Increasing translation of research evidence for optimal park design: a qualitative study with stakeholders.

BACKGROUND: The design of parks is critical to ensure they are appealing, meet the needs of the community and optimise opportunities for physical activity, relaxation, exposure to nature and social interaction. There is currently a lack of understanding on how research evidence is informing park design and how to reduce the many challenges associated with research-practice-policy translation. Understanding how organisations use evidence for decision-making regarding park design is critical for reducing the research-practice-policy gap and ensuring evidence based strategies inform park design to support healthy active living. This study explored stakeholder perceptions regarding factors that influence the use of research evidence to inform park planning and design, and potential strategies to enhance effective translation of research evidence for optimal park design into policy and practice. METHODS: One-on-one in-depth interviews were conducted with 23 stakeholders within the park design, planning and management sector. Participants shared experiences regarding: influences on park development and design; current park development policies; ways to facilitate use of evidence; and priorities for future research. Interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim and content analysis performed using NVivo 12. RESULTS: Research evidence is used and considered important for park planning; however, several barriers were highlighted: time and cost constraints; difficulties accessing research; and limited research relevant to specific needs. Developing partnerships between researchers and park developers and providing evidence in a more accessible format such as short summaries/reports, infographics, presentations, research updates and dedicated research databases emerged as key enablers. The main research gaps identified included research into park features to encourage visitation and cost-benefit analyses studies. CONCLUSIONS: This research is a first step to better understand strategies to promote more effective uptake and use of evidence to inform park planning. Researchers must develop multi-sectoral collaborations and generate policy-relevant research in a readily accessible, timely and user-friendly format to ensure evidence is used to enhance park design and ultimately public health.

Buildings, Barriers, and Breakthroughs: Bridging Gaps in the Health Care Enterprise.

Health care architecture and design are critical resources that are often underestimated and overlooked. As we seek to extract every available resource at our disposal to serve patients and sustain the bottom line, it is vital that we consider the influence the building imposes on the patient and caregiver experiences. Buildings impact both caregiver behaviors and the economic enterprise and are, therefore, the business of health care executives. This understanding is not only an executive obligation, it is an executive opportunity. Furthermore, the built environment can be a source for innovation in an industry whose future depends on nurse leaders to champion ingenuity with simplicity and relevance. Nurse leaders are ideally positioned to bridge health care building design and best practice.

Evidence-Based and Value-Based Decision Making About Healthcare Design: An Economic Evaluation of the Safety and Quality Outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: This study describes a vision and framework that can facilitate the implementation of evidence-based design (EBD), scientific knowledge base into the process of the design, construction, and operation of healthcare facilities and clarify the related safety and quality outcomes for the stakeholders. The proposed framework pairs EBD with value-driven decision making and aims to improve communication among stakeholders by providing a common analytical language. BACKGROUND: Recent EBD research indicates that the design and operation of healthcare facilities contribute to an organization's operational success by improving safety, quality, and efficiency. However, because little information is available about the financial returns of evidence-based investments, such investments are readily eliminated during the capital-investment decision-making process. METHOD: To model the proposed framework, we used engineering economy tools to evaluate the return on investments in six successful cases, identified by a literature review, in which facility design and operation interventions resulted in reductions in hospital-acquired infections, patient falls, staff injuries, and patient anxiety. RESULTS: In the evidence-based cases, calculated net present values, internal rates of return, and payback periods indicated that the long-term benefits of interventions substantially outweighed the intervention costs. This article explained a framework to develop a research-based and value-based communication language on specific interventions along the planning, design and construction, operation, and evaluation stages. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence-based and value-based design frameworks can be applied to communicate the life-cycle costs and savings of EBD interventions to stakeholders, thereby contributing to more informed decision makings and the optimization of healthcare infrastructures.

Evidence-based design in an intensive care unit: end-user perceptions.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to describe end-user impressions and experiences in a new intensive care unit built using evidence-based design. METHODS: This qualitative study was comprised of early (2-3 months after opening) and late (12-15 months after opening) phase individual interviews with end-users (healthcare providers, support staff, and patient family members) of the newly constructed Foothills Medical Centre intensive care unit in Calgary, Canada. The study unit was the recipient of the Society of Critical Care Medicine Design Citation award in 2012. RESULTS: We conducted interviews with thirty-nine ICU end-users, twenty-four in the early phase and fifteen in the late phase. We identified four themes (eleven sub-themes): atmosphere (abundant natural light and low noise levels), physical spaces (single occupancy rooms, rooms clustered into clinical pods, medication rooms, and tradeoffs of larger spaces), family participation in care (family support areas and social networks), and equipment (usability, storage, and providers connectivity). Abundant natural light was the design feature most frequently associated with a pleasant atmosphere. Participants emphasized the tradeoffs of size and space, and reported that the benefits of additional space (e.g., fewer interruptions due to less noise) out-weighed the disadvantages (e.g., greater distances between patients, families and providers). End-users advised that local patient care policies (e.g., number of visitors allowed at a time) and staffing needed to be updated to reflect the characteristics of the new facility design. CONCLUSIONS: End-users identified design elements for creating a pleasant atmosphere, attention to the tradeoffs of space and size, designing family support areas to encourage family participation in care, and updating patient care policies and staffing to reflect the new physical space as important aspects to consider when building intensive care units. Evidence-based design may optimize ICU structure for patients, patient families and providers.