Evidence-based design

Last updated

Evidence-based design (EBD) is the process of constructing a building or physical environment based on scientific research to achieve the best possible outcomes. [1] [2] Evidence-based design is especially important in evidence-based medicine, where research has shown that environment design can affect patient outcomes. It is also used in architecture, interior design, landscape architecture, facilities management, education, and urban planning. Evidence-based design is part of the larger movement towards evidence-based practices.

Contents

Background

Evidence-based design (EBD) was popularized by the seminal study by Ulrich (1984) that showed the impact of a window view on patient recovery. [3] Studies have since examined the relationships between design of the physical environment of hospitals with outcomes in health, the results of which show how the physical environment can lower the incidence of nosocomial infections, medical errors, patient falls, and staff injuries; [4] [5] and reduce stress of facility users, improve safety and productivity, reduce resource waste, and enhance sustainability. [6]

Evidence in EBD may include a wide range of sources of knowledge, from systematic literature reviews to practice guidelines and expert opinions. [7] Evidence-based design was first defined as "the deliberate attempt to base design decisions on the best available research evidence" and that "an evidence-based designer, together with an informed client, makes decisions based on the best available information from research and project evaluations". [8] The Center for Heath Design (CHD), a non-profit organization that supports healthcare and design professionals to improve the understanding and application of design that influence the performance of healthcare, patient satisfaction, staff productivity and safety, base their model on the importance of working in partnership with the client and interdisciplinary team to foster understanding of the client, preferences and resources. [1]

The roots of evidence-based design could go back to 1860 when Florence Nightingale identified fresh air as "the very first canon of nursing," and emphasized the importance of quiet, proper lighting, warmth and clean water. Nightingale applied statistics to nursing, notably with "Diagram of the causes of mortality in the army in the East". [9] This statistical study led to advances in sanitation, although the germ theory of disease was not yet fully accepted.

Nightingale was also an enthusiast for the therapeutic benefits of sunlight and views from windows. She wrote: "Second only to fresh air … I should be inclined to rank light in importance for the sick. Direct sunlight, not only daylight, is necessary for speedy recovery … I mention from experience, as quite perceptible in promoting recovery, the being able to see out of a window, instead of looking against a dead wall; the bright colours of flowers; the being able to read in bed by the light of the window close to the bed-head. It is generally said the effect is upon the mind. Perhaps so, but it is not less so upon the body on that account ...." [10]

Nightingale’s ideas appear to have been influential on E R Robson, architect to the London School Board, when he wrote: “It is well known that the rays of the sun have a beneficial influence on the air of a room, tending to promote ventilation, and that they are to a young child very much what they are to a flower.” [11]

The evidence-based design movement began in the 1970s with Archie Cochranes's book Effectiveness and Efficiency: Random Reflections on Health Services. [12] to collect, codify, and disseminate "evidence" gathered in randomised controlled trials relative to the built environment. A 1984 study by Roger Ulrich [13] seemed to support Nightingale's ideas from more than a century before: he found that surgical patients with a view of nature suffered fewer complications, used less pain medication and were discharged sooner than those who looked out on a brick wall; and laid the foundation for what has now become a discipline known as evidence-based design. Studies exist about the psychological effects of lighting, carpeting and noise on critical-care patients, and evidence links physical environment with improvement of patients and staff safety, wellness and satisfaction. [3] Architectural researchers have studied the impact of hospital layout on staff effectiveness, [14] [15] and social scientists studied guidance and wayfinding. [16] In the 1960s and 1970s numerous studies were carried out using methods drawn from behavioural psychology to examine both people’s behaviour in relation to buildings and their responses to different designs – see for example the book by David Canter and Terence Lee [17] More recently, architectural researchers have conducted post-occupancy evaluations (POE) to provide advice on improving building design and quality. [18] [19] While the EBD process is particularly suited to healthcare, it may be also used in other fields for positive health outcomes and provision of healing environments.

While healthcare proved to be one of the most prominent sectors to examine the evidence base for how good design benefits building occupants, visitors and the public, other sectors also have considerable bodies of evidence. And, many sectors benefit from literature reviews that draw together and summarise the evidence. In the UK some were led by the UK Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment, a government watchdog established by the Labour Party following its election in 1997 and commitment to improving the quality of the UK stock of public sector buildings. Other reviews were supported by various public or private organisations, and some were undertaken in academia. Reviews were undertaken at the urban scale, some were cross-sectoral and others were sector based (hospitals, schools, higher education). An academic paper by Sebastian Macmillan [20] ) gives an overview of the field as it was in 2006.

A cautionary note about the strength of evidence in the built environment

In supporting evidence-based design, some caution is needed to ascertain the robustness of the evidence: the architectural psychology movement eventually drew criticism for its tendency towards ‘architectural determinism’ – a confusion between correlation and causality with the implication that there were mechanistic and causal links between the built environment and human behaviour. As some of the studies reviewed below reveal, the evidence is often weak or, worse, conflicting. In an early review of evidence in the healthcare sector, Rubin, Owens & Golden [21] examined the medical literature for research papers on the effect of the physical environment on patient outcomes. They concluded that, if the demanding standards of proof used in medical research were used, almost all the studies would have to be regarded as methodologically flawed or at least limited. Unfortunately strongly held opinions are not the same as rigorously collected evidence.

Evidence-base for architecture generally, housing and urban environments

In 2002, CABE published a cross-sectoral study [22] that set a pattern by reviewing a selection of the evidence (which it called the key research) for healthcare buildings, educational buildings, housing, urban environments, and business premises. It claimed: “Good design is not just about the aesthetic improvement of our environment, it is as much about improved quality of life, equality of opportunity and economic growth. … Good design does not cost more when measured across the lifetime of the building or place …”

At the urban scale, in 2001, CABE and DETR published a study on the value of urban design [23] which includes a literature review plus some case studies.

In New Zealand, a landmark review [24] was supported by the Ministry for the Environment. The study categorised the evidence as conclusive, strong, suggestive or anecdotal, and also noted the difficulty of establishing causation since various design elements may be found in combination with other features. The authors state that urban design is context-specific and cautions against automatically adopting what works elsewhere in New Zealand.

In its 2003 review of the evidence about housing [25] CABE expressed similar concerns about the evidence base when it said: “The most striking finding in a review of the literature relating to the quality of residential design is the almost complete absence of any empirical attempts to measure the implications of high quality on costs, prices or values.”

David Halpern’s book [26] brings together and reviews a substantial number of studies covering among other issues: mental ill-health in city centres; social isolation in out of town housing estates; residential satisfaction; and estate layouts, semi-private spaces and a sense of community. He concludes that there is substantial evidence to show the physical environment has real and significant effects on group and friendship formation, and on patterns of neighbourly behaviour.

Other literature reviews include a 2006 study by the Scottish Executive [27] and one by the UK NWDA/RENEW North West. [28]

Public open space

CABE’s 2004 literature review on public open space [29] draws attention to the physical and mental health benefits associated with access to recreational space, as well as the environmental value of biodiversity and improved air quality. In a follow up 2005 study entitled Does Money Grown on Trees? [30] CABE assessed the impact on the value of residential property of proximity to a park, drawing on valuations prepared by local property experts in which external variables (shops, schools, busy roads) were controlled for. Economic and non-monetary benefits from the proximity were identified.

Schools and Higher Education

A comprehensive review of the literature was undertaken in 2005 for the Design Council. [31] It concluded that there was evidence for the effect of basic physical variables (air quality, temperature, noise) on learning but that once minimum standards were achieved, further improvements were less significant. The reviewers found forceful opinions on the effects of lighting and colour but that the supporting evidence was conflicting. It was difficult to draw generalizable conclusions about other physical characteristics, and the interactions between different elements was as important as single elements.

Other literature reviews of the education sector include two by Price Waterhouse Coopers [32] [33] and one by researchers at the University of Salford. [34]

In the higher education sector, a review by CABE [35] reports on the links between building design and the recruitment, retention and performance of staff and students. Fifty articles are reviewed, and five new case studies reported.

Offices

The offices sector has been widely studied with the major concerns focusing on productivity. A study in 2000 by Sheffield Hallam University [36] reported that apart from surveys of occupants of individual offices, the evidence base on new workplaces was mainly journalistic and biased towards interviews with successes and failures. Some companies claimed that new spatial arrangements led to reduced costs, reduced absenteeism and easier recruitment, faster development of new ideas, and increased profitability. But others reported the exact opposite; and the reasons for this remained unclear.

CABE and the British Council for Offices published a joint study in 2005. [37] The paper reports that four main issues have been studied: the largest is environmental and ergonomic issues related to the comfort of individual office workers; secondly research on the efficiency with which office space is used; thirdly adaptability and flexibility and finally research related to supporting work processes. The report is critical of the disproportionate focus on the performance of building services compared with other aspects of buildings.

Evidence-based design for healthcare facilities

There is a growing awareness among healthcare professionals and medical planners for the need to create patient-centered environments that can help patients and family cope with the stress that accompanies illness. [38] There is also growing supporting research and evidence through various studies that have shown both the influence of well-designed environments on positive patient health outcomes, and poor design on negative effects including longer hospital stays. [38]

Using biophilic design concepts in interior environments is increasingly argued to have positive impacts on health and well-being through improving direct and indirect experiences of nature. Numerous studies have demonstrated improved patient health outcomes through environmental measures; exposing patients to nature has been shown to produce substantial alleviation of pain, and limited research also suggests that patients experience less pain when exposed to higher levels of daylight in their hospital rooms. [39] Patients have an increased need for sleep during illness, but suffer from poor sleep when hospitalised. [40] Approaches such as single-bed rooms and reduced noise have been shown to improve patient sleep. [40] Natural daylight in patient rooms help to maintain circadian rhythms and improve sleep. [41]

According to Heerwagen, [42] an environmental psychologist, medical models of health integrate behavioral, social, psychological, and mental processes. Contact with nature and daylight [43] has been found to enhance emotional functioning; drawing on research from studies (EBD) on well-being outcomes and building features. Positive feelings such as calmness increase, while anxiety, anger, or other negative emotions diminish with views of nature. [44] [45] In contrast there is also convincing evidence that stress could be worsened and ineffective in fostering restoration in built environments that lack nature. [45]

Few studies have shown the restorative effects of gardens for stressed patients, families and staff. [46] Behavioural observation and interview methods in post occupancy studies of hospital gardens have shown a faster recovery from stress by nearly all garden users. [47] Limited evidence suggest increased benefits when these gardens contain foliage, flowers, water, pleasant nature sounds, such as birds and water. [46] [47] [3]

Performance-based building design

EBD is closely related to performance-based building design (PBBD) practices. As an approach to design, PBBD tries to create clear statistical relationships between design decisions and satisfaction levels demonstrated by the building systems. Like EBD, PBBD uses research evidence to predict performance related to design decisions.

The decision-making process is non-linear, since the building environment is a complex system. Choices cannot be based on cause-and-effect predictions; instead, they depend on variable components and mutual relationships. Technical systems, such as heating, ventilation and air-conditioning, have interrelated design choices and related performance requirements (such as energy use, comfort and use cycles) are variable components.

Evidence-based medicine

Evidence-based medicine (EBM) is a systematic process of evaluating scientific research which is used as the basis for clinical treatment choices. [48] Sackett, Rosenberg, Gray, Haynes and Richardson argue that "evidence-based medicine is the conscientious, explicit and judicious use of current best evidence in making decisions about the care of individual patients". [49] It is used in the healthcare industry to convince decision-makers to invest the time and money to build better buildings, realizing strategic business advantages as a result. As medicine has become increasingly evidence-based, healthcare design uses EBD to link hospitals' physical environments with healthcare outcomes.

Research-informed design

Research-informed design (RID) is a less-developed concept that is commonly misunderstood and used synonymously with EBD, although they are different. It can be defined as the process of applying credible research in integration with the project team to inform the environmental design to achieve the project goals. Credible research here, includes qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches with the highest standards of rigor suitable for their methodology. It is important to understand that the literature for "research-informed" practices comes from education and not from the healthcare disciplines. [50] The process involves application of the outcomes from literature review and empirical investigation to inform design during the design phase, given the constraints; and to share the process and the lessons learnt just like in EDB.

Research and accreditation

As EBD is supported by research, many healthcare organizations are adopting its principles with the guidance of evidence-based designers. The Center for Health Design developed the Pebble Project, [51] a joint research effort by CHD and selected healthcare providers on the effect of building environments on patients and staff. Health Environment Research & Design journal and the Health Care Advisory Board [52] are additional sources of information and database on EBD.

The Evidence Based Design Accreditation and Certification (EDAC) program was introduced in 2009 by The Center for Health Design to provide internationally recognized certification and promote the use of EBD in healthcare building projects, making EBD an accepted and credible approach to improving healthcare outcomes. [1] EDAC identifies those experienced in EBD and teaches about the research process: identifying, hypothesizing, implementing, gathering and reporting data associated with a healthcare project.

Process

There are four components to evidence-based design: [53]

Meta-analysis template for literature review

In his book Evidence-based Policy: A Realistic Perspective, Ray Pawson [54] suggests a meta-analysis template which may be applied to EBD. With this protocol, the field will be able to provide designers with a source for evidence-based design.

A systematic review process should follow five steps:

  1. Formulating the review question
  2. Identifying and collecting evidence
  3. Evaluating the quality of the evidence
  4. Extracting, processing and systematizing data
  5. Disseminating findings

Conceptual model

According to Hamilton, [8] architects have a responsibility in translation of research in the field, and its application in informing designs. He further illustrates a conceptual model architects could use, that identifies four levels of addressing research and methods base on varying levels of commitment:

Working model

A white paper (series 3/5) from the Center for Health Design [55] presents a working model to help designers implement EBD decision-making. The primary goal is providing a healing environment; positive outcomes depend on three investments:

All three investments depend on existing research.

Strategies

A white paper from the Center for Health Design identifies ten strategies to aid EBD decision-making: [55]

  1. Start with problems. Identify the problems the project is trying to solve and for which the facility design plays an important role (for example, adding or upgrading technology, expanding services to meet growing market demand, replacing aging infrastructure)
  2. Use an integrated multidisciplinary approach with consistent senior involvement, ensuring that everyone with problem-solving tools is included. It is essential to stimulate synergy between different community to maximize efforts, outcomes and interchanges.
  3. Maintain a patient- and family-centered approach; patient and family experiences are key to defining aims and assessing outcomes.
  4. Focus on financial operations past the first-cost impact, exploring the cost-effectiveness of design options over time and considering multi-year investment returns.
  5. Apply disciplined participation and criteria management. These processes use decision-making tools such as SWOT analysis, analytic hierarchy processes and decision trees which may also be used in design (particularly of technical aspects such as structure, fire safety or energy use).
  6. Establish incentive-linked criteria to increase design-team motivation and involve end users with checklists, surveys and simulations.
  7. Use strategic partnerships to create new products with hospital-staff expertise and influence.
  8. Encourage simulation and testing, assuming the patient's perspective when making lighting and energy models and computer visualizations.
  9. Use a lifecycle perspective (30–50 years) from planning to product, exploring the lifecycle return on investment of design strategies for safety and workforce outcomes.
  10. Overcommunicate. Positive outcomes are connected with the involvement of clinical staff and community members with meetings, newsletters, webcams and other tools.

Tools

Evidence-based design has been applied to efficacy measurements of a building's design, and is usually done at the post-construction stage as a part of a post-occupancy evaluation (POE). The POE assesses strengths and weaknesses of design decisions in relation to human behaviour in a built environment. Issues include acoustics, odor control, vibration, lighting and user-friendliness, and are binary-choice (acceptable or unacceptable). Other research techniques, such as observation, photography, checklists, interviews, surveys and focus groups, supplement traditional design-research methods. Assessment tools have been developed by The Center for Health Design and the Picker Institute to help healthcare managers and designers gather information on consumer needs, assess their satisfaction and measure quality improvements:

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Community health</span> Field of public health

Community health refers to simple health services that are delivered by laymen outside hospitals and clinics. Community health is also the subset of public health that is taught to and practiced by clinicians as part of their normal duties. Community health volunteers and community health workers work with primary care providers to facilitate entry into, exit from and utilization of the formal health system by community members.

Clinical governance is a systematic approach to maintaining and improving the quality of patient care within the National Health Service (NHS) and private sector health care. Clinical governance became important in health care after the Bristol heart scandal in 1995, during which an anaesthetist, Dr Stephen Bolsin, exposed the high mortality rate for paediatric cardiac surgery at the Bristol Royal Infirmary. It was originally elaborated within the United Kingdom National Health Service (NHS), and its most widely cited formal definition describes it as:

A framework through which NHS organisations are accountable for continually improving the quality of their services and safeguarding high standards of care by creating an environment in which excellence in clinical care will flourish.

The Joint Commission is a United States-based nonprofit tax-exempt 501(c) organization that accredits more than 22,000 US health care organizations and programs. The international branch accredits medical services from around the world.

Healing environment, for healthcare buildings describes a physical setting and organizational culture that supports patients and families through the stresses imposed by illness, hospitalization, medical visits, the process of healing, and sometimes, bereavement. The concept implies that the physical healthcare environment can make a difference in how quickly the patient recovers from or adapts to specific acute and chronic conditions.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Systematic review</span> Comprehensive review of research literature using systematic methods

A systematic review is a scholarly synthesis of the evidence on a clearly presented topic using critical methods to identify, define and assess research on the topic. A systematic review extracts and interprets data from published studies on the topic, then analyzes, describes, critically appraises and summarizes interpretations into a refined evidence-based conclusion. For example, a systematic review of randomized controlled trials is a way of summarizing and implementing evidence-based medicine.

In the healthcare industry, pay for performance (P4P), also known as "value-based purchasing", is a payment model that offers financial incentives to physicians, hospitals, medical groups, and other healthcare providers for meeting certain performance measures. Clinical outcomes, such as longer survival, are difficult to measure, so pay for performance systems usually evaluate process quality and efficiency, such as measuring blood pressure, lowering blood pressure, or counseling patients to stop smoking. This model also penalizes health care providers for poor outcomes, medical errors, or increased costs. Integrated delivery systems where insurers and providers share in the cost are intended to help align incentives for value-based care.

A clinical nurse specialist (CNS) is an advanced practice nurse who can provide advice related to specific conditions or treatment pathways. According to the International Council of Nurses (ICN), an Advanced Practice Nurse is a registered nurse who has acquired the expert knowledge base, complex decision-making skills and clinical competencies for expanded practice, the characteristics of which are shaped by the context and/or country in which s/he is credentialed to practice.

Evidence-based nursing (EBN) is an approach to making quality decisions and providing nursing care based upon personal clinical expertise in combination with the most current, relevant research available on the topic. This approach is using evidence-based practice (EBP) as a foundation. EBN implements the most up to date methods of providing care, which have been proven through appraisal of high quality studies and statistically significant research findings. The goal of EBN is to improve the health and safety of patients while also providing care in a cost-effective manner to improve the outcomes for both the patient and the healthcare system. EBN is a process founded on the collection, interpretation, appraisal, and integration of valid, clinically significant, and applicable research. The evidence used to change practice or make a clinical decision can be separated into seven levels of evidence that differ in type of study and level of quality. To properly implement EBN, the knowledge of the nurse, the patient's preferences, and multiple studies of evidence must all be collaborated and utilized in order to produce an appropriate solution to the task at hand. These skills are taught in modern nursing education and also as a part of professional training.

Outcomes research is a branch of public health research which studies the end results of the structure and processes of the health care system on the health and well-being of patients and populations. According to one medical outcomes and guidelines source book - 1996, Outcomes research includes health services research that focuses on identifying variations in medical procedures and associated health outcomes. Though listed as a synonym for the National Library of Medicine MeSH term "Outcome Assessment ", outcomes research may refer to both health services research and healthcare outcomes assessment, which aims at health technology assessment, decision making, and policy analysis through systematic evaluation of quality of care, access, and effectiveness.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Therapeutic garden</span>

A therapeutic garden or wellness garden is an outdoor garden space that has been specifically designed to meet the physical, psychological, social and spiritual needs of the people using the garden as well as their caregivers, family members and friends.

Patient participation is a trend that arose in answer to medical paternalism. Informed consent is a process where patients make decisions informed by the advice of medical professionals.

Workplace Strategy is the dynamic alignment of an organization's work patterns with the work environment to enable peak performance and reduce costs.

Evidence-based dentistry (EBD) is the dental part of the more general movement toward evidence-based medicine and other evidence-based practices. The pervasive access to information on the internet includes different aspects of dentistry for both the dentists and patients. This has created a need to ensure that evidence referenced to are valid, reliable and of good quality.

Patient-centered outcomes are results of health care that can be obtained from a healthcare professional's ability to care for their patients and their patient's families in ways that are meaningful, valuable and helpful to the patient. Patient-centered outcomes focus attention on a patient's beliefs, opinions, and needs in conjunction with a physician's medical expertise and assessment. In the United States, the growth of the healthcare industry has put pressure on providers to see more patients in less time, fill out paperwork in a timely manner, and stay current on the ever-changing medical advancements that occur daily. This increased pressure on healthcare workers has put stress on the provider-patient relationship. The Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) is a United States Government funded research institute that funds studies that compare healthcare options to find out what options and situations work best for patients of different circumstances. PCORI uses their research to increase the quality of healthcare and push the healthcare system towards a more patient-centered approach. The Beryl Institute, a non-profit institute dedicated to the improvement of patient experience through Evidence-based research, released data that found that over 90% of patients believe patient-centered outcomes to be "extremely important" to their healthcare experience. Individuals that participated in this study by the Beryl Institute claimed that the aspects of healthcare that they see as most influential to their healthcare experience include effective communication, pain management, a clear and well-explained plan of care and a clean and comfortable environment. In addition to this data, women were found to have the largest issues with lack of patient-centered care, reporting higher rates of pain and less empathy than men.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Remote patient monitoring</span> Technology to monitor patients outside of conventional clinical settings

Remote patient monitoring (RPM) is a technology to enable monitoring of patients outside of conventional clinical settings, such as in the home or in a remote area, which may increase access to care and decrease healthcare delivery costs. RPM involves the constant remote care of patients by their physicians, often to track physical symptoms, chronic conditions, or post-hospitalization rehab.

Health care quality is a level of value provided by any health care resource, as determined by some measurement. As with quality in other fields, it is an assessment of whether something is good enough and whether it is suitable for its purpose. The goal of health care is to provide medical resources of high quality to all who need them; that is, to ensure good quality of life, cure illnesses when possible, to extend life expectancy, and so on. Researchers use a variety of quality measures to attempt to determine health care quality, including counts of a therapy's reduction or lessening of diseases identified by medical diagnosis, a decrease in the number of risk factors which people have following preventive care, or a survey of health indicators in a population who are accessing certain kinds of care.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Cultural competence in healthcare</span> Health care services that are sensitive and responsive to the needs of diverse cultures

Cultural competence in healthcare refers to the ability for healthcare professionals to demonstrate cultural competence toward patients with diverse values, beliefs, and feelings. This process includes consideration of the individual social, cultural, and psychological needs of patients for effective cross-cultural communication with their health care providers. The goal of cultural competence in health care is to reduce health disparities and to provide optimal care to patients regardless of their race, gender, ethnic background, native languages spoken, and religious or cultural beliefs. Cultural competency training is important in health care fields where human interaction is common, including medicine, nursing, allied health, mental health, social work, pharmacy, oral health, and public health fields.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Merative</span> U.S. healthcare company

Merative L.P., formerly IBM Watson Health, is an American medical technology company that provides products and services that help clients facilitate medical research, clinical research, real world evidence, and healthcare services, through the use of artificial intelligence, data analytics, cloud computing, and other advanced information technology. Merative is owned by Francisco Partners, an American private equity firm headquartered in San Francisco, California. In 2022, IBM divested and spun-off their Watson Health division into Merative. As of 2023, it remains a standalone company headquartered in Ann Arbor with innovation centers in Hyderabad, Bengaluru, and Chennai.

A nurse scientist is a registered nurse with advanced education and expertise in nursing research. These professionals play a critical role in advancing nursing knowledge, improving patient care, and shaping the future of the nursing profession. Highly educated and specialized, nurse scientists conduct research to generate new knowledge about nursing care, employing a deep understanding of nursing theory, research methodologies, and clinical practice. Nurse scientists are essential contributors to the development of new nursing interventions and practices. Their skills extend beyond academic settings and these advanced nurses work in hospitals, research institutes, and community organizations. Through their efforts, nurse scientists have a profound impact on the quality of healthcare, contributing significantly to the improvement of patient care and the overall advancement of the nursing profession. They possess advanced qualifications, typically holding a Ph.D. in nursing or a related field, demonstrating expertise not only in research principles and methodology but also in-depth content knowledge within a specific clinical area. The primary focus of the role is to provide leadership in the development, coordination and management of clinical research studies; provide mentorship for nurses in research; lead evaluation activities that improve outcomes for patients participating in research studies; contribute to the overall health sciences literature. Nurse scientists have been regarded as knowledge brokers. They participate in nursing research.

References

  1. 1 2 3 "EDAC: Evidence-based design accreditation and certification". www.healthdesign.org. Retrieved 2017-11-18.
  2. ↑ Hamilton, KD; Watkins, DH (2009). Evidence-Based Design for Multiple Building Types. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. p. 9. ISBN   978-0-470-12934-0.
  3. 1 2 3 Ulrich, Roger S.; Zimring, Craig; Zhu, Xuemei; DuBose, Jennifer; Seo, Hyun-Bo; Choi, Young-Seon; Quan, Xiaobo; Joseph, Anjali (2008-01-01). "A review of the research literature on evidence-based healthcare design". HERD. 1 (3): 61–125. CiteSeerX   10.1.1.1007.6433 . doi:10.1177/193758670800100306. ISSN   1937-5867. PMID   21161908. S2CID   17170267.
  4. ↑ Leape LL, Brennan TA, et al. (1991). "The nature of adverse events in hospitalized patients. Results of the Harvard Medical Practice Study II". New England Journal of Medicine. 324 (6): 377–384. doi: 10.1056/nejm199102073240605 . PMID   1824793.
  5. ↑ Zhan C, Miller MR (2003). "Excess length of stay, charges, and mortality attribute to medical injuries during hospitalization". Journal of the American Medical Association. 290 (14): 1868–1874. doi: 10.1001/jama.290.14.1868 . PMID   14532315.
  6. ↑ Berry LL, et al. (2004). "The business case for better buildings". Frontiers of Health Services Management. 21 (1): 3–24. CiteSeerX   10.1.1.496.6046 . doi:10.1097/01974520-200407000-00002. PMID   15469120. S2CID   19432345.
  7. ↑ Stichler, Jaynelle F. (2010-01-07). "Weighing the Evidence". HERD. 3 (4): 3–7. doi:10.1177/193758671000300401. ISSN   1937-5867. PMID   21165847.
  8. 1 2 Hamilton, Kirk.D. (2003). "The four levels of evidence-based practice". Healthcare Design. 3 (4): 18–26.
  9. ↑ "Notes on Matters Affecting the Health, Efficiency and Hospital Administration of the British Army". www.royalcollection.org.uk. Retrieved 2016-05-11.
  10. ↑ (Nightingale,F. (1860) Notes on Nursing, Harrison, London.
  11. ↑ E R Robson, (1874) School Architecture, John Murray, London.
  12. ↑ Cochrane 1972.
  13. ↑ Ulrich, R. S. (1984-04-27). "View through a window may influence recovery from surgery". Science. 224 (4647): 420–21. Bibcode:1984Sci...224..420U. CiteSeerX   10.1.1.669.8732 . doi:10.1126/science.6143402. ISSN   0036-8075. PMID   6143402.
  14. ↑ Clipson CW, Johnson RE (1987). "Integrated approaches to facilities planning and assessment". Planning for Higher Education. 15 (3): 12–22.
  15. ↑ Clipson, CW & Wehrer, JJ (1973). Planning for cardiac care: A guide to the planning and design of cardiac care facilities. Ann Arbor, MI: Health Administration Press.
  16. ↑ Carpman J, Grant M (1993). Design that cares: Planning health facilities for patients and visitors, 2nd edition. Chicago, IL: American Hospital Publishing.
  17. ↑ Canter, D and Lee, T, (1974) Psychology and the Built Environment, Wiley, New York.
  18. ↑ Baird, G.; Gray, J.; Isaacs, N.; Kernohan, D.; McIndoe, G., eds. (1996). Building evaluation techniques. New York: McGraw-Hill.
  19. ↑ Zimring, CM (2002). "Postoccupancy evaluation: Issues and implementation". In Bechtel RB (ed.). Handbook of environmental psychology. New York: Wiley. pp. 306–23.
  20. ↑ Macmillan, S, (2006) Added Value of Good Design, Building Research and Information, 34 (3) 257-271.
  21. ↑ Rubin, H., Owens, A.J. and Golden, G. (1998) Status Report: An Investigation to Determine Whether the Built Environment Affects Patients’ Medical Outcomes. Center for Health Design, Martinez, CA.
  22. ↑ CABE, (2002) The Value of Good Design: how buildings and spaces create economic and social value
  23. ↑ CABE and DETR, (2001) The value of urban design, Thomas Telford, Tonbridge: 2001
  24. ↑ McIndoe, G., Chapman, R., McDonald, C., Holden, G., Howden-Chapman, P. and Sharpin, A. (2005) The Value of Urban Design: The Economic, Environmental and Social Benefits of Urban Design, Ministry for the Environment, Wellington
  25. ↑ CABE, (2003) The value of housing design and layout
  26. ↑ Halpern, D. (1995) Mental Health and the Built Environment: more than bricks and mortar?, Taylor & Francis, London
  27. ↑ Scottish Executive, (2006) A literature review of the social, economic and environmental impract of architecture and design (by Morris Hargreaves McIntyre) 2006
  28. ↑ NWDA/RENEW North West, The Economic Value of Urban Design, 2007. A supplement was provided in 2009.
  29. ↑ CABE, (2004) The value of public open space
  30. ↑ CABE, (2005) Does Money Grow on Trees?
  31. ↑ Higgins, S., Hall, E., Wall, K., Woolner, P., and McCaughey, C. (2005) The Impact of School Environments: a literature review, produced for the Design Council by the University of Newcastle.
  32. ↑ Price Waterhouse Coopers, (2001) Building Performance: an empirical assessment of the relationship between schools capital investment and pupil performance, Research Report 242, Department for Education and Employment, London.
  33. ↑ PricewaterhouseCoopers, (2003) Building better performance: an empirical assessment of the learning and other impacts of schools capital investment, Research Report No 407, Department for Education and Skills, London.
  34. ↑ Barrett, P and Zhang, Y. Optimal Learning Spaces: Design Implications for Primary Schools, Salford Centre for Research and Innovation in the built and human environment, 2009.
  35. ↑ CABE, Design for Distinction: the value of good building design in higher education, 2005
  36. ↑ Haynes, B., Matxdorf, F., Nunnington, N., Ogunmakin, C., Pinder, J. and Price, I., Does property benefit occupiers? An evaluation of the literature, Occupier.org report number 1, Facilities Management Graduate Centre, Sheffield Hallam University, 2000.
  37. ↑ CABE and the BCO, (2005) The impact of office design on business performance.
  38. 1 2 Ulrich RS, Simons RF, Losito BD, et al. (1991). "Stress recovery during exposure to natural and urban environments". Journal of Environmental Psychology. 11 (3): 201–230. doi:10.1016/s0272-4944(05)80184-7.
  39. ↑ Malenbaum S, Keefe FJ, Williams AC, Ulrich R, Somers TJ (2008). "Pain in its environmental context: Implications for designing environments to enhance pain control". Pain. 134 (3): 241–244. doi:10.1016/j.pain.2007.12.002. PMC   2264925 . PMID   18178010.
  40. 1 2 Southwell MT, Wistow G (1995). "Sleep in hospital at night – are patients' needs being met?". Journal of Advanced Nursing. 21 (6): 1101–1109. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2648.1995.21061101.x. PMID   7665774.
  41. ↑ Wakamura T, Tokura H (2001). "Influence of bright light during daytime on sleep parameters in hospitalized elderly patients". Journal of Physiological Anthropology and Applied Human Science. 20 (6): 345–351. doi: 10.2114/jpa.20.345 . PMID   11840687.
  42. ↑ Heerwagen, J. (2000). "Green buildings, organizational success and occupant productivity". Building Research and Information. 28 (5–6): 353–367. doi:10.1080/096132100418500. S2CID   1145350.
  43. ↑ Bonda, P.; Sosnowchik, K. (2006). Sustainable commercial interiors . Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons. ISBN   978-0-471-74917-2.
  44. ↑ Hartig T, et al. (1995). "Environmental influences on psychological restoration". Scandinavian Journal of Psychology. 23: 109–123.
  45. 1 2 Van den Berg AE, et al. (2003). "Environmental preference and restoration: How are they related?". Scandinavian Journal of Psychology. 23 (2): 135–146. doi:10.1016/s0272-4944(02)00111-1.
  46. 1 2 Marcus, CC.; Barnes, M. (1999). Healing gardens: Therapeutic benefits and design recommendations. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.
  47. 1 2 Marcus, CC.; Barnes, M. (1995). Gardens in healthcare facilities: Uses, therapeutic benefits, and design recommendations. Concord,CA: Center for Health Design.
  48. ↑ Claridge, Jeffrey A.; Fabian, Timothy C. (2005-05-01). "History and development of evidence-based medicine". World Journal of Surgery. 29 (5): 547–53. doi:10.1007/s00268-005-7910-1. ISSN   0364-2313. PMID   15827845. S2CID   21457159.
  49. ↑ Sackett, David L.; Rosenberg, William M. C.; Gray, J. A. Muir; Haynes, R. Brian; Richardson, W. Scott (1996-01-13). "Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn't". BMJ. 312 (7023): 71–72. doi:10.1136/bmj.312.7023.71. ISSN   0959-8138. PMC   2349778 . PMID   8555924.
  50. ↑ Bentley, Y.; Richardson, D.; Duan, Y.; Philpott, E.; Ong, V.; Owen, D. (2013). "Research-informed curriculum design for a master's level program in project management". Journal of Management Education. 37 (5): 651–682. doi:10.1177/1052562912458642. S2CID   145443323.
  51. ↑ "Becoming a Pebble Partner | the Center for Health Design". 20 July 2010.
  52. ↑ "Health Care Advisory Board".
  53. ↑ Cama, Rosalyn (2009). Evidence-based healthcare design. Hoboken, NJ: John iley & Sons, Inc. ISBN   9780470149423.
  54. ↑ Pawson, Ray (2006). Evidence-Based Policy: A Realist Perspective. Sage. ISBN   9781412910606.
  55. 1 2 Zimring, C.M.; Augenbroe, G.L.; Malone, E.B.; Sadler, B.L. (September 2008). "Implementing healthcare excellence: the vital role of the CEO in evidence based design. Healthcare Leadership White Paper Series, 3 of 5" (PDF).

Further reading

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.