Design stage evaluation tools for residential dementia care environments

Quirke, Martin; Ostwald, Michael J.; Fleming, Richard; Taylor, Mark; Williams, Anthony

doi:10.1108/f-09-2020-0106

Cited by 7 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The Plan-EAT method is based on a subset of queries from the EAT (Fleming 2011). It is developed from previous research (Quirke et al 2021) that mapped three established instruments: the EAT (Fleming 2011), the Dementia Design Audit Tool (Cunningham et al 2008), and the Therapeutic Environment Screening Survey for Nursing Homes (Sloane et al, 1990); against key phases of decision-making in architectural design process and document type(s) associated with them (floor plans, specifications, etc). That research concluded that the EAT was amongst the most reliable of eight well-established tools, and the best suited to being re-purposed for use in assessing the floor plan layouts of RCFs.…”

Section: Development Of the Plan-eat Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Subsequently, an overall Plan-EAT score is calculated as an average of all DDP sub-scores (Table 2) within which all DDPs maintain equal weighting to each other. With assessment item weighting varying significantly between existing audit tools (Quirke et al 2021), Fleming's established scoring schema is both the only evidence-based approach currently available, and an appropriate precursor to users potentially using the complete EAT in subsequent post occupancy evaluations.…”

Section: Development Of the Plan-eat Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Several environmental assessment instruments for dementia design are available, though all focus on post occupancy evaluation (Sloane and Mathew 1990;Weisman et al 1996;Parker et al 2004;Cunningham et al 2008;Fleming 2011). Despite this, recent research has identified that as much as 60% of the scoring in formal dementia design assessment tools can be determined at the earliest stages of design, with most of this through layout planning (Quirke 2019;Quirke et al 2021). The present paper describes and demonstrates Plan-EAT, the first known tool to be identified as suitable for floorplan-based assessment of RCFs.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 94%

See 2 more Smart Citations

A design assessment tool for layout planning in residential care for dementia

Quirke

Ostwald

Fleming

et al. 2021

Architectural Science Review

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A growing majority of people living in Residential Care Facilities (RCFs) for older people have dementia. Yet the implementation of evidence-based Dementia Design Principles (DDPs), known to reduce symptoms and improve wellbeing, remains limited. This paper reports on the development and application of Plan-EAT, a floorplan-based method of assessing dementia design quality in RCFs. Through the analysis of 34 published architectural exemplars, the method identifies strengths and weaknesses in the layouts of residential care buildings, across 39 assessment criteria organized under 9 DDPs. The paper concludes that the Plan-EAT could benefit architectural practice by providing an evidence-based means of assessing layout planning quality, in both existing cases and emerging RCF design proposals. The findings also highlight the need for care, where reliance is placed on published case studies, to inform the design of dementia supportive environments.

show abstract

Section: Development Of the Plan-eat Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Development Of the Plan-eat Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 94%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A design assessment tool for layout planning in residential care for dementia

Quirke

Ostwald

Fleming

et al. 2021

Architectural Science Review

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, as the G-EAT shall provide precise conclusions regarding the built environment for research and health care teams at nursing homes, there is a need for further improvement and thus also to move away from the original instrument. The need to do so is underpinned by the results of an instrument evaluation by Quirke et al (2021). The authors compared the Environmental Audit Tool (EAT) (previous version of the EAT-HC) to two other instruments concerning their use for planning, detailing and managing the built environment.…”

Section: Addressing the G-eat Characteristics For Research Purposesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The authors compared the Environmental Audit Tool (EAT) (previous version of the EAT-HC) to two other instruments concerning their use for planning, detailing and managing the built environment. The authors found that the EAT primarily (60%) facilitates the planning of long-term care facilities and only indirectly (12%) post-occupancy-the aspect most applicable to the purposes we focus on [36]. We initiated the required development of the G-EAT by removing inapplicable items and reformulating other cultural-specific questions to help draw a more accurate and complete map of the built environment.…”

Section: Addressing the G-eat Characteristics For Research Purposesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Feasibility, Interrater Reliability and Internal Consistency of the German Environmental Audit Tool (G-EAT)

Fahsold

Schmüdderich

Verbeek

et al. 2022

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Dementia-specific environmental design has the potential to positively influence capabilities for daily living and quality of life in people with dementia living in nursing homes. To date, no reliable instrument exists for systematically assessing the adequacy of these built environments in Germany. This study aimed to test the adapted version of the Environmental Audit Tool—High Care (EAT-HC)—the German Environmental Audit Tool (G-EAT)—with regard to its feasibility, interrater reliability and internal consistency. The G-EAT was applied as a paper-pencil version in the German setting; intraclass correlation coefficients at the subscale level ranged from 0.662 (III) to 0.869 (IV), and 42% of the items showed at least substantial agreement (Cohen’s kappa ≥ 0.60). The results indicate the need to develop supplementary material in a manual that illustrates the meaning of the items and practical implications regarding dementia-specific environmental design. Furthermore, the intersectionality of built and physical environments must be considered when interpreting G-EAT results in future research and applications to residential long-term care practice.

show abstract

Evaluation of environmental assessment tools for settings for individuals living with dementia

Calkins

Kaup

Abushousheh

2022

A&D Transl Res & Clin Interv

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction The overarching goal of research on physical settings for individuals living with dementia is to identify associations between designed features within the built environment and outcomes of interest. Over the past three decades numerous environmental assessment tools have been developed in several countries, responding to a changing set of care industry values that increasingly prioritize a holistic, quality‐of‐life–driven person‐centered care (PCC) model over a biomedical approach to long‐term care (LTC) provision. This article reviews the diversity, constructs, strengths, and limitations of existing environmental assessment tools and identifies gaps for future tool development. Methods A systematic literature search was conducted using four databases (Medline, CINAHL, PsycInfo, and Avery Index) and terms related to health‐care environments and assessment tools. Results A total of 13 environmental assessment tools for people living with dementia within shared residential settings were identified. Evaluation of the environmental assessment tools includes a synthesis of published data for each tool's reliability, validity, ease of use, interpretability, strengths and weaknesses, as well as a comparison of various tool characteristics including date of development, country of origin, applicable care setting(s), number and variety of measures and underlying constructs, format, and descriptive versus evaluative content. Discussion While the shift to person‐centered values encompasses all aspects of care and care settings, the majority of person‐centered definitions exclude the important role of the designed, physical environment. However, this review of environmental assessment tools clearly demonstrates that newer tools are embracing the full array of PCC values. In the United States, this is shown in the shift from tools designed to assess segregated dementia care settings to tools that integrate the needs and preferences both of individuals living with and without dementia. Next‐generation tools need to specifically address the household model of design. Highlights The overarching goal of research on physical settings for individuals living with dementia is to identify associations between designed features within the built environment and outcomes of interest. A systematic literature search identified a total of 13 environmental assessment tools for people living with dementia within shared residential settings; these tools were then described and evaluated based on reliability, validity, ease of use, interpretability, strengths, and weaknesses. This review of environmental assessment tools clearly demonstrates that newer tools are embracing the full array of person‐centered care values.

show abstract

Design stage evaluation tools for residential dementia care environments

Cited by 7 publications

References 22 publications

A design assessment tool for layout planning in residential care for dementia

A design assessment tool for layout planning in residential care for dementia

Feasibility, Interrater Reliability and Internal Consistency of the German Environmental Audit Tool (G-EAT)

Evaluation of environmental assessment tools for settings for individuals living with dementia

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About