Kevdzija, M and Marquardt, G (2022) Impact of distance on stroke inpatients' mobility in rehabilitation clinics: A shadowing study. Building Research & Information, 50(1-2), pp. 74-88. ISSN 0961-3218
Abstract
Stroke inpatients in rehabilitation clinics are highly inactive in their free time and often depend on staff members to transport them to scheduled therapies. This study examines how distances between spaces in rehabilitation clinics impact patients' mobility. Seventy patients were shadowed over the course of one ordinary day in rehabilitation. Shadowing was accompanied by patient and staff questionnaires. Both patients and staff members described the labyrinthine built environment with long corridors that all look similar. Patients covered substantial daily distances in the clinics, and longer distances were significantly related to encountering more mobility barriers and dependence on staff. Compact layouts with vertically separate wards and main therapy areas resulted in reduced travel distances compared to more complex building layouts. Patients' mobility abilities were occasionally observed to change on different distances and even throughout the day. As distances result from the building's layout, greater attention needs to be paid to this aspect of the built environment in the early design stages. This is especially the case since other built-environment barriers were found to be intertwined with long distances. All patients may be independently mobile if distances between their most important areas (wards, therapy areas and dining spaces) are carefully planned.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | architectural layout; distance; patient mobility; patient shadowing; rehabilitation clinics; stroke patients |
| Index terms: | mobility, built environment, early design stage, questionnaire |
| Subjects: | data collection methods, design process, infrastructure and transport systems |
| Topics: | Urban Studies, Design Practice, Research Practice |
| Descriptive scope: | 2 CA |
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