Background and objectivesThere is little strong evidence relating to the impact of single-room accommodation on healthcare quality and safety. We explore the impact of all single rooms on staff and patient experience; safety outcomes; and costs.MethodsMixed methods pre/post ‘move’ comparison within four nested case study wards in a single acute hospital with 100% single rooms; quasi-experimental before-and-after study with two control hospitals; analysis of capital and operational costs associated with single rooms.ResultsTwo-thirds of patients expressed a preference for single rooms with comfort and control outweighing any disadvantages (sense of isolation) felt by some. Patients appreciated privacy, confidentiality and flexibility for visitors afforded by single rooms. Staff perceived improvements (patient comfort and confidentiality), but single rooms were worse for visibility, surveillance, teamwork, monitoring and keeping patients safe. Staff walking distances increased significantly post move. A temporary increase of falls and medication errors in one ward was likely to be associated with the need to adjust work patterns rather than associated with single rooms per se. We found no evidence that single rooms reduced infection rates. Building an all single-room hospital can cost 5% more with higher housekeeping and cleaning costs but the difference is marginal over time.ConclusionsStaff needed to adapt their working practices significantly and felt unprepared for new ways of working with potentially significant implications for the nature of teamwork in the longer term. Staff preference remained for a mix of single rooms and bays. Patients preferred single rooms.

BackgroundThe impact of delayed discharge on patients, health‐care staff and hospital costs has been incompletely characterized.AimTo systematically review experiences of delay from the perspectives of patients, health professionals and hospitals, and its impact on patients’ outcomes and costs.MethodsFour of the main biomedical databases were searched for the period 2000‐2016 (February). Quantitative, qualitative and health economic studies conducted in OECD countries were included.ResultsThirty‐seven papers reporting data on 35 studies were identified: 10 quantitative, 8 qualitative and 19 exploring costs. Seven of ten quantitative studies were at moderate/low methodological quality; 6 qualitative studies were deemed reliable; and the 19 studies on costs were of moderate quality. Delayed discharge was associated with mortality, infections, depression, reductions in patients’ mobility and their daily activities. The qualitative studies highlighted the pressure to reduce discharge delays on staff stress and interprofessional relationships, with implications for patient care and well‐being. Extra bed‐days could account for up to 30.7% of total costs and cause cancellations of elective operations, treatment delay and repercussions for subsequent services, especially for elderly patients.ConclusionsThe poor quality of the majority of the research means that implications for practice should be cautiously made. However, the results suggest that the adverse effects of delayed discharge are both direct (through increased opportunities for patients to acquire avoidable ill health) and indirect, secondary to the pressures placed on staff. These findings provide impetus to take a more holistic perspective to addressing delayed discharge.

BackgroundNew hospital design includes more single room accommodation but there is scant and ambiguous evidence relating to the impact on patient safety and staff and patient experiences.ObjectivesTo explore the impact of the move to a newly built acute hospital with all single rooms on care delivery, working practices, staff and patient experience, safety outcomes and costs.Design(1) Mixed-methods study to inform a pre-/post-‘move’ comparison within a single hospital, (2) quasi-experimental study in two control hospitals and (3) analysis of capital and operational costs associated with single rooms.SettingFour nested case study wards [postnatal, acute admissions unit (AAU), general surgery and older people’s] within a new hospital with all single rooms. Matched wards in two control hospitals formed the comparator group.Data sourcesTwenty-one stakeholder interviews; 250 hours of observation, 24 staff interviews, 32 patient interviews, staff survey (n = 55) and staff pedometer data (n = 56) in the four case study wards; routinely collected data at ward level in the control hospitals (e.g. infection rates) and costs associated with hospital design (e.g. cleaning and staffing) in the new hospital.Results(1) There was no significant change to the proportion of time spent by nursing staff on different activities. Staff perceived improvements (patient comfort and confidentiality), but thought the new accommodation worse for visibility and surveillance, teamwork, monitoring, safeguarding and remaining close to patients. Giving sufficient time and attention to each patient, locating other staff and discussing care with colleagues proved difficult. Two-thirds of patients expressed a clear preference for single rooms, with the benefits of comfort and control outweighing any disadvantages. Some patients experienced care as task-driven and functional, and interaction with other patients was absent, leading to a sense of isolation. Staff walking distances increased significantly after the move. (2) A temporary increase in falls and medication errors within the AAU was likely to be associated with the need to adjust work patterns rather than associated with single rooms, although staff perceived the loss of panoptic surveillance as the key to increases in falls. Because of the fall in infection rates nationally and the low incidence at our study site and comparator hospitals, it is difficult to conclude from our data that it is the ‘single room’ factor that prevents infection. (3) Building an all single room hospital can cost 5% more but the difference is marginal over time. Housekeeping and cleaning costs are higher.ConclusionsThe nature of tasks undertaken by nurses did not change, but staff needed to adapt their working practices significantly and felt ill prepared for the new ways of working, with potentially significant implications for the nature of teamwork in the longer term. Staff preference remained for a mix of single rooms and bays. Patients preferred single rooms. There was no strong evidence that single rooms had any impact on patient safety but housekeeping and cleaning costs are higher. In terms of future work, patient experience and preferences in hospitals with different proportions of single rooms/designs need to be explored with a larger patient sample. The long-term impact of single room working on the nature of teamwork and informal learning and on clinical/care outcomes should also be explored.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.