The state of knowledge of evidence-based healthcare design has grown rapidly in recent years. The evidence indicates that well-designed physical settings play an important role in making hospitals safer and more healing for patients, and better places for staff to work.

The research is hard to consolidate due to the multitude of independent variables and outcome metrics, but overall points to the potential for making meaningful improvements in the quality of patient sleep.

Ebola-level PPE can both protect and put HCWs at risk for self-contamination throughout the doffing process, even among experienced HCWs doffing with a trained observer. Human factors methodologies can identify error-prone steps, delineate the relationship between errors and self-contamination, and suggest remediation strategies.

When planning to build a new hospital or to renovate an existing facility, healthcare leaders should address a key question: Will the proposed project incorporate all relevant and proven evidence-based design innovations to optimize patient safety, quality, and satisfaction as well as workforce safety, satisfaction, productivity, and energy efficiency? When conducting a business case analysis for a new project, hospital leaders should consider ongoing operating savings and the market share impact of evidence-based design interventions as well as initial capital costs. They should consider taking the 10 steps recommended to ensure an optimal, cost-effective hospital environment. A return-on-investment (ROI) framework is put forward for the use of individual organizations.

Evidence-based design (EBD) research has demonstrated the power of environmental design to support improved patient, family, and staff outcomes and to minimize or avoid harm in healthcare settings. While healthcare has primarily focused on fixing the body, there is a growing recognition that our healthcare system could do more by promoting overall wellness, and this requires expanding the focus to healing. This article explores how we can extend what we know from EBD about health impacts of spatial design to the more elusive goal of healing. By breaking the concept of healing into antecedent components (emotional, psychological, social, behavioral, and functional), this review of the literature presents the existing evidence to identify how healthcare spaces can foster healing. The environmental variables found to directly affect or facilitate one or more dimension of healing were organized into six groups of variables-homelike environment, access to views and nature, light, noise control, barrier-free environment, and room layout. While there is limited scientific research confirming design solutions for creating healing spaces, the literature search revealed relationships that provide a basis for a draft definition. Healing spaces evoke a sense of cohesion of the mind, body, and spirit. They support healing intention and foster healing relationships.

Among experienced HCWs, structured, observed doffing using ABHR protected against hand contamination with enveloped virus. Nonenveloped virus was infrequent on hands and scrubs but common on inner gloves, suggesting that inner gloves, but not necessarily ABHR, protect against hand contamination. Optimizing doffing protocols to protect against all types of viruses may require reinforcing careful handling of scrubs and good glove/hand hygiene with effective agents.

Simple, low-cost environmental design interventions can provide structure to support and improve HCW safety in BCUs. These interventions should be implemented in both current and future BCUs.

Background Few data exist to guide the physical design of biocontainment units, particularly the doffing area. This can impact the contamination risk of healthcare workers (HCWs) during doffing of personal protective equipment (PPE). Methods In phase I of our study, we analyzed simulations of a standard patient care task with 56 trained HCWs focusing on doffing of high-level PPE. In phase II, using a rapid cycle improvement approach, we tested different balance aids and redesigned doffing area layouts with 38 students. In phase III, we tested 1 redesigned layout with an additional 10 trained HCWs. We assessed the effectiveness of design changes on improving the HCW performance (measured by occurrence and number of risky behaviors) and reducing the physical and cognitive load by comparing the results from phase I and phase III. Results The physical load was highest when participants were removing their shoe covers without any balance aid; the use of a chair required the lowest physical effort, followed by horizontal and vertical grab bars. In the revised design (phase III), the overall performance of participants improved. There was a significant decrease in the number of HCW risky behaviors (P = .004); 5 risky behaviors were eliminated and 2 others increased. There was a significant decrease in physical load when removing disposable shoe covers (P = .04), and participants reported a similar workload in the redesigned doffing layout (P = .43). Conclusions Through optimizing the design and layout of the doffing space, we reduced risky behaviors of HCWs during doffing of high-level PPE.