The movement in the health care design field to focus on "patient-centered care" and "healing environments" is often reflected in the health care facilities' incorporation of features meant to mitigate the stressful nature of serious illness. These features may range from a resource center (to allow patients and families to properly educate themselves about their illness) to providing space in rooms so family members can remain with patients, to more ambient features such as soft lighting, water features, or healing gardens. Research has shown that such features can in fact have positive effects for patients and may reduce stress and speed physical healing. What is not as well understood is how (if at all) the medical staff uses these types of features. Good health care cannot be administered without health care professionals, but factors such as job stress and burnout can impair both the physical and psychological health of the staff. A supportive organizational environment is imperative, but this article will set out to show that a supportive physical environment can be just as necessary in influencing how the staff views their workplace as well as how they might fare with regard to their own health. This article will examine a subset of results from a recent employee satisfaction survey given at a medical center. Exploratory analysis and interpretation will begin to shed light on whether or not building design can have an impact (positive or negative) on staff satisfaction. This can potentially act as a springboard to guide future empirical research in the area of health care design and its impact on staff satisfaction and well-being. By analyzing findings from a recent employee satisfaction survey, we can begin to understand how the hospital staff perceives the design of their building and begin to determine if these perceptions might impact health outcomes among the employees.

Background: Health care–related errors are the third leading cause of death in the United States. When evidence-based processes are applied, harm related to health care errors can reach zero. Purpose: The purpose was to achieve zero preventable harm to patients during transitions in care from the emergency department (ED) to medical/surgical (Med/Surg) areas. Methods: A performance improvement process was used to drive the evidence-based design to eliminate harm in transitions from the ED to Med/Surg units. Once initial design was complete, small tests of change were deployed until zero harm was achieved. Results: Zero harm during transitions from the ED to Med/Surg areas was achieved. The use of formal performance improvement systems, tools, and evidence-based practices allows organizations to achieve and sustain zero harm during these transitions in care. Conclusion: This transitions project met multiple objectives. In addition, throughput efficiencies were realized.

No abstract