split Flow and Sub-Waiting Area Models - Download – To be added soon
- 2015 — 2017
- Jennifer Wiler MD, MBA, FACEP
James Lennon, AIA, ACHA
Dave Vincent, AIA, ACHA, LEED AP
Negin Houshiarian MS (Architecture), PhD (Interior Architecture)
Benjamin Easter MD (Healthcare Administration MBA Candidate)
Debajyoti Pati MASA (Architecture), PhD (Architecture)
- OverviewAs emergency department (ED) crowding has worsened and its effects catalogued, ED leaders have sought process improvements to improve efficiency while architects have proposed design strategies to achieve the same. Unfortunately, these efforts have largely failed to cross professional boundaries. The present study explored the essential interaction between ED design and flow with a goal to optimize split-flow patient care systems.Methods
The study is a 2 factor analysis, examining the interaction of 3 flow models (split by Emergency Severity Index score, split by a physician, and no split) with 3 sub-waiting area types (no sub-waiting, 1 sub-waiting, and 2 sub-waiting). Thus, 9 total models were examined. Outcomes of interest were operational metrics (length of stay (LOS), bed utilization rate) and patient-centered metrics (door to provider time (D2P), left without being seen (LWBS) rate, and number of movements per patient).
We used patient and encounter-level data from 30 randomly selected days at a 100,000 annual visit academic ED to create and specify ARENA discrete event simulation models. We validated 3 models against actual ED data, and then used these to extrapolate performance in the remaining 6 flow-design sub-types. Flow split by ESI with 1 waiting area (the most common model used by EDs) was used as the control. We also sought to determine the best design specification given a fixed flow as well as the best flow specification given a fixed design. Models were compared and analyzed for statistical significance and effect size using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) to find the most efficient model, two-way ANOVA to measure the impact of each group of independent variables (flow types and/or design types), and linear and non-linear regression.Results
One way ANOVA testing demonstrated the superiority of the ED flow split by a physician with 2 sub-waiting areas. This model resulted in the smallest LOS of 189.8 minutes (54 min shorter vs. control), and the highest bed utilization of 5.02 patients/bed/day (41.8% increase vs. control). In addition, physician-directed flow with 2 sub-waiting areas also showed superior performance in several patient-centered metrics, having the best D2P time of 9.6 minutes (vs. 26.3 min, control) and only a 1.17% LWBS rate. Not surprisingly, having 2 sub-waiting areas did result in an increase in the number of different treatment spaces a patient visited, 4.2 vs. 4. For any given flow type, adding 1 additional sub-waiting area resulted in a decreased LOS (range 20.9 – 37.3 min), increases in bed utilization (0.42 – 0.70 patients/bed/day), decreases in D2P (2.6 – 8.3 min), and decreases in LWBS (0.8% – 1.24%). For a given number of sub-waiting areas, flow split by a physician resulted in superior performance, followed by flow split by ESI, followed by no split flow.Conclusion
Modifications to both ED flow and physical design have significant potential to improve both operational and patient-centered metrics. In general, addition of sub-waiting areas and use of a physician to split flow, as opposed to ESI score sorting, significantly improved operational and patient centered metrics. EDs should consider implementation of a physician-based intake model with multiple sub-waiting areas to improve performance.
Funding Cycle : 2014 – 2016
-
Mental and Behavioral Health Environments: Critical Considerations for Facility Design
- DownloadReport
- 2014 — 2016
- Mardelle M Shepley: (Cornell University)
Angela Watson (Shepley Bulfinch Architects)
Francis Pitts (Architecture Plus)
Anne Garrity (Shepley Bulfinch Architects)
Elizabeth Spelman (Shepley Bulfinch Architects)
Janhawi Kelkar (College of Human Ecology, Cornell University)
Andrea Fronsman (College of Human Ecology, Cornell University)
- Overview
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.