Abstract:Aims and Objectives: Exploring the influence of the 100% single-room environment on staff and patient experience of person-centred practice in an acute-care setting.Background: Current building guidance for the NHS advocates increasing the singleroom inpatient environment. There is little evidence of the impact of this design in adult acute-care settings on the experience and delivery of person-centred care.
Design: Ethnography, underpinned by McCormack and McCance's Person-centred Practice Framework. Methods:… Show more
“…Twelve studies, published between 2006 and 2022, were included in this review. Six were conducted in the United States of America (USA) (Berry & Parish, 2008; Chaudhury et al, 2006; Deitrick et al, 2010; Raj et al, 2022; Real et al, 2017; Trzpuc & Martin, 2010), three in the United Kingdom (Donetto et al, 2017; Kelly et al, 2022; Maben et al, 2016), two in Australia (Bloomer et al, 2016; Cusack et al, 2019) and one in Sweden (Rosén et al, 2017). The included studies were heterogenous in design, using various data collection approaches including survey, interview, focus groups, observation, photograph or floor plan analysis, pedometer readings and nested case study.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In eight studies (Berry & Parish, 2008; Chaudhury et al, 2006; Cusack et al, 2019; Kelly et al, 2022; Maben et al, 2016; Raj et al, 2022; Real et al, 2017; Rosén et al, 2017), data revealed nurse participants' perspectives on the aesthetics of single rooms and their perceptions of working within the physical space, often through comparison with other unit/ward designs with multiple occupancy patient accommodation, referred to as multiple occupancy rooms. Four studies, in whole or part, provided some comparison of nurses' perspectives on single rooms compared to multiple occupancy rooms, one from the UK which used a multimethod case study approach (Maben et al, 2016), one used focus groups (Kelly et al, 2022) and two studies used surveys (Berry & Parish, 2008; Chaudhury et al, 2006). Whilst nurses in the UK study by Maben et al (2016) stated they preferred a mix of single and multiple occupancy rooms in a ward, the proximity to resources and equipment within or adjacent to each room was appreciated, as a junior sister explained:…the gloves on the wall, just outside the general patients' room, the gloves, alcohol dispenser, aprons, and the wipes […] they're very clean, clear, easy to refill and they really benefit from being where they are, which is perfect, the fact that they're outside every single patient's room, there's no question about it.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Nurses viewed single rooms positively in terms of overall patient comfort (Cusack et al, 2019; Kelly et al, 2022; Raj et al, 2022), pleasantness and quality of nurse workspace (Berry & Parish, 2008), layout, amenities (Chaudhury et al, 2006; Kelly et al, 2022) and temperature, lighting and noise control (Chaudhury et al, 2006). The flexibility and space that single rooms provided for family members (Chaudhury et al, 2006; Cusack et al, 2019) were also reported as a positive feature of single rooms.…”
Aim and objectiveTo evaluate evidence that examined nurses' work experiences in hospital wards with single rooms. The research question was ‘What does the research tell us about nurses’ work experiences in hospital wards with single rooms?’BackgroundIn the last decades, new hospital builds have moved towards including a high proportion of single rooms. Yet, single rooms create ‘complex environments’ that impact the nurses.DesignA structured integrative review was undertaken of empirical evidence.MethodsOriginal, peer‐reviewed articles, written in English, were sourced from four databases: CINAHL, PubMed, Embase and Web of Science. The initial searches were performed in April 2021 and repeated in December 2022. Quality appraisal was undertaken using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. A narrative synthesis approach was used to analyse the data. Reporting was guided by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses (PRISMA) statement.ResultsTwelve studies, published between 2006 and 2022, with an international origin, and representing n = 826 nurses, were included in this review. The synthesis revealed mixed perspectives about nurses' work experiences in wards with single rooms. Whilst single rooms are ‘all good in theory (and) a good idea’, the reality was quite different. Synthesised findings are presented in four categories: (i) aesthetics and the physical space, (ii) privacy vs. isolation, (iii) safety, which includes situational awareness and (iv) communication and collaboration.ConclusionThis review describes how single rooms affects nurses' work experience. Whilst nurses shared multiple concerns about single rooms and the challenges they also acknowledged patient preference for the privacy and space afforded by single rooms.Relevance to Clinical PracticeFindings from this review highlight the need for careful planning to maintain and strengthen teamwork, prevent nurses' sense of working in isolation, as well as creating opportunities for mentorship, and collaboration among nurses when working in single‐room settings.
“…Twelve studies, published between 2006 and 2022, were included in this review. Six were conducted in the United States of America (USA) (Berry & Parish, 2008; Chaudhury et al, 2006; Deitrick et al, 2010; Raj et al, 2022; Real et al, 2017; Trzpuc & Martin, 2010), three in the United Kingdom (Donetto et al, 2017; Kelly et al, 2022; Maben et al, 2016), two in Australia (Bloomer et al, 2016; Cusack et al, 2019) and one in Sweden (Rosén et al, 2017). The included studies were heterogenous in design, using various data collection approaches including survey, interview, focus groups, observation, photograph or floor plan analysis, pedometer readings and nested case study.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In eight studies (Berry & Parish, 2008; Chaudhury et al, 2006; Cusack et al, 2019; Kelly et al, 2022; Maben et al, 2016; Raj et al, 2022; Real et al, 2017; Rosén et al, 2017), data revealed nurse participants' perspectives on the aesthetics of single rooms and their perceptions of working within the physical space, often through comparison with other unit/ward designs with multiple occupancy patient accommodation, referred to as multiple occupancy rooms. Four studies, in whole or part, provided some comparison of nurses' perspectives on single rooms compared to multiple occupancy rooms, one from the UK which used a multimethod case study approach (Maben et al, 2016), one used focus groups (Kelly et al, 2022) and two studies used surveys (Berry & Parish, 2008; Chaudhury et al, 2006). Whilst nurses in the UK study by Maben et al (2016) stated they preferred a mix of single and multiple occupancy rooms in a ward, the proximity to resources and equipment within or adjacent to each room was appreciated, as a junior sister explained:…the gloves on the wall, just outside the general patients' room, the gloves, alcohol dispenser, aprons, and the wipes […] they're very clean, clear, easy to refill and they really benefit from being where they are, which is perfect, the fact that they're outside every single patient's room, there's no question about it.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Nurses viewed single rooms positively in terms of overall patient comfort (Cusack et al, 2019; Kelly et al, 2022; Raj et al, 2022), pleasantness and quality of nurse workspace (Berry & Parish, 2008), layout, amenities (Chaudhury et al, 2006; Kelly et al, 2022) and temperature, lighting and noise control (Chaudhury et al, 2006). The flexibility and space that single rooms provided for family members (Chaudhury et al, 2006; Cusack et al, 2019) were also reported as a positive feature of single rooms.…”
Aim and objectiveTo evaluate evidence that examined nurses' work experiences in hospital wards with single rooms. The research question was ‘What does the research tell us about nurses’ work experiences in hospital wards with single rooms?’BackgroundIn the last decades, new hospital builds have moved towards including a high proportion of single rooms. Yet, single rooms create ‘complex environments’ that impact the nurses.DesignA structured integrative review was undertaken of empirical evidence.MethodsOriginal, peer‐reviewed articles, written in English, were sourced from four databases: CINAHL, PubMed, Embase and Web of Science. The initial searches were performed in April 2021 and repeated in December 2022. Quality appraisal was undertaken using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. A narrative synthesis approach was used to analyse the data. Reporting was guided by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses (PRISMA) statement.ResultsTwelve studies, published between 2006 and 2022, with an international origin, and representing n = 826 nurses, were included in this review. The synthesis revealed mixed perspectives about nurses' work experiences in wards with single rooms. Whilst single rooms are ‘all good in theory (and) a good idea’, the reality was quite different. Synthesised findings are presented in four categories: (i) aesthetics and the physical space, (ii) privacy vs. isolation, (iii) safety, which includes situational awareness and (iv) communication and collaboration.ConclusionThis review describes how single rooms affects nurses' work experience. Whilst nurses shared multiple concerns about single rooms and the challenges they also acknowledged patient preference for the privacy and space afforded by single rooms.Relevance to Clinical PracticeFindings from this review highlight the need for careful planning to maintain and strengthen teamwork, prevent nurses' sense of working in isolation, as well as creating opportunities for mentorship, and collaboration among nurses when working in single‐room settings.
“…A pesar del incremento progresivo de miradas un tanto parciales que enfatizan este tipo de perspectivas, el reto se mantiene en llevar a la práctica los principios estables que posicionan a la persona en el centro de la atención sanitaria, con el fin de que los equipos multiprofesionales puedan ofrecer los niveles de atención adecuados y correspondientes 18 , 19 .En efecto, ninguna de las teorías particulares adopta una perspectiva verdaderamente holística que abarque la centralidad de la persona como elemento integrador de todos los agentes implicados en los procesos de salud/enfermedad (equipos sanitarios complejos y pacientes/familias/comunidades), el abordaje de sus experiencias, y su concreción en el imaginario de perspectivas personales y elementos operacionales que conjuntamente componen los complejos procesos de la atención sanitaria 20 .…”
Section: Introductionunclassified
“…El Person Centred Practice Framework (PCPF) es un marco teórico desarrollado por Brendan McCormack y Tanya McCance 21 con el deseo de operativizar el enfoque filosófico centrado en la persona, de forma que iluminara la práctica y proporcionara un lenguaje que permitiera nombrar los componentes de la persona desde una perspectiva global, así como los obstáculos y facilitadores que influyen en el desarrollo de sus potencialidades 20 . El marco PCPF 20 ayuda a los equipos multidisciplinares a entender, manejar y poner en práctica todas las dimensiones que participan en el desarrollo de una atención centrada en la persona 18 ; integra una perspectiva teórica estable y testada progresivamente a través de la investigación 2 , 19 , 21 ; y adopta un enfoque sistémico para la práctica de la atención sanitaria que opera a nivel de personas individuales, comunidades y poblaciones 21 . Se encuentra definido en la categoría conceptual de Teoría de Rango Medio 22 , por lo que articula una serie de conceptos relativamente concretos derivados de un modelo conceptual 23 , 24 , las definiciones de dichos conceptos y explicita las relaciones que se establecen entre ellos a través de las correspondientes proposiciones 25 , 26 .…”
Resumen
Fundamento:
El cuidado centrado en la persona se ha convertido en un enfoque esencial a nivel global que pretende dar respuesta a todas las dimensiones que afectan a los complejos procesos de la atención sanitaria. El
Person Centred Practice Framework
(PCPF), desarrollado por McCormack y McCance facilita que los equipos multidisciplinares puedan entender y operativizar todas las dimensiones que participan en el desarrollo de una atención centrada en la persona. El objetivo del estudio fue obtener la primera versión española del marco PCPF traducida y adaptada a nuestro contexto español.
Método:
La traducción y adaptación transcultural del PCPF se acometió utilizando la guía
Translation and cultural adaptation process for Patient-Reported Outcomes (PRO) Measures
, que incluye una sesión con expertos. Además, se realizó una validación de contenido de la claridad y la relevancia de cada dominio.
Resultados:
No se encontraron dificultades relevantes para llegar a un acuerdo en la mayoría de los términos que necesitaron ser clarificados, a excepción del término
Estar presente con pleno reconocimiento del otro
, que fue el más complejo de traducir y adaptar culturalmente. Respecto a la relevancia y claridad, el índice de validez de contenido por constructo (I-CVI) y del marco global (S-CVI/Ave) mostraron excelentes resultados (≥0,90).
Conclusiones:
Se ha obtenido una versión adaptada al español clara, relevante y conceptualmente equivalente al marco PCPF original. La disponibilidad de este marco en español facilitará una mejor comprensión de la práctica centrada en la persona y favorecerá la implementación de este enfoque en la práctica clínica.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
