An Empirical Examination of Patient Room Handedness in Acute Medical-Surgical Settings

Abstract

Objective:

The study objective was to examine whether standardized same-handed room configurations contribute more to operational performance in comparison to standardized mirror-image room configurations. Based on a framework that physical environment standardization supports process and workflow standardization, thus contributing to safety and efficiency, the study examined the comparative effectiveness of the standardized same-handed configuration and the standardized mirror-image configuration.

Background:

Patient room handedness has emerged as an important issue in inpatient unit design, with many hospitals adopting the standardized same-handed room concept at all levels of patient acuity. Although it is argued that standardized same-handed rooms offer greater levels of safety and efficiency in comparison to standardized mirror-image rooms, there is little empirical evidence either to support or refute these contentions.

Method:

An experimental setting was developed where elements of the physical environment and approach to the caregiver zone were systematically manipulated. Twenty registered nurses (10 left-handed and 10 right-handed) provided three types of care to a patient-actor across nine physical design configurations, which were videotaped in 540 separate segments. Structured interviews of the subjects were conducted at the end of each individual set of simulation runs to obtain triangulation data. Video segments were coded by nursing experts. Statistical and content analyses of the data were conducted.

Results:

Study data show that standardized same-handed configurations may not contribute to process and workflow standardization—hence, to safety and efficiency—any more than standardized mirror-image configurations in acute medical-surgical settings. Data suggest that a global view of the patient care environment upon entry is the most sought-after familiarization factor to reduce cognitive load.

Keywords

Evidence-based design standardization same-handed room medical-surgical unit

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. (2001). Making health care safer: A critical analysis of patient safety practices. Rockville, MD: Author.

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. (2003). The effect of health care working conditions on patient safety. Rockville, MD: Author.

American Nurses Association. (2009). Nursing shortage. Retrieved June 30, 2009, from http://www.nursingworld.org/nursingshort-age

Cahnman

S. F.

(2006, May). Key considerations in patient room design, part 2: The same-handed room. Healthcare Design. Retrieved June 30, 2009, from http://www.healthcaredesignmagazine.com/ME2/dirmod.asp?sid=&nm=&type=Publishing&mod=Publications%3A%3AArticle&mid=8F3A7027421841978F18BE895F87F791&tier=4&id=CB76C8FA220644628164363B07F3608F

Department of Transportation. (2004). Safety standards for flight guidance systems (Federal Register, Vol. 69, No. 156, Friday, August 13, 2004, Proposed Rules). Washington, DC: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

Feletto

, & Graze

(1997). A back injury prevention guide for health care providers. CAL/OSHA Consultation Service.

Institute of Medicine. (2001). Crossing the quality chasm: A new health system for the 21st century. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

Jorna

, & Hoogeboom

(2004). Evaluating the flight deck. In Harris

(Ed.), Human factors for civil flight deck design. Surrey, United Kingdom: Ashgate Publishing.

Kohn

L. T.

Corrigan

J. M.

, & Donaldson

M. S.

(Eds.). (2000). To err Is human: Building a safer health system. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

10.

Lande

(1997). Standardization of flight decks—Operational aspects. In Soekkha

H. M.

(Ed.), Aviation safety: Human factors, system engineering, flight operations, economics, strategies & management (pp.189–201). Boston, MA: VSP Books.

11.

Leaf

Homel

, & Factor

(2010). Relationship between ICU design and mortality. Chest, January 15 [Epub ahead of print; DOI 10.1378/chest.09-1458].

12.

McCullough

(2006). Warm and welcoming spaces creating better patient rooms while meeting staff expectations. Inside ASHE, 14(2), 47–49.

13.

Miles

M. B.

, & Huberman

A. M.

(1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

14.

Noyes

Starr

, & Kazem

(2004). Warning system design in civil aircraft. In Harris

(Ed.), Human factors for civil flight deck design (pp.141–155). Surrey, United Kingdom: Ashgate Publishing.

15.

Page

(Ed.). (2004). Keeping patients safe: Transforming the work environment of nurses. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

16.

Pati

Evans

Waggener

, & Harvey

(2008). An exploratory examination of medical gas booms versus traditional headwalls in ICU design. Critical Care Nursing Quarterly, 31(4), 341–357.

17.

Pati

Harvey

, & Cason

(2008). Inpatient unit flexibility: Design characteristics of a successful flexible unit. Environment and Behavior, 40(2), 205–232.

18.

Reiling

(2007). Safe by design: Designing safety in health care facilities, processes, and culture. Oakbrook Terrace, IL: Joint Commission Resources.

19.

Schutte

, & Willshire

(1997). Designing to control flight crew errors. In Proceedings of Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 1997: “Computational Cybernetics and Simulation,” 1997 IEEE International Conference (Vol. 2) (pp. 1978–1983). Orlando, FL. doi: 10.1109/ICSMC.1997.638376

20.

Singer

(2004). Human factors in flight test and flight deck evaluation. In Harris

(Ed.), Human factors for civil flight deck design (pp. 275–300). Surrey, United Kingdom: Ashgate Publishing.

21.

Spitzer

(2006). Avionics: Elements, software and functions. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

22.

Sulzer

(1981). Transport aircraft cockpit standardization (Federal Aviation Regulation Part 25). Washington, DC: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

23.

Tucker

Singer

Hayes

, & Falwell

(2008). Front-line staff perspectives on opportunities for improving the safety and efficiency of hospital work systems. Health Services Research, 43(5), 1807–1829.