Download How Imaging Room Environments I t P ti td St ff? Impact Patients and

How Imaging Room Environments I
Impact Patients and Staff? t P ti t
d St ff?
Findings from a two‐stage study
Janet Ensign, Director of Strategic Business Program Philips Medical Systems p
y
Dr. Anjali Joseph, Director of Research The Center for Health Design
•
•
•
•
•
Introduction
Methods
Results
Discussions
Conclusion
1
Significance
• Importance of staff work experience and satisfaction
¾ Patient well being and patient experience with healthcare is a function of caregiver well being and satisfaction
of caregiver well being and satisfaction
¾ Healthcare work is extremely stressful
¾ High work stress may lead to poor work performance, staff burnout, and turnover
• Importance of patient experience and satisfaction
¾ Important indicator of healthcare service quality
¾ Directly related to a healthcare organization
Directly related to a healthcare organization’ss ‰
‰
‰
‰
‰
reputation
patient loyalty
patient retention and attraction
revenue
profit margin
Role of physical environment
• The role of physical environment in improving user experience and satisfaction
¾ Satisfaction with the physical environment is a significant predictor of overall satisfaction level ¾ Healthcare environments are often negatively experienced (e.g. high stress) and perceived (e.g. low satisfaction) by patients, as reported in national patient satisfaction surveys
¾ Poorly designed workplaces not only cause occupational stress but also interfere with staff’s ability to provide quality care
2
Typical Imaging Room
• Institutional, inhuman, and noisy spaces designed for huge machines taking center stage and cluttered with equipment and supplies
• Stressful for patients and staff
• Positive environmental stimuli are generally lacking or inadequate
• Patients rarely have any control over the environment
• Noise level is usually high in MRI rooms
• MRI technologist often stays behind a closed door in an adjoining room with limited visual contact to the patients
Philips Ambient Experience
• An interactive, people‐focused healthcare environment that can be designed specifically for radiology imaging rooms and other healthcare settings
• Innovative design solutions in four aspects: ¾ Personalization
¾ Physical and emotional comfort of patients and staff
¾ Human contact
¾ Workflow improvement
3
AE Design features
• Philips Ambient Experience Design features
¾ Ambient lights programmed to change colors
¾ Animation with multiple themes projected on the wall or ceiling
¾ De‐cluttered space design with integrated storage solutions
¾ Music
¾ Patient choice
¾ Soft and rounded corners
S f
d
d d
¾ Line of sight to technologist
¾ Control room design
Purpose of Study
• To assess whether AE was successful in improving the quality of the imaging environment
• To empirically evaluate the effects of AE on the experiences and satisfaction of radiology staff and patients ¾ By comparing imaging rooms with AE installed and traditionally designed imaging rooms without AE
4
Hypotheses
1. The AE room environment is more positively perceived than the non‐AE rooms.
2. Patients in AE rooms are more satisfied with the radiology services than patients in non‐AE rooms and are more willing to use the facilities again and recommend the facilities to others. 3. Staff working in AE rooms report lower stress level, higher job satisfaction, and higher service quality than staff in non‐AE ,
g
q
y
rooms.
•
•
•
•
•
Introduction
Methods
Results
Discussions
Conclusion
5
A Two‐Phase Study
• Phase 1: 2008‐2009
¾ Staff survey
• Phase 2: 2009‐2010
¾ Patient survey
Settings
• Six radiology facilities in staff survey
¾ 4 AE rooms, 6 non‐AE rooms
,
¾ In various regions of the country
¾ MRI and CT rooms are included
• One MRI facility in patient survey
¾ Two MRI rooms mainly serving outpatients
¾ One with AE installed vs. one in traditional design
6
Samples
• Staff survey
¾ Target population: technologists working in the g p p
g
g
participating imaging rooms
¾ Sample size: 54
• Patient survey
¾ Target population: adult outpatients visiting the participating MRI rooms
¾ Sample size: 157
Questionnaire Instruments
• Staff questionnaire
¾ 80 questions in four parts
‰Perception of workplace physical environment
‰P
ti
f
k l
h i l
i
t
‰Staff outcomes: job stress, job satisfaction, perceived service quality ‰Organization culture
‰Demographics
¾ 5‐point Likert scale
• Patient questionnaire
¾ 19 questions in three parts
‰Perception of physical environment
‰Patient satisfaction, willingness to return and recommend
‰Demographics
¾ 5‐point Likert scale
7
Procedures
• IRB:
¾ Approvals from Western IRB and local IRBs if needed
• Data collection
¾
¾
¾
¾
Survey distribution at sites
Self‐administrated Incentives for patients and staff (if allowed by hospital policy)
Respondents mail back directly to researchers at CHD
• Data analysis
y
¾ Data coding
¾ Student t test
¾ Mann‐Whitney U Test
•
•
•
•
•
Introduction
Methods
Results
Discussions
Conclusion
8
Patient Results
• AE rooms were rated significantly more pleasant than non‐AE rooms
• Patients in AE rooms perceived significantly higher P ti t i AE
i d significantl higher
level of control over environment
Patient Results (cont.)
• Patients in AE rooms were more satisfied, more willing to return, and more willing to recommend the facility to other patients even though only difference in
to other patients, even though only difference in willingness to recommend was significant
9
Staff Results
• AE rooms were rated significantly more pleasant than non‐AE rooms
¾ A 25% increase in pleasantness
A 25% i
i l
t
• No significant difference found in job stress, job satisfaction, perceived service quality, and perceived organizational culture
•
•
•
•
•
Introduction
Methods
Results
Discussions
Conclusion
10
Discussions
• Pleasantness and environmental control were the two lowest rated environmental aspects of traditional non‐
AE radiology rooms
AE radiology rooms ¾ More aesthetically pleasing healthcare environments generally result in lower stress and higher patient satisfaction (e.g. Leather, Beale, Santos, Watts, & Lee, 2003)
¾ Higher levels of perceived control might contribute to higher patient satisfaction and fewer complications (e.g. Moser et al. 2007)
• By focusing on these two problematic areas, AE effectively improved the physical environment and
effectively improved the physical environment and patient experience
Discussions (cont.)
• Limitations of the study
¾ The study had no control on other possible d ff
differences in the physical environment and survey h h
l
d
participants
¾ Non‐AE sites were reluctant to participate; the participating non‐AE rooms had already incorporate some AE features
¾ Small sample sizes especially in staff survey due to the small number of radiology staff at each site and the difficulty of recruiting radiology facilities to participate in the study
11
Discussions (cont.)
• Lessons learned
¾ Multi‐site studies need adjustments in schedule for extra time for the administrative and logistics f h d
dl
processes at sites
¾ Need to prepare for difficulties in accessing study sites
•
•
•
•
•
Introduction
Methods
Results
Discussions
Conclusion
12
Conclusion
• AE is effective in improving the physical environment of imaging rooms. • AE may increase the aesthetic quality of imaging rooms and enhance patient’s personal control. As a result, patients are satisfied and more willing to recommend AE rooms to other patients. • Further improvements of AE are needed especially in certain aspects such as noise reduction
13