Staff and resident perceptions of mental and behavioural health environments

Shepley, M M; Peditto, K; Sachs, N A; Pham, Y; Barankevich, R; Crouppen, G and Dresser, K (2022) Staff and resident perceptions of mental and behavioural health environments. Building Research & Information, 50(1-2), pp. 89-104. ISSN 0961-3218

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to explore clinical staff and resident perceptions regarding the importance, as well as effectiveness, of environmental qualities and features in mental and behavioural health (MBH) facilities. The study evaluated inadequacies in environmental attributes, as perceived by staff and residents, in four MBH facilities in the United States. The Psychiatric Staff Environmental Design tool and the Psychiatric Patient Environmental Design tool were used to capture perceptions and facility assessments. We examined the importance of various environmental attributes, the differences between the importance and how effectively these attributes were achieved, and the differences between psychiatric staff and resident responses. The most important qualities for residents were a well-maintained environment and suicide resistance. For staff, the most important qualities were staff safety and security and suicide resistance. Rated across all facilities, staff reported significant differences between importance and effectiveness of environmental attributes (p <.0001) whereas residents did not report differences. Significant differences were found between staff and patient ratings of existing facilities (p =.004), with staff reporting more inadequacies than residents. Findings suggest a strong need for more supportive physical MBH environments, particularly from the perspective of staff. Though residents reported fewer inadequacies, more evidence-based design guidelines for MBH environments are needed.

Item Type: Article
Uncontrolled Keywords: behavioural health; mental health; psychiatric facility design; psychiatric residents; staff and patient perceptions
Index terms: United States, suicide, environmental quality, effectiveness, mental health, environmental design, evidence-based design
Subjects: sustainability and energy, design methods, environmental health, health conditions and diseases, Geography, sustainability assessment, performance management
Topics: Geographical Context, Health and Safety, Sustainability, Quality Management, Design Practice
Descriptive scope: 2 PC

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