Shepley, M M; Rybkowski, Z; Aliber, J and Lange, C (2012) Ambulatory infusion suite: Pre- and post-occupancy evaluation. Building Research & Information, 40(6), pp. 700-712. ISSN 0961-3218
Abstract
An evaluation is presented of the experience of patients, families and staff in two infusion suites. One infusion suite was a facility occupied until 2009 and the other suite was the replacement for that facility. The primary design objectives of the new facility were to support social interaction, provide opportunities for privacy and provide visual access to nature. The effectiveness of the new facility relative to the old facility with regard to these three design objectives served as the source of hypotheses for the study. Using a Likert-style survey and open-ended questions, the findings suggest that the new facility was successful at addressing these design goals. Subjects were also queried regarding whether these design objectives were important in an infusion suite. The vast majority of the respondents in the new facility indicated that social interaction, privacy and access nature were important in this setting.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | cancer facility; facility evaluation; healthcare; infusion suite; post-occupancy; privacy; social interaction |
| Index terms: | effectiveness, replacement, social interaction, post-occupancy evaluation, survey, privacy |
| Subjects: | performance management, professional ethics, evaluation methods, data collection methods, materials science, sociology |
| Topics: | Engineering Principles, Legal Issues, Quality Management, Research Practice |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTE |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here