The similarity of the movement and flow disruption patterns, despite variations in OR layout, highlighted the adjacencies required between major zones that CNs regularly visit. These optimum adjacencies should be considered while designing ORs such that they are more efficient and safer.

Objective The purpose of this study is to understand the communication among care teams during telemedicine-enabled stroke consults in an ambulance. Background Telemedicine can have a significant impact on acute stroke care by enabling timely intervention in an ambulance before a patient reaches the hospital. However, limited research has been conducted on understanding and supporting team communication during the care delivery process for telemedicine-enabled stroke care in an ambulance. Method Video recordings of 13 simulated stroke telemedicine consults conducted in an ambulance were coded to document the tasks, communication events, and flow disruptions during the telemedicine-enabled stroke care delivery process. Results The majority (82%) of all team interactions in telemedicine-enabled stroke care involved verbal interactions among team members. The neurologist, patient, and paramedic were almost equally involved in team interactions during stroke care, though the neurologist initiated 48% of all verbal interactions. Disruptions were observed in 8% of interactions, and communication-related issues contributed to 44%, with interruptions and environmental hazards being other reasons for disruptions in interactions during telemedicine-enabled stroke care. Conclusion Successful telemedicine-enabled stroke care involves supporting both verbal and nonverbal communication among all team members using video and audio systems to provide effective coverage of the patient for the clinicians as well as vice versa. Application This study provides a deeper understanding of team interactions during telemedicine-enabled stroke care that is essential for designing effective systems to support teamwork.

Objective: The purpose of this study was to examine the factors impacting seating choices of care partners while conducting common tasks in an outpatient surgical center waiting room. Background: Waiting rooms in healthcare environments have been previously studied to understand how factors such as aesthetics, privacy, comfort, and positive distractions impact user perception of quality of care. Although care partners of patients often spend long hours in the surgical waiting rooms, no studies have addressed users’ seat type and location preferences in waiting areas. Methods: In this study, 92 participants made seat selections while performing scenario-based tasks in a virtual waiting area. A mixed-methods approach including a survey and semi-structured interviews was utilized to capture participants’ feedback on how certain factors (e.g., visibility, accessibility, privacy, comfort, and aesthetic quality) impacted their choices. Results: The optimal seat location and type in the waiting area varied depending on the type of task care partners were engaged in. While being able to sit with their loved one was the most important factor influencing seat selection during patient check-in, seat location was the most important factor in all other scenarios. The importance of factors such as seat comfort, seat type, visual and auditory privacy, and visibility to registration area varied across scenarios. However, the visual appearance of the seating remained equally important across all scenarios. Conclusions: The use of different scenarios allowed users to identify their preferences regarding seating within the context of their specific needs at different points in the waiting process.

No abstract

Objective: This study proposed a combined methodology to evaluate the perceived usability of healthcare seats that were first selected in a virtual waiting room which provided the context of use for the seats. Background: There has been an increased interest in using virtual reality (VR) for evaluation of seating in interior environments. Although VR offers a less expensive approach compared to evaluating seats in situ, using VR has limitations as users cannot experience the actual seat prototypes. Method: Participants ( N = 92) experienced a virtual waiting room with various seat groupings and were prompted with four task-based scenarios through which they selected a seat. After the VR phase, they experienced their selected seats in a lab and used an online questionnaire to evaluate the seating. Semi-structured interviews were conducted to garner similarities and differences in participants’ experience of virtual and real seats. Results: Three categories including comfort, support, and flexibility were extracted from the questionnaire. While support and comfort categories were highly ranked by participants, the category rankings varied depending on participants’ age, gender, tasks, and seat types. Interviews revealed that there were differences in experience of the seating materials in VR versus reality, and therefore experiencing the real seats was useful in seating evaluation. Conclusions: The findings suggest that the combined methodology using VR and real seating in a lab is a reliable tool for designers and furniture manufacturers to obtain users’ perceived usability evaluation of seating during the design process while the actual context is absent.