Are decisions about hospital design made upside down?
Although removed from immediate clinical practice, decisions about the design of hospitals eventually impact on patient care and treatment. Any decision which affects a patient’s treatment is an ethical decision and should be guided by the principles of medical ethics. If we apply these principles t...
Main Author: | |
---|---|
Format: | Electronic Article |
Language: | English |
Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
Journals Online & Print: | |
Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
Published: |
BMJ Publ.
2008
|
In: |
Journal of medical ethics
Year: 2008, Volume: 34, Issue: 10, Pages: 703 |
Online Access: |
Volltext (JSTOR) Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
Summary: | Although removed from immediate clinical practice, decisions about the design of hospitals eventually impact on patient care and treatment. Any decision which affects a patient’s treatment is an ethical decision and should be guided by the principles of medical ethics. If we apply these principles to healthcare facilities, it would seem that providers have a duty to design hospitals which best (a) reduce the possibility that a patient may come to unnecessary harm during their treatment and (b) improve a patient’s experience, privacy and dignity. Evidence suggests that hospitals designed with 100% single-occupancy rooms are best equipped to achieve these aims.The prevalence of hospital acquired infections is still increasing. Currently, they are thought to affect around 9% of hospital patients in the UK and contribute to around 90 000 deaths per year in Europe.1 A hospital design which is able to decrease the prevalence of hospital acquired infection would help to reduce the amount of harm a patient may experience in hospital. Studies have shown that adapting the hospital design to incorporate 100% single-occupancy … |
---|---|
ISSN: | 1473-4257 |
Contains: | Enthalten in: Journal of medical ethics
|
Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1136/jme.2008.026906 |