Using Architectural Mapping to Understand Behavior and Space Utilization in a Surgical Waiting Room of a Safety Net Hospital

Abstract

Objective: To use architectural mapping to understand how patients and families utilize the waiting space at an outpatient surgery clinic in a safety-net hospital. Background: The waiting period is an important component of patient experience and satisfaction. Studies have found that patients value privacy, information transparency and comfort. However, approaches common in the architecture field have rarely been used to investigate interactions between patients and the built environment in a safety-net healthcare setting. Methods: This was a prospective observational study in a general surgery outpatient clinic at a safety-net hospital and level 1 trauma center. We used a web-based application generated from the design and architecture industry, to quantitatively track waiting space utilization over 2 months. Results: A total of 728 observations were recorded across 5 variables: time, location, chair selection, person/object, and activity. There were 536 (74%) observations involving people and 179 (25%) involving personal items. People most frequently occupied chairs facing the door (43%, n = 211), and least frequently occupied seats in the hallway (5%, n = 23), regardless of the time of their appointment (p-value = 0.92). Most common activities included interacting with personal phone, gazing into space, and talking face to face. Thirteen percent of people brought mobility devices, and 64% of objects were placed on an adjacent chair, indicating the desire for increased personal space. Conclusion: Architectural behavioral mapping is an effective information gathering tool to help design waiting space improvement in the safety-net healthcare setting.

A Proposal on Detection and Analysis of Threshold Public Spaces Using On-Site Observation and Behavioral Mapping Technique

“…Conclusions on the development of the approach created in line with the aims of the study: As a result of testing the approach developed in three stages in line with the study's objective on sample study areas, it was understood that the suggested approach could be used to detect and analyze threshold spaces holistically, and that the "threshold" status of the spaces could be interpreted through user behaviors. While we know the importance of studying and understanding threshold spaces, literature reviews made it clear that most of the existing analyses on threshold spaces have focused solely on their internal characteristics, failing to consider their relationship with the surrounding spaces (Yılmaz, 2016;Arsan & Kepez, 2017;Cosco et al, 2010;Mandel, 2016;Goličnik Marušić, 2010;Al-Maimani et al, 2014;Guinther et al, 2014;Liao et al, 2022). Additionally, these analyses often overlook the unique qualities of transition (Van Gennep, 1960;Turner et al, 1969;Kapstein, 1988;Dee, 2001;Chun et al, 2004;Ambroziak, 2005;Preamechai, 2006;Zimmerman, 2008;Deshmukh, 2009-as cited in Singh, 2015Kaza, 2010;Bhonsle, 2010;Kray et al, 2013;Boettger, 2014;Singh, 2015;Perugia & Mancini, 2020), in-between (Le Corbusier, 1981Kultermann, 1993;Dee, 2001;Benjamin, 2002;Hasarlıgil, 2007;Thomassen, 2009;Turner, 2012;Boettger, 2014;Heidegger, 2017;Soderlund & Borg, 2018) and liminal spaces (...…”

“…While the behavior map model allowed the researcher to measure the parameters of "location, activity, time, route", it was also able to measure "inter-user relations" with supporting analysis. However, according to the results obtained from the study, these parameters were not sufficient for space analysis and caused many limitations (Mandel, 2016;Goličnik Marušić, 2010;Al-Maimani et al, 2014;Guinther et al, 2014;Cosco et al, 2010;Cox, 2018;Onojeghuo et al, 2019;Istrate et al, 2020;Ozbil et al, 2018;Arsan & Kepez, 2017;Sommer, 2001;Liao et al, 2022;Wang & Wu, 2020;Van der Spek et al, 2009;McQuilkin, 2016;Valkenet et al, 2022). These limitations point to some deficiencies in the method and make it difficult to make a reliable determination and produce results.…”

“…When studies on the threshold space are examined, it is observed that several common techniques are utilized, the most prevalent of which are the observation method (Danilina & Privezentseva, 2020;Akartuna, 2017;Şevik, 2018) and the processing of observation data on maps (Eltan et al, 2015;Akartuna, 2017;Şevik, 2018). The method of processing user observation data on the map is called the "behavior mapping technique" (Eltan et al, 2016;Akartuna, 2017;Sevik, 2018;Barker, 1968;Ittelson, Rivlin, & Prohansky ,1970;Goličnik Marušić, 2010;Guinther et al, 2014;Al-Maimani et al, 2014;Mandel, 2016;Karadeniz et al, 2018;Ozbil et al, 2018;Gharib, 2019;Onojeghuo et al, 2019;Istrate et al, 2020;Wang & Wu, 2020;Cosco et al, 2010;McQuilkin, 2016;Van der Spek et al, 2009;Valkenet et al, 2022;Milke et al, 2009;Cox et al, 2018;Arsan & Kepez, 2017;Liao et al 2022). Behavior mapping technique was first developed at the end of the 1960s, by environmental and behavioral researchers such as Barker (1968) and Ittelson, Rivlin, & Prohansky (1970).…”

“…Obstacles present in the space and errors that occur when there is no direct transportation area cause difficulties in location analysis. Liao et al 2022 Using behavior mapping to understand how patients and families use the waiting area in an outpatient surgery clinic at a safety-net hospital.…”

Characterizing the Supportive Environment of Informal Spaces on Cold Region University Campuses to Enhance Social Interaction Behavior

“…The behavioral patterns were analyzed using behavioral quantification, which has been widely used and proved effective [43][44][45]. The video data were acquired by the author on the first campus of the Harbin Institute of Technology (HIT) from November to December 2023.…”