From the nurses' station to the health team hub: How can design promote interprofessional collaboration?

Abstract

Interprofessional practice implies that health professionals are able to contribute patient care in a collaborative environment. In this paper, it is argued that in a hospital the nurses' station is a form of symbolic power. The term could be reframed as a "health team hub," which fosters a place for communication and interprofessional working. Studies have found that design of the Nurses' Station can impact on the walking distance of hospital staff, privacy for patients and staff, jeopardize patient confidentiality and access to resources. However, no studies have explored the implications of nurses' station design on interprofessional practice. A multi-site collective case study of three rural hospitals in South Australia explored the collaborative working culture of each hospital. Of the cultural concepts being studied, the physical design of nurses' stations and the general physical environment were found to have a major influence on an effective collaborative practice. Communication barriers were related to poor design, lack of space, frequent interruptions and a lack of privacy; the name "nurses' station" denotes the space as the primary domain of nurses rather than a workspace for the healthcare team. Immersive work spaces could encourage all members of the healthcare team to communicate more readily with one another to promote interprofessional collaboration.

Attitudes towards interprofessional collaboration among primary care physicians and nurses in Singapore

“…Another study found that communication barriers between health professionals were related to poor design, lack of space, frequent interruptions, and a lack of privacy. Thus, this study highlighted the importance of a conducive workplace design in promoting IPC (Gum, Prideaux, Sweet, & Greenhill, 2012).…”

Observation of interprofessional collaborative practice in primary care teams: An integrative literature review

“…In 5 of the 11 studies (Gum et al, 2012;Hjalmarson et al, 2013;Kislov et al, 2012;Oandasan et al, 2009;Quinlan, 2009) it was possible to ascertain that observation data was initially collected independently from other data, and that the initial analysis stemmed from the observation data.…”

“…Within this category -opportunities for informal communication -sub categories included space and time, shared communication methods. Issues of both space and time emerged as key facilitators (or barriers) to communication (Bunniss and Kelly, 2008;Gum et al, 2012;Oandasan et al, 2009). Not only was the amount of shared physical work space identified as important, but so was the configuration of that space.…”

“…These were found to be particularly useful in primary care teams where part time and full time staff came and went at different times often over days or weeks. The constantly updated shared whiteboard in a common space was a powerful collaborative tool (Gum et al, 2012;Munday et al, 2007); others noted common clinical records (usually electronic) as shared quickly and easily when and where convenient (Gum et al, 2012;Kislov et al, 2012;Munday et al, 2007).…”

“…Spaces needed to allow for several health professionals to gather together and/or pass each other in the course of their work. Colocation of staff so they were visible to each other and within sufficient proximity to frequently but briefly interact to share information was identified as a key promoter of interprofessional collaboration (Bunniss and Kelly, 2008;Gum et al, 2012;Oandasan et al, 2009;Welch et al, 2013).…”