Search

The objective of this study was to explore and identify physical design correlates of safety and efficiency in emergency department (ED) operations. This study adopted an exploratory, multi-measure approach to (1) examine the interactions between ED operations and physical design at 4 sites and (2) identify domains of physical design decision-making that potentially influence efficiency and safety. Multidisciplinary gaming and semistructured interviews were conducted with stakeholders at each site. Study data suggest that 16 domains of physical design decisions influence safety, efficiency, or both. These include (1) entrance and patient waiting, (2) traffic management, (3) subwaiting or internal waiting areas, (4) triage, (5) examination/treatment area configuration, (6) examination/treatment area centralization versus decentralization, (7) examination/treatment room standardization, (8) adequate space, (9) nurse work space, (10) physician work space, (11) adjacencies and access, (12) equipment room, (13) psych room, (14) staff de-stressing room, (15) hallway width, and (16) results waiting area. Safety and efficiency from a physical environment perspective in ED design are mutually reinforcing concepts--enhancing efficiency bears positive implications for safety. Furthermore, safety and security emerged as correlated concepts, with security issues bearing implications for safety, thereby suggesting important associations between safety, security, and efficiency. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The prevailing focus on cognitive load reduction in healthcare environment standardization excludes a domain of healthcare delivery that could contribute significantly to safety and efficiency through standardization, but it has escaped discussion in the context of the biomechanics of care delivery. Inappropriate biomechanics not only can harm caregivers but compromise care delivery. Little, however, is known regarding the biomechanics of patient care and the way it interacts with the configurational issues typically targeted in healthcare environment standardization. Objectives: Examine the types of potentially harmful or stressful actions exhibited by nurses during patient care delivery in an acute medical/surgical setting. Examine the sources influencing unsafe actions. Method: Twenty nurses provided three types of simulated care in an experimental setting involving nine care configurations that were systematically manipulated. A kinesiology expert coded 80 simulation segments representing two types of task and two levels of environmental challenge to identify potentially stressful and harmful actions. Exploratory and regression analyses were conducted on the data. Results: Analysis suggests that a considerable proportion of potentially harmful and stressful actions are associated with the design of the physical elements as opposed to the configurational factors typically addressed in standardization. Both of these factors interact to produce work-arounds that result in unsafe actions. Conclusion: The standardization of healthcare environments needs a larger framework to address both cognitive lapses and the biomechanics of care delivery [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]