https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1702-8144
Figures
Abstract
Hospital design can impact patient outcomes, but there is very little healthcare design evidence specific to stroke rehabilitation facilities. Our aim was to explore, from the patient perspective, the role of the physical environment in factors crucial to stroke recovery, namely, stroke survivor activity (physical, cognitive, social), sleep, emotional well-being, and safety. We conducted a mixed-methods multiple-case study at two inpatient rehabilitation facilities in Victoria, Australia, (n = 20 at Case 1, n = 16 at Case 2) using “walk-through” semi-structured interviews, behavioural mapping, questionnaires, and retrospective audit. Four interrelated themes emerged: 1) entrapment and escape; 2) power, dependency, and identity in an institutional environment; 3) the rehabilitation facility is a shared space; and 4) the environment should be legible and patient-centred. Quantitative data revealed patterns in patient activity; stroke survivors spent over 75% of their time in bedrooms and were often inactive. Convergent mixed methods analysis was used to generate a new conceptual model of the role of the physical environment in stroke survivors’ behaviour and well-being, highlighting the importance of variety and interest, privacy without isolation, and patient-centred design. This model can be used by designers, healthcare providers, and policy makers to inform the design of rehabilitation environments.
Citation: Lipson-Smith R, Zeeman H, Muns L, Jeddi F, Simondson J, Bernhardt J (2023) The role of the physical environment in stroke recovery: Evidence-based design principles from a mixed-methods multiple case study. PLoS ONE 18(6): e0280690. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0280690
Editor: Won-Seok Kim, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, REPUBLIC OF KOREA
Received: October 26, 2022; Accepted: January 5, 2023; Published: June 9, 2023
Copyright: © 2023 Lipson-Smith et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Data Availability: All quantitative data files are available from the melbourne.figshare.com database (https://doi.org/10.26188/21399891). All relevant qualitative data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.
Funding: “RLS was supported by a Research Training Program PhD scholarship from the Australian federal government. JB is supported by a NHMRC Fellowship (RF1058635). The Florey Institute of Neuroscience and Mental Health acknowledges the support from the Victorian government and in particular the funding from the Operational Infrastructure Support Grant. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.”
Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Introduction
The physical environment of hospital buildings can influence clinical outcomes, patient experiences, safety, efficiency, and cost [1, 2], but there is no ‘one-size-fits-all’ for healthcare design; buildings must meet the needs of the patients, staff, and clinical procedures that they are designed to serve. Healthcare services are complex, multifactorial systems with many interconnected components–including the physical environment, social environment, and the individual occupants–that interact and adapt in often unpredictable ways [3–6]. This paper presents an exploration of one such complex system–stroke rehabilitation environments–with the aim to develop a conceptual model to inform the physical design of purpose-built facilities for inpatient stroke rehabilitation.
After receiving acute care, stroke survivors are often transferred to a sub-acute inpatient rehabilitation facility to receive personalised rehabilitation therapy. In contrast to patients in acute care, rehabilitation patients are not passive receivers of care; rather, they must be engaged and active participants, while balancing activity with risk to their safety (e.g., falls). Clinical guidelines for stroke rehabilitation recommend that stroke survivors participate in targeted, goal-directed practice in and out of therapy, as well as additional general physical and cognitive activity to promote their learning and recovery post-stroke [7, 8]. Rest and sleep post-stroke are also important [9, 10], as is emotional well-being–it has long been recognised that stress, depression, and low mood are deleterious for stroke recovery [11], and patients feel that their practice and activity is hampered by boredom, lack of motivation, and perceived lack of autonomy [12].
These specific needs of inpatient stroke rehabilitation have previously been largely overlooked in healthcare environments research [13, 14]. Rehabilitation facilities are rarely purpose-built and, despite supporting very different activities, they often physically resemble acute care facilities [15]. It is therefore perhaps unsurprising that observed behaviour and mood of individuals in inpatient rehabilitation is often not optimal for recovery. Stroke survivors in inpatient rehabilitation are largely inactive and alone outside of their scheduled therapy time [16–18], and time in therapy is likely to be less than what is recommended [8] or required to support recovery [19]. Post-stroke depression and anxiety are common [20, 21], many stroke patients report feeling bored while in hospital [22], and lack the motivation and autonomy to participate in practice [12]. We argue that purpose-built environments that support the specific needs of stroke rehabilitation are needed.
We previously developed an expert-informed framework of what is important in the physical environment for optimal stroke rehabilitation [23], where the ‘physical environment’ includes architectural and landscape features, interior design features, ambient features (e.g., noise, light, air quality), and maintenance and cleanliness [24]. In the present study, we build on our previous work by exploring, from the patients’ perspective, the role of the physical environment in identified priority objectives, namely, patient behaviour (activity and rest), emotional well-being, and safety.
In healthcare environments research, the interdependencies between the physical environment, the social environment, and the patient present a challenge for traditional scientific approaches of isolating variables and identifying causation [25]. Complex systems like healthcare settings are best understood when the system is observed as an integrated whole, without attempts to control or simplify any aspect of it [26, 27]. In the present study, we addressed the following research questions: What are stroke survivors’ experiences of the physical environment of inpatient rehabilitation facilities? What is the role of the physical environment of these facilities in stroke survivor behaviour (activity and rest), emotional well-being, and safety? We took the position that connections and interdependencies between the patient and the environment in stroke rehabilitation can only be identified if they are observed in context. We therefore chose to use a case study design to explore the role of the physical environment in stroke survivor behaviour, emotional well-being, and safety. We planned to express our case study findings in a clear, conceptual model which architects and planners could use in their practice to inform the design of purpose-built inpatient stroke rehabilitation facilities.
Materials and methods
Study design and setting
This study was a patient-focused, convergent mixed-methods multiple-case study [28–30], called the ‘ENVironments for Inpatient RehabilitatiON of Stroke patients’ (ENVIRONS) study. Our data collection and analysis focused on the role of the physical environment in stroke survivor activity, rest, emotional well-being, and safety. The cases were two inpatient rehabilitation facilities in Victoria, Australia: [removed for peer review] (Case 1) and [removed for peer review] (Case 2). Both were publicly funded, not purpose-built for stroke rehabilitation, with similar ward size and number of beds, but the buildings were of different ages (see S1 Table and Figs 1 and 2). Qualitative and quantitative data were collected in parallel from the two cases, analysed separately, and then merged in a convergent mixed-methods analysis [28, 29]. The two cases were compared throughout in a cross-case comparison. Hospital Research Ethics Approval was obtained (HREC/18/SVHM/210). Study design and reporting was informed by the consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research [COREQ; 31], the standards for reporting qualitative research [SRQR; 32], and guidelines for reporting mixed methods research [33, 34].
The ward is located on the 1st floor. The gym and other therapy areas are on the ground floor. All measurements are in meters. Plan is not to scale.
The ward and gym are located on the 6th floor. All measurements are in meters. Plan is not to scale.
Participants
Stroke survivors admitted to the rehabilitation ward at either case were invited to participate during their stay. To promote equitable research and ensure representative findings [35], eligibility criteria were broad (see Table 1). Input from aphasia experts ensured participant-facing materials were accessible (large fonts, active voice, everyday words, pictures, etc.). Data collection procedures were piloted with a stroke survivor consumer advisor.
Nonprobabilistic convenience sampling was used. We intended to recruit 20 participants at each case, but the final sample size was based on saturation of themes from analysis of the qualitative data [36].
Data collection
Checklists were completed to describe the physical environment of the buildings (S1 File). Photographs, floor plans, and descriptive and reflective field notes taken throughout data collection helped to further describe the physical environment and interactions between the environment and people at each case [37]. Clinical and demographic data were collected to describe participant characteristics, following standard recommendations [38]. Author [INITALS] collected all data between September 2018 and June 2019.
Qualitative data collection.
All participants completed a one-on-one walk-through semi-structured interview, following a route of their choosing through the facility [39, 40]. Interview questions were designed to explore stroke survivor experience of the physical environment, and their behaviour (activity and rest), emotional well-being, and safety in this setting (S2 File). Participants with aphasia could draw or take photographs instead of verbalising, and those who found it prohibitive to mobilise could choose to remain in-situ using photographs of the ward to prompt discussion. Interviews were audio-recorded.
Quantitative data collection.
To explore stroke survivor behaviour in the environment, data were collected about each participants’ activity (physical, cognitive, and social) and sleep. Behavioural mapping was used to observe their activity [41]. Observations were made for five seconds every 10 minutes over a nine-hour period on any weekday, generating 54 discrete observation epochs per participant including three randomly allocated observer breaks. At each epoch, the observer recorded the participant’s physical, cognitive, and social activity, location, and who they were with. At each epoch, the participant was presumed to have participated in that activity for the preceding ten minutes. Physical activity included any purposeful physical movement. Cognitive activity was defined as being engaged in a cognitive task (e.g., reading, puzzles, listening to music), and social activity included any verbal or non-verbal interaction. If the participant could not be observed (e.g., observer break, participant in the bathroom), staff or the participant were asked to retrospectively estimate activity.
Participants completed a questionnaire booklet comprising the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) questionnaire [42] –adapted to refer to the past week rather than the past month to correspond more closely with the participant’s inpatient stay–and a suite of emotional well-being questionnaires: the Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scales [DASS-21; 43]; the Multidimensional State Boredom Scale [MSBS; 44]; and a visual analogue scale (VAS) designed to assess the extent to which participants thought the hospital environment motivated them to participate in rehabilitation practice and activity from zero (strongly demotivating) to 100 (strongly motivating). Participants could choose to complete the booklet independently or with help, at any point in their participation, and over as many sessions as needed.
To address patient safety, records of reported stroke patient falls were obtained retrospectively for the 12-month period preceding data collection at each case. The falls records included a patient identifier, date of fall, any injuries resulting from the fall, and a brief description of how and where the fall occurred.
Analysis
Qualitative data analysis.
Interviews were transcribed verbatim and uploaded with associated field notes and photographs to QSR International’s NVivo 12 software [45]. Qualitative data were analysed inductively using generic qualitative inquiry, which is a particularly suitable approach for exploratory research [46]. Triangulation was sought between textual and pictorial data, between participants, and between cases. After reviewing the interview data from both cases, four particularly long and descriptively ‘rich’ interviews (two from each case) were independently coded by both [INITIALS] and [INITIALS]. Open, or emergent, coding was used to label units of information [47]. The coders then met to develop consensus codes which [INITIALS] built upon while analysing the remainder of the interviews. Initial coding was completed for Case 1 before Case 2 to allow for comparison between cases. Similar codes were then iteratively combined into larger categories of information, called themes, using axial coding [36]. The themes were defined for both cases concurrently allowing for reflection back and forth between the cases. For member checking, a results summary was sent in December 2019 to all participants who had consented to be contacted (S3 File). To further ensure reliability and validity, a peer review workshop was held in September 2019 where [INITIALS of authors], a stroke survivor consumer advisor, a healthcare environments expert, and a qualitative analysis expert reviewed all codes and achieved consensus on the final themes.
Quantitative data analysis.
All quantitative data were managed using the Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap) platform [48], analysed and visualised using R software for statistical computing [49]. Descriptive statistics (including counts and percentages; means and standard deviations; or medians and interquartile ranges, as appropriate) were used to summarise participant demographics, questionnaire responses, and the retrospective falls records. Questionnaires not completed in full were considered missing data and excluded from analysis. For the behavioural mapping data, descriptive statistics (median and interquartile range) were used to report activity, people present, and location of all participants and on average for both cases. Counts of each physical, cognitive, and social activity, number and type of people present, and location category across the day were calculated as percentages of the total number of observations per participant. This provided an estimate of the amount of time that a participant spent undertaking each type of activity, or combination of activities, as a proportion of the participant’s total observation time. Unobserved epochs where behaviour could not be estimated were excluded from analysis unless they could be considered missing at random (e.g., observer break).
In keeping with the exploratory approach of this study, comparative statistics were not conducted. Instead, results for each case were compared to population norms where possible using z scores, and data were graphed to visually show relationships between aspects of the physical environment and patients’ behaviour and emotional well-being within and between cases.
Convergent mixed-methods analysis.
Joint display tables were used to make a side-by-side comparison of the qualitative and quantitative findings and merge (or converge) these findings [28, 29]. Four joint display tables were completed, one for each of the constructs central to this case study: activity, sleep, emotional well-being, and safety. The contents within each of the joint display tables were organised according to ‘topics’ drawn from the important aspects of the qualitative themes and the key findings from the quantitative analysis, and which were agreed upon by the attendees of the peer review workshop (see S1 Fig). Adjacent qualitative and quantitative findings were described as either ‘congruent’ (agreeing with each other), ‘divergent’ (differing from each other), or ‘unique’ (only qualitative or only quantitative findings available). The results of the joint display tables–including the convergent, divergent, and unique findings–were then summarised in a narrative integration which provided an overarching explanation of the converged findings. This integration is expressed as a conceptual model of the role of the physical environment of inpatient rehabilitation facilities in patients’ behaviour, emotional well-being, and safety after stroke, thereby addressing the aim of this study.
Results
Twenty patients participated at Case 1 (45% female, mean age = 73 years) and 16 at Case 2 (37.5% female, mean age = 67.2 years). Approach, consent, and data completion rates are shown in Fig 3. No participants withdrew, but some questionnaire data were missing due to one Case 2 participant with aphasia choosing not to complete any questionnaires and eight participants (five from Case 1, two from Case 2) accidentally leaving question/s blank. Participant demographics, clinical information, and allocated bedroom type (single or multi-bed room) are summarised in Tables 2–4.
Qualitative findings
All participants completed an interview. Interview duration averaged 47 minutes at Case 1 (range = 10–82 minutes) and 30 minutes at Case 2 (range 12–58 minutes). Analysis revealed four themes and 11 sub-themes, summarised in Table 5 (see S2 Table for further illustrative quotes). Further description and cross-case comparison are detailed in full elsewhere [50].
Quantitative results
Activity.
Behavioural mapping was completed for all participants (see Fig 3). Fig 4 shows the time spent in physical, cognitive, and social activity in each location at each case. Participants at both cases, and especially Case 2, were inactive for most of the time that they were in their bedrooms. Most activity occurred outside the bedroom, particularly in bathrooms, communal areas, therapy areas, and hallways, but participants spent very little time at these locations. Most participants spent over 70% of observations in their bedroom: median 75% at Case 1 (IQR 69.9%, 81.5%) and 79.6% at Case 2 (IQR 70.8%, 87.5%). Participants visited a median of four different locations during the day, including their bedroom (IQR 3, 4.3 at Case 1; IQR 3.8, 5 at Case 2). After bedrooms and therapy spaces, hallways were the next most frequently visited location. One participant at Case 2 spent over 60% of the day in the hallway sitting in one of the lounge nooks. Participants spent no time outdoors at Case 2, very little time outdoors at Case 1 (mean = 0.3%; median = 0%, IQR 0%, 0%), and very little time in the communal areas at either case (mean = 2.2%, median = 0%, IQR 0%, 2.4% at Case 1; mean = 0.9%, median = 0%, IQR 0%, 0% at Case 2).
The number of observations that participants spent in physical, cognitive, and social activity as a percentage of total observations in each location. Boxes indicate median and interquartile range. Dots represent outliers.
Participants at Case 1 were alone for a median of 38% of observations (IQR 16.7%, 59.3%) and participants at Case 2 were alone for 34.3% of observations (IQR 19.3%, 37.5%). Participants were completely inactive for a median of almost a quarter of the nine-hour observation period at Case 1 (median = 22.2% [2 hours], IQR 12.9%, 37.5%) and a third at Case 2 (median = 34.3% [3.1 hours], IQR 18.1%, 14.3%). Overall, participants at Case 1 appeared to spend more time in physical activity than participants at Case 2 (median = 50%, IQR 38%, 67.6% for Case 1; median = 37%, IQR 27.3%, 44% for Case 2), and more time in cognitive activity (median = 14.8%, IQR 8.33%, 26.4% for Case 1; median = 2.8%, IQR 0%, 13.4% for Case 2), but the proportion of time spent in social activity was similar at both cases (median = 40.7%, IQR 23.6%, 48.6% for Case 1; median = 30.6%, IQR 25.9%, 43.1% for Case 2). Participants at Case 1 appeared to spend more time in physical and cognitive activity while in therapy areas compared to Case 2 (see Fig 4). There were a similar number of other people in the therapy areas at both cases, but the gym was smaller, and therefore more crowded, at Case 2 (see S1 Table). Findings regarding activity and time spent alone in single and shared bedrooms and for participants with language and/or cognitive impairments are included in S4 File.
Sleep.
Patient-reported sleep quality was similarly poor at both cases and participants in single-bed rooms reported slightly worse sleep than participants in shared bedrooms (see Table 6).
Emotional well-being.
According to DASS recommended cut-off scores [51], more participants at Case 2 experienced depression, anxiety, and/or stress outside the normal range than at Case 1 (30% at Case 1 and 81.3% at Case 2 experienced depression; 30% at Case 1 and 68.7% at Case 2 experienced anxiety; 30% at Case 1 and 68.7% at Case 2 experienced stress)–see S4 File for median scores. At both cases, the mean boredom scores were within half a standard deviation of population norms (i.e., z score ≤ 0.5), except for the scores on the time perception subscale, which appeared higher than population norms, see S4 File. This subscale measures the extent to which respondents feel that time is distorted and/or moving slowly [44]. Regarding motivation, the median score on the VAS was 63 at Case 1 (IQR 45.5, 73.5) and 40 at Case 2 (IQR 7, 84). Further results describing emotional well-being in single and shared bedrooms are reported in S4 File.
Safety.
Retrospective falls records indicated that 25% of stroke patients experienced a fall at Case 1 and 21% at Case 2 during the 12-month audit period. Table 7 shows the location, context, and outcome for reported falls. Three of the Case 1 falls resulted in minor injury (13.7%) including grazed knee, hip pain, and skin tear. All fall injuries at Case 1 occurred in the bedroom; two because of falling from bed (one while trying to reach eyeglasses) and one due to tripping over an object while reaching for a mobile phone. Seven of the Case 2 falls resulted in injury (14.6%), but the nature of the injury was only reported for two of these (skin tear and hit head). Two of the seven falls occurred in the bedroom (both a fall from bed), four in the bathroom (one fall from chair, one fall while standing/walking, and two reason unrecorded), and one location not recorded. Of the 22 falls at Case 1, four (18%) were brought to the attention of staff by a proximate alarm, but the patients had already fallen when staff arrived. A further two patients at Case 1 had been assigned a proximate alarm prior to their fall, but one had failed to go off and the other couldn’t be located after the fall. A sensor mat which had failed to alarm was mentioned in relation to one fall at Case 2.
Mixed-methods results and narrative integration
The contents of the joint display tables (Tables 8–11) are organised according to seven topics (see S1 Fig): 1) Extended time spent in one location (namely, the bedroom); 2) The presence and absence of other people (in the bedrooms, hallways, and communal spaces); 3) Surveillance of patients by staff and/or technology; 4) Patients’ sense of interest or fascination with the space and aesthetics; 5) Equipment, facilities, and technology; 6) Layout and orientation; and 7) Dimensions of the space.
The contents of the joint display tables are briefly summarised below in a narrative integration which emphasises three environmental principles: 1) variety and interest in the environment, 2) allowing for privacy without isolation, and 3) patient-centred design. Together, these principles describe how the physical environment of inpatient rehabilitation facilities supports, or could support, patient behaviour (activity and rest), emotional well-being, and safety post- stroke.
Variety and interest in the environment.
Converged findings suggested that patients spend extended periods of time in one, unchanging environment–their bedroom–and that this may have negative implications for their activity, emotional well-being, and safety. Feelings of entrapment appear to persist regardless of room size and a key means of providing a distraction from boredom or low mood is to spend time in more than one location, namely, get patients out of their bedroom. This could also benefit patients’ safety since most falls occur when patients are alone in their bedroom. Our findings reveal a disconnect between patients’ desires to leave their bedroom, and their actual behaviour. Our findings suggest that increasing the richness and interest of areas outside the bedroom may encourage patients to explore these spaces, thereby helping them to experience a more varied and interesting environment, encouraging activity, and supporting emotional well-being. Variation and changes in the environment over the course of a day may have the additional benefit of helping to mark time in what is otherwise a static existence.
Allowing for privacy without isolation.
The merged results also suggest that being around other people (or at least having visual connection) is important, even when it does not result in social activity, but that patients also appreciate a sense of privacy (see ‘Presence and absence of other people–bedrooms,–communal spaces, and–hallways’ in all joint display tables). There appears to be an important difference for patients between choosing to be alone (privacy) and being alone without choice (isolation). To better describe this dual need for connection and privacy, a distinction is made here between a) feeling alone or isolated–defined as an awareness that there are no other people in close physical proximity, b) feeling lonely–defined as feeling unable to engage or connect with other people), and c) feeling a sense of privacy–defined as feeling that one has control over whether other people have access to one’s personal space, thoughts, feelings, and information about one’s person. The issue of surveillance, for example, illustrates the distinction between wanting to be private and wanting to be alone. Although patients were wary of surveillance, many felt safer if they were not alone, and indeed, many falls could have been avoided if patients had been able to easily ask a staff member to help them to the bathroom or to pick up an object.
Connection with other people provided variety and interest for patients and it also helped to combat loneliness. Many other factors, besides the number of beds in the room, played a role in patients’ experience of loneliness. These included internal factors, such as the impairments experienced by the patient and/or their roommate, and external factors, such as the position of the beds in the room, noise outside the bedroom, location of bedroom relative to communal hubs, and size and location of communal spaces. Having another person in the room is not sufficient to prevent loneliness, nor is it sufficient to promote social interaction. Similarly, being alone is not synonymous with feeling a sense of privacy. Some patients in single-bed rooms experienced a lack of privacy, especially those who had to share a bathroom, and some patients sought out places where they could be private, but not alone (e.g., cafes, hallways, waiting areas, or lounge nooks). The public nature of these spaces (ambient noise, layout, anonymity for the patient) brought a measure of privacy for the patient, without leading to isolation.
Patient-centred design.
Our merged results show that simply providing for patient needs and having options available does not guarantee that patients will be able to exercise an informed choice or exert control. Patients need communal spaces, for example, but simply having these spaces available is not sufficient to fulfilling this need. There were several reasons why patients did not use the available communal spaces, including: not knowing they existed or where to find them, feeling that they were too crowded or difficult to access, or feeling they did not have permission to use them. These and other similar results suggest that at least three criteria need to be met in order to properly meet patients’ needs and give them choice and control over their environment:
- Provision: Appropriate options that respond to patient needs must be provided (e.g., communal spaces have to exist, must be of appropriate size, and must include all necessary equipment such as chairs, books, etc.).
- Coherence: Patients need to know that these options are there and understand how to access them (e.g., communal spaces must be in an obvious location, be easy to find, and patients need to be given this information)–the term ‘coherence’ was proposed by Kaplan to describe how easily information in an environment is processed [52].
- Convenience: Patients need to be able to access these options easily and conveniently–this will help to remind the patient that they have the right to choice and control in the environment (e.g., communal spaces must be easy for patients to get to, and easy to enter).
These three criteria can be applied to any question of patient-centred design, besides that of communal spaces. For example, the safety audit in our study revealed a need for more surfaces such as shelves or tables in the bedroom so that patients could place items within reach. In order to meet this need, extra surfaces would need to be provided (Provision), they would need to be designed and maintained in such a way that made it obvious what they were for (Coherence), and they would need to be placed in a position that was convenient for the patient, or be convenient for them to adjust or move (Convenience).
A conceptual model of the role of the environment in patient behaviour, emotional well-being, and safety
The findings from the mixed methods analysis imply that patient behaviour (activity and rest), emotional well-being, and safety will be supported if the physical environment of rehabilitation facilities is designed according to the three environmental principles outlined above in the narrative integration. A conceptual model of this relationship is described in Fig 5. The model suggests that each of the three principles plays either a direct or indirect role in patient activity, rest, emotional well-being, and safety.
Definitions of the terms used in this figure are provided in text and should be considered alongside this figure when applying this model in practice.
The conceptual model in Fig 5 could be applied to all aspects of the physical environment of rehabilitation facilities. To give an example, Fig 6 shows how the model could be used to inform the architectural and interior design features of the communal lounge room. If all three environmental principles are applied, then a possible design outcome could be ‘graded’ communal spaces that begin just outside the patients’ bedrooms. There could, for example, be: 1) a small gathering space immediately outside the bedroom that is shared between one or two bedrooms and that includes some resources that promote cognitive activity (e.g., books), this would connect to 2) the larger communal hallway, with some seating provided, and off this hallway could be 3) a more conventional communal lounge for larger gatherings and with more extensive resources for cognitive activity (e.g., computers, tablets, etc.).
The design outcome suggested here (‘graded’ communal spaces) is only one potential design outcome to this particular design decision; a designer might generate several stroke rehabilitation-appropriate design options by applying the ENVIRONS principles to this particular design decision.
Discussion
The conceptual model developed in the ENVIRONS study emphasises the stroke survivor perspective and describes three over-arching, environmental principles: 1) promote variety and interest in the environment, 2) allow for privacy without isolation, and 3) patient-centred design. Through describing these principles, concepts such as privacy and patient-centred design, which are well researched in other types of healthcare environments, were defined in the context of stroke rehabilitation. The ENVIRONS conceptual model is not a prescriptive design tool. Rather, the model is designed to be used alongside the detailed design briefs that are generally provided to health facility architects and planners. Each design decision can be considered through the lens of the three principles to optimize stroke survivor activity, sleep, emotional well-being, and safety, thereby helping to inform the design of purpose-built stroke rehabilitation facilities.
We found that stroke survivors value variety, change, and purpose in their physical environment; these qualities help to provide some connection with their surroundings, relieve boredom, and lift their mood. The term ‘fascination’ is used in environmental psychology to describe the calm engagement and desire to explore that people feel in response to information-rich natural or architectural environments [52, 53]. In healthcare design, the term ‘positive distraction’ has been used to describe aesthetic qualities in the environment, such as artwork or nature views, that patients find pleasant and interesting [54]. Critically, in a stroke rehabilitation context, these elements of ‘fascination’ or ‘positive distraction’ must be present in other parts of the ward besides the patient bedroom in order to encourage stroke survivors to spend time in communal areas and engage in the incidental physical, cognitive, and social activities that are beneficial for recovery.
Findings from the qualitative interviews indicate that what constitutes an interesting environment (or a fascinating environment, or a positive distraction) may vary between patients–aesthetics that are uplifting and engaging for some stroke survivors may feel depressing and institutional for others (see ‘Extended time in one location’ and ‘Interest and fascination’, Table 10). Versatility in the rehabilitation environment is therefore key in order to accommodate all tastes and create interest and incentives for all stroke survivors to explore beyond their bedroom, as highlighted in previous research of what is important in rehabilitation environments [23]. Interior design could, for example, provide options for a space to be either bright and colourful or neutral and soft depending on the preferences of the patient. Kevdzija and Marquardt, who conducted an exploratory study of stroke rehabilitation environments in Germany contemporaneously to the ENVIRONS study, similarly concluded that a wide variety of common spaces are required to meet the varied needs and interests of all stroke survivors [55].
The dual need for both connection and privacy in stroke facilities has been raised in previous research [56]. Akin to our finding that stroke survivors want to be private but not isolated, and the importance of the lounge nooks in the hallways at Case 2, stroke survivors in the Kevdzija and Marquardt study reported that they seek out quiet, common spaces where they can be in public but undisturbed and the importance of hallways as a common space [17, 55]. The issue of privacy is not unique to patients in shared bedrooms–we found that stroke survivors in both single and shared bedrooms struggled to find privacy on the ward, and those sharing a bathroom found this especially hard. It is well established that patients in rehabilitation, and especially in single-bed rooms, may feel lonely, and many participants in shared bedrooms appreciated the company of roommates [57–60]. Participants in shared bedrooms at both cases described taking care of their roommates and helping to keep each other emotionally and physically safe (Theme 3). As in the present study, previous studies have similarly found that some rehabilitation patients will forgo a single-bed room in order to avoid isolation [61].
Privacy has long been acknowledged as an important issue in health care ethics [62], but there is no unified definition of what constitutes privacy in this context [63]. The definition adopted in this study–feeling that one has control over whether other people have access to one’s personal space, thoughts, feelings, and information about one’s person–draws from Altman’s definition of privacy, which emphasises the importance of one’s volition and control over whether other people have access to one’s self [64], and Burgoon’s definition, which emphasises that privacy is about more than just proximity to others, it is also about choosing whether to interact, and about the sharing of personal thoughts and information [65]. Privacy in the healthcare environment is clearly more than just the issue of single versus shared bedrooms, it is also about where and how staff conduct consultations or discuss confidential patient information, and it is about whether patients feel that they have a ‘territory’ or personal space (akin to our concept of ownership, see ‘Equipment, facilities, and technology’, Table 10) [63, 66, 67].
The extent to which stroke survivors feel their privacy is being respected may influence how much they trust staff, and subsequently how much they communicate and disclose [67]. This has implications for our findings regarding surveillance, which suggest that stroke survivors feel that surveillance is an invasion of their privacy, that it makes them feel powerless and frustrated, and that it jeopardises the trust between patient and staff (see ‘Surveillance’, Table 10). In addition, findings from our falls audit reflect previous research which found no support for physical restraints (e.g., motion sensors or bed alarms) to reduce patient falls [68]. Indeed, efforts to reduce the use of these restraints have resulted in a reduction of patient falls and injuries [69, 70]. Surveillance, including bed alarms and being watched, contributed to participants’ feeling that they did not have permission to go anywhere except their bedroom, and so may have contributed to low levels of activity. Interventions such as hourly nursing rounds have been trialled in a number of settings and have led to moderate improvements in patients’ perception of nurse responsiveness and a moderate reduction in patient falls [71]. Physical environments that minimise patient isolation could reduce the need for such systems. Just as the distinction between privacy and isolation lies in patient choice, there is a similarly important distinction between choosing to be watched (asking for observation or using the call-bell) and being watched without choice (surveillance).
For an environment to be patient-centred it must meet the needs of the patient, or be adaptable to meet these needs, empower the patient, and give them control [72, 73]. Our findings help to define a patient-centred rehabilitation environment as one that provides everything the stroke survivor needs in a manner that is coherent and convenient for them, thereby enabling them to exercise informed choice and control over their environment. Other authors have similarly concluded that stroke survivors are more likely to use communal lounges that are located a short distance from their bedroom because they are easier to find (coherent) and access independently (convenient) than lounges located further away [17, 18, 55]. Our findings suggest that environments that provide only the means to meet patient needs, without making these means coherent or convenient for the patient, risk becoming detrimental to patient behaviour, emotional well-being, and safety, rather than beneficial. Aspects of the environment that were not coherent or convenient for stroke survivors (e.g., poorly placed timetables, locked doors to balconies, communal lounges that were difficult to find, and even power socket placement, see Theme 4, Table 5) made participants feel that they had little choice or control in their environment, and reminded them of their lack of ownership over the environment, discouraging independent activity. The experiences described by participants suggest that patient-centred design should be applied to all aspects of the environment, as even the smallest feature or design choice can impact a patient’s sense of ownership.
Congruency between the qualitative and quantitative data in the joint display tables helped to confirm findings, and the divergent and unique data helped to explain findings, expanding on the congruent results. The convergent mixed methods approach provided greater insights and a deeper understanding of this complex topic than either the qualitative or quantitative methods alone.
The broad eligibility criteria and flexible participation options allowed for the intended, diverse sample of participants, including people with language, cognitive, and/or mobility impairments. Good approach and consent rates were achieved, and many patient experiences were common to participants at both cases, to participants in single and shared bedrooms, and to participants with different types of impairments, which speaks to the relevance of our findings. People with severe language or cognitive impairments (e.g., global aphasia) were, however, not included, and so their experiences may not be represented in the study findings. In addition, our data were collected in only two rehabilitation facilities and stroke survivor experiences may be different in other building types.
As with all overt observation, the behavioural mapping conducted in this study may have influenced participant behaviour. Still, on balance, overt observation was preferred, as covert observation (observing without consent) is ethically questionable, especially in a healthcare context [74]. Our behavioural mapping was conducted in snapshot observations (five-seconds at each epoch), rather than continuously throughout the observation period. This had multiple benefits, including being less obtrusive for participants and allowing observers to observe multiple participants sequentially during each epoch. A limitation the snapshot method, however, is that the observed activity may not have been representative of the participant’s activity during the whole epoch.
The extent of missing questionnaire data highlights the challenges of data completeness in this population [75]. Most missing data were due to participants with language impairments not feeling confident to complete the questionnaires, even with support. The adapted Questionnaire Booklet was useful but was evidentially not sufficient as the response scales and the wording of the questions could not be changed without jeopardising the validity of the measures. All participants were, however, able to complete the interview, which is testament to the feasibility of using a flexible interview design with this cohort.
Conclusion
The unique needs and clinical priorities of stroke rehabilitation should be reflected in the physical environment of inpatient rehabilitation facilities to facilitate optimal experience and care. The ENVIRONS model describes three design principles which, together, suggest how these unique needs and priorities can be met. To design stroke rehabilitation spaces that are fit for purpose, architects and planners can filter their design choices through the lens of these principles, considering the extent to which each aspect of their design promotes variety and interest in the environment, allows for privacy without isolation, and provides a patient-centred environment that is coherent and convenient for stroke survivors.
Supporting information
S1 Table. Description of the environments of the two cases in the ENVIRONS study.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0280690.s001
(DOCX)
S2 Table. Illustrative quotes from the walk-through semi-structured interviews.
Minimum data set for the qualitative data from the ENVIRONS study.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0280690.s002
(DOCX)
S1 Fig. Topics describing the important aspects of the qualitative and quantitative findings in the ENVIRONS study.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0280690.s003
(DOCX)
S1 File. Healthcare design checklists used in the ENVIRONS study: Methods & Results.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0280690.s004
(DOCX)
S2 File. Semi-structured walk-through interview used with stroke survivors in the ENVIRONS study.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0280690.s005
(DOCX)
S3 File. Research results summary sent to ENVIRONS study participants.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0280690.s006
(PNG)
S4 File. Further quantitative findings from the ENVIRONS study.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0280690.s007
(DOCX)
Acknowledgments
We thank Julie Luker, Sarah-May Blaschke, and Dennisse Bonanno who reviewed the study protocol and procedures and participated in the peer review workshop, contributing their expertise to review and refine the qualitative results. Erin Godecke and Sarah D’Souza provided essential advice regarding adaptation of study documents for participants with aphasia. We thank all staff at both case study sites, and all participants for so generously sharing their time and experiences.
References
- 1. Sadler BL, Berry LL, Guenther R, Hamilton D, Hessler FA, Merritt C, et al. Fable hospital 2.0: The business case for building better health care facilities. Hastings Center Report. 2011;41(1):13–23. pmid:21329099
- 2. Ulrich R, Zimring C, Zhu X, DuBose J, Seo H-B, Choi Y-S, et al. A review of the research literature on evidence-based healthcare design. Health Environments Research & Design Journal (HERD). 2008;1(3):61–125. pmid:21161908
- 3. Plsek PE, Greenhalgh T. The challenge of complexity in health care. BMJ. 2001;323(7313):625–8. pmid:11557716
- 4. Klein JH, Young T. Health care: A case of hypercomplexity? Health Systems. 2015;4(2):104–10.
- 5. Kernick D. Wanted—New methodologies for health service research. Is complexity theory the answer? Family Practice. 2006;23(3):385–90. pmid:16597669
- 6. Long KM, McDermott F, Meadows GN. Being pragmatic about healthcare complexity: Our experiences applying complexity theory and pragmatism to health services research. BMC Medicine. 2018;16(1):94. pmid:29921277
- 7. Winstein CJ, Stein J, Arena R, Bates B, Cherney LR, Cramer SC, et al. Guidelines for adult stroke rehabilitation and recovery: A guideline for healthcare professionals from the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association. Stroke. 2016;47(6):e98–e169. pmid:27145936
- 8. Foundation Stroke. Australian Living Clinical Guidelines for Stroke Management 2017—Chapter 5: Rehabilitation. Melbourne, Australia.2019 [10 Jan 2020]. Available from: https://informme.org.au/en/Guidelines/Clinical-Guidelines-for-Stroke-Management.
- 9. Duss SB, Seiler A, Schmidt MH, Pace M, Adamantidis A, Müri RM, et al. The role of sleep in recovery following ischemic stroke: A review of human and animal data. Neurobiology of Sleep and Circadian Rhythms. 2017;2:94–105. pmid:31236498
- 10. Gottlieb E, Landau E, Baxter H, Werden E, Howard M, Brodtmann A. The bidirectional impact of sleep and circadian rhythm dysfunction in human ischaemic stroke: A systematic review. Sleep Medicine Reviews. 2019;45:54–69. pmid:30954762
- 11. Sinyor D, Amato P, Kaloupek DG, Becker R, Goldenberg M, Coopersmith H. Post-stroke depression: Relationships to functional impairment, coping strategies, and rehabilitation outcome. Stroke. 1986;17(6):1102–7. pmid:3810708.
- 12. Luker J, Lynch E, Bernhardsson S, Bennett L, Bernhardt J. Stroke survivors’ experiences of physical rehabilitation: A systematic review of qualitative studies. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation. 2015;96(9):1698–708. e10. pmid:25847387
- 13. Bernhardt J, Lipson-Smith R, Davis A, White M, Zeeman H, Pitt N, et al. Why hospital design matters: A narrative review of built environments research relevant to stroke care. International Journal of Stroke. 2022;17(4):370–7. pmid:34427477.
- 14. Lipson-Smith R, Pflaumer L, Elf M, Blaschke S-M, Davis A, White M, et al. Built environments for inpatient stroke rehabilitation services and care: a systematic literature review. BMJ Open. 2021;11(8):e050247. pmid:34353805
- 15. Lipson-Smith R, Zeeman H, Bernhardt J. What’s in a building? A descriptive survey of adult inpatient rehabilitation facility buildings in Victoria, Australia. Archives of Rehabilitation Research and Clinical Translation. 2020;2(1). S2590109520300033. pmid:33543069
- 16. Sjöholm A, Skarin M, Churilov L, Nilsson M, Bernhardt J, Lindén T. Sedentary behaviour and physical activity of people with stroke in rehabilitation hospitals. Stroke Research and Treatment. 2014;2014:591897. edsarl.P20150731001.201412.201507310021.201507310021.163.169. pmid:24772368
- 17. Kevdzija M, Marquardt G. Stroke patients’ nonscheduled activity during inpatient rehabilitation and its relationship with the architectural layout: a multicenter shadowing study. Topics in Stroke Rehabilitation. 2022;29(1):9–15. pmid:33423616
- 18. Anåker A, von Koch L, Sjöstrand C, Bernhardt J, Elf M. A comparative study of patients’ activities and interactions in a stroke unit before and after reconstruction—The significance of the built environment. PLoS ONE. 2017;12(7):e0177477. pmid:28727727
- 19. Lang CE, MacDonald JR, Reisman DS, Boyd L, Jacobson Kimberley T, Schindler-Ivens SM, et al. Observation of amounts of movement practice provided during stroke rehabilitation. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation. 2009;90(10):1692–8. pmid:19801058
- 20. Hackett ML, Yapa C, Parag V, Anderson CS. Frequency of depression after stroke: A systematic review of observational studies. Stroke. 2005;36(6):1330–40. pmid:15879342
- 21. Burton CAC, Murray J, Holmes J, Astin F, Greenwood D, Knapp P. Frequency of anxiety after stroke: A systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies. International Journal of Stroke. 2013;8(7):545–59. pmid:23013268
- 22. Kenah K, Bernhardt J, Cumming T, Spratt N, Luker J, Janssen H. Boredom in patients with acquired brain injuries during inpatient rehabilitation: A scoping review. Disability and Rehabilitation. 2017;40(22):2713–22. pmid:28760011
- 23. Lipson-Smith R, Churilov L, Newton C, Zeeman H, Bernhardt J. A framework for designing inpatient stroke rehabilitation facilities: A new approach using interdisciplinary value-focused thinking. Health Environments Research & Design Journal (HERD). 2019;12(4):142–58. pmid:30799632
- 24. Harris PB, McBride G, Ross C, Curtis L. A place to heal: Environmental sources of satisfaction among hospital patients. Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 2002;32(6):1276–99.
- 25. Stichler JF, Hamilton DK. Rigor and replication. Health Environments Research & Design Journal (HERD). 2008;2(1):3–5. pmid:21161918.
- 26.
Byrne D. Complexity theory and the social sciences: An introduction. London: Routledge; 2002.
- 27.
Byrne D, Callaghan G. Complexity theory and the social sciences: The state of the art. London: Routledge; 2013.
- 28. Fetters MD, Curry LA, Creswell JW. Achieving integration in mixed methods designs—Principles and practices. Health Services Research. 2013;48(6 Pt 2):2134–56. pmid:24279835
- 29.
Creswell JW, Plano Clark VL. Designing and conducting mixed methods research. 3rd ed. Los Angeles: SAGE Publications; 2018.
- 30.
Yin RK. Case study research and applications: Design and methods. 6 ed: SAGE publications; 2017.
- 31. Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): A 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. International Journal for Quality in Health Care. 2007;19(6):349–57. pmid:17872937
- 32. O’Brien BC, Harris IB, Beckman TJ, Reed DA, Cook DA. Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research. Academic Medicine. 2014;89(9):1245–51. pmid:24979285
- 33. O’Cathain A, Murphy E, Nicholl J. The quality of mixed methods studies in health services research. Journal of Health Service Research & Policy. 2008;13(2):92–8. pmid:18416914
- 34. Leech NL, Onwuegbuzie AJ. Guidelines for conducting and reporting mixed research in the field of counseling and beyond. Journal of Counseling & Development. 2010;88(1):61–9.
- 35.
National Health and Medical Research Council. The National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research. National Health and Medical Research Council; 2007.
- 36.
Corbin J, Strauss A. Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. 4th ed. Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE publications; 2015.
- 37.
Sanjek R. Fieldnotes: The makings of anthropology. London: Cornell University Press; 1990.
- 38. Kwakkel G, Lannin NA, Borschmann K, English C, Ali M, Churilov L, et al. Standardized measurement of sensorimotor recovery in stroke trials: Consensus-based core recommendations from the stroke recovery and rehabilitation roundtable. Neurorehabilitation & Neural Repair. 2017;31(9):784–92. pmid:28934918
- 39. Jones P, Bunce G, Evans J, Gibbs H, Hein JR. Exploring space and place with walking interviews. Journal of Research Practice. 2008;4(2):2. http://jrp.icaap.org/index.php/jrp/article/view/150/161.
- 40. Carpiano RM. Come take a walk with me: The “Go-Along” interview as a novel method for studying the implications of place for health and well-being. Health & place. 2009;15(1):263–72. pmid:18606557
- 41. Janssen H, Ada L, Bernhardt J, McElduff P, Pollack M, Nilsson M, et al. An enriched environment increases activity in stroke patients undergoing rehabilitation in a mixed rehabilitation unit: A pilot non-randomized controlled trial. Disability and Rehabilitation. 2014;36(3):255–62. pmid:23627534
- 42. Buysse DJ, Reynolds CF, Monk TH, Berman SR, Kupfer DJ. The Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index: A new instrument for psychiatric practice and research. Psychiatry Research. 1989;28(2):193–213. pmid:2748771
- 43. Lovibond PF, Lovibond SH. The structure of negative emotional states: Comparison of the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales (DASS) with the Beck Depression and Anxiety Inventories. Behaviour Research and Therapy. 1995;33(3):335–43. pmid:7726811
- 44. Fahlman SA, Mercer-Lynn KB, Flora DB, Eastwood JD. Development and validation of the multidimensional state boredom scale. Assessment. 2013;20(1):68–85. pmid:21903683
- 45.
NVivo qualitative data analysis software. QSR International Pty Ltd. Version 12. 2018.
- 46.
Patton MQ. Qualitative research and evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice. 4th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications; 2015.
- 47.
Glaser BG, Strauss AL. Discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New York: Routledge; 2017.
- 48. Harris P, Taylor R, Thielke R, Payne J, Gonzalez N, Conde J. Research electronic data capture (REDCap)–A metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform. 2009;42(2):377–81. pmid:18929686
- 49.
R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2017.
- 50.
Lipson-Smith R. Space for recovery after stroke: Exploring the role of the physical environment in inpatient rehabilitation facilities: PhD thesis, The University of Melbourne; 2020.
- 51.
Lovibond PF, Lovibond SH. Manual for the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales. (2nd. Ed.) Sydney: Psychology Foundation; 1995.
- 52. Kaplan S. The restorative benefits of nature: Toward an integrative framework. Journal of Environmental Psychology. 1995;15(3):169–82.
- 53. Coburn A, Vartanian O, Kenett YN, Nadal M, Hartung F, Hayn-Leichsenring G, et al. Psychological and neural responses to architectural interiors. Cortex. 2020;126:217–41. pmid:32092492
- 54.
Ulrich R. Effects of interior design on wellness: Theory and recent scientific research. Journal Of Health Care Interior Design: Proceedings From the Symposium On Health Care Interior Design. 1991;3:97–109. pmid:10123973.
- 55. Kevdzija M, Marquardt G. Stroke patients’ free-time activities and spatial preferences during inpatient recovery in rehabilitation centers. Health Environments Research & Design Journal (HERD). 2022;15(4). pmid:35850529
- 56. Anåker A, von Koch L, Heylighen A, Elf M. “It’s lonely”: Patients’ experiences of the physical environment at a newly built stroke unit. Health Environments Research & Design Journal (HERD). 2019;12(3):141–52. pmid:30336696
- 57. Persson E, Anderberg P, Kristensson Ekwall A. A room of one’s own–Being cared for in a hospital with a single‐bed room design. Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences. 2015;29(2):340–6. pmid:25213674
- 58. Maben J, Griffiths P, Penfold C, Simon M, Anderson JE, Robert G, et al. One size fits all? Mixed methods evaluation of the impact of 100% single-room accommodation on staff and patient experience, safety and costs. BMJ Quality & Safety. 2016;25(4):241–56. pmid:26408568
- 59. Shannon MM, Lipson-Smith R, Elf M, Olver J, Kramer S, Bernhardt J. Bringing the single versus multi-patient room debate to vulnerable patient populations: A systematic review of the impact of room types on hospitalized older people and people with neurological disorders. Intelligent Buildings International. 2018;12(3):180–98.
- 60. Gill SD, Hogg T, Dolley PJ. Loneliness during inpatient rehabilitation: Results of a qualitative study. International Journal of Rehabilitation Research. 2016;39(1):84–6. pmid:26579697
- 61. Killington M, Fyfe D, Patching A, Habib P, McNamara A, Kay R, et al. Rehabilitation environments: Service users’ perspective. Health Expectations. 2019;22(3):396–404. pmid:30632258
- 62.
Beauchamp TL, Childress JF. Principles of biomedical ethics. 5 ed. New York: Oxford University Press; 2001.
- 63. Leino-Kilpi H, Välimäki M, Dassen T, Gasull M, Lemonidou C, Scott A, et al. Privacy: A review of the literature. International Journal of Nursing Studies. 2001;38(6):663–71. pmid:11602270
- 64. Privacy Altman I. A conceptual analysis. Environment and Behavior. 1976;8(1):7–29.
- 65. Burgoon JK. Privacy and communication. Annals of the International Communication Association. 1982;6(1):206–49.
- 66. Serenko N, Fan L. Patients’ perceptions of privacy and their outcomes in healthcare. International Journal of Behavioural and Healthcare Research. 2013;4(2):101–22.
- 67. Tehrani TH, Maddah SSB, Fallahi-Khoshknab M, Ebadi A, Shahboulaghi FM, Gillespie M. Respecting the privacy of hospitalized patients: An integrative review. Nursing Ethics. 2018;March 20. pmid:29558850
- 68. Shorr RI, Guillen MK, Rosenblatt LC, Walker K, Caudle CE, Kritchevsky SB. Restraint use, restraint orders, and the risk of falls in hospitalized patients. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society. 2002;50(3):526–9. pmid:11943051
- 69. Enns E, Rhemtulla R, Ewa V, Fruetel K, Holroyd‐Leduc JM. A controlled quality improvement trial to reduce the use of physical restraints in older hospitalized adults. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society. 2014;62(3):541–5. pmid:24517583
- 70. Amato S, Salter JP, Mion LC. Physical restraint reduction in the acute rehabilitation setting: A quality improvement study. Rehabilitation Nursing. 2006;31(6):235–41. pmid:17133924
- 71. Mitchell MD, Lavenberg JG, Trotta R, Umscheid CA. Hourly rounding to improve nursing responsiveness: A systematic review. The Journal of Nursing Administration. 2014;44(9):462. pmid:25148400
- 72. Scholl I, Zill JM, Harter M, Dirmaier J. An integrative model of patient-centeredness—A systematic review and concept analysis. PLoS ONE. 2014;9(9):e107828. edsgcl.418424474. pmid:25229640
- 73. Leplege A, Gzil F, Cammelli M, Lefeve C, Pachoud B, Ville I. Person-centredness: Conceptual and historical perspectives. Disability & Rehabilitation. 2007;29(20–21):1555–65. pmid:17922326.
- 74. Lipson-Smith R, McLaughlan R. Mapping Healthcare Spaces: A Systematic Scoping Review of Spatial and Behavioral Observation Methods. Health Environments Research & Design Journal (HERD). 2022;15(3). pmid:35356828
- 75. Walker MF, Hoffmann TC, Brady MC, Dean CM, Eng JJ, Farrin AJ, et al. Improving the development, monitoring and reporting of stroke rehabilitation research: Consensus-based core recommendations from the Stroke Recovery and Rehabilitation Roundtable. International Journal of Stroke. 2017;12(5):472–9. pmid:28697706