Evaluation of a Mental and Behavioral Health Patient Room Mockup at a VA Facility. (April 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Sachs, Naomi A.; Shepley, Mardelle M.; Peditto, Kati; Hankinson, Mary Therese; Smith, Kathryn; Giebink, Brian; Thompson, Tammy
• Is Part Of: HERD. Volume 13:Number 2(2020)
• Page Start: 46
• Page End: 67
• Publication Date: 2020-04
• Subjects: mock-up -- mental health -- behavioral health -- psychiatric facility -- postoccupancy evaluation -- veterans; Health facilities -- Design and construction -- Periodicals; Medical care -- Periodicals; Health facilities -- Design and construction; Medical care; Periodicals; 725.5
• DOI: 10.1177/1937586719856349
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1937-5867

Abstract

Objective: The primary goal of this research was to evaluate a physical full-scale, high-fidelity mockup of a mental and behavioral health (MBH) inpatient room and bathroom. Background: There is minimal research on design for MBH and no published research using mockups to evaluate a MBH design proposal. To address this gap, an interdisciplinary team developed an ideal Patient-Centered MBH Patient Room, which was built as a mockup at a Veterans Administration (VA) facility and evaluated by patients and staff in situ. Method: The mock-up was evaluated using a structured mixed methods process that incorporates feedback using Feedback Forms and facilitated Listening Sessions. Our two primary hypotheses were that the design, as represented by the mock-up, would be positively evaluated and that there would be a difference between staff and patient perceptions, with patients rating the design higher than staff. Results: Quantitative analysis confirmed our hypotheses, revealing an overall positive response, with a difference between patients and staff. Contrary to hypothesis, staff consistently rated the design higher than patients. Qualitative analysis found mixed reception of the design and three primary themes: safety, homeyness/deinstitutionalization, and positive distraction/nature. Conclusions: Physical mock-ups may be an effective tool for evaluation of a proposed design; however, staff perceptions of the environment may differ from those of patients. One drawback of using a physical high-fidelity mock-up is the expectation that the mock-up perfectly represents the proposed design. With this project, even small unfinished details were distracting to the participants and may have negatively affected the evaluation.