Including patients, staff and visitors in the design of the psychiatric milieu
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Participation by patients, staff and visitors in healthcare design and planning offers multiple benefits in addressing the complex challenges of creating salutary environments for hospital patients, staff and visitors. The purpose of this paper is to present the benefits of participatory design and design imperatives to facilities architects and landscape architects. Design/methodology/approach The paper describes three case studies in which participatory methods were used to engage users in decision making over 15 years and creates a framework using “design imperatives” that has been successful in the design of outdoor settings. Findings Nine design imperatives can be used to design facilities that achieve a range of therapeutic benefits for patients, staff and visitors. Research limitations/implications The research limitations of this paper are those of using case studies in general. The implications suggest that papers such as this can be used in future hypothesis‐driven research. Practical implications Designers do not have the luxury or ability to base myriad design decisions on experimental research findings, as almost all design is unique and a hypothesis waiting to be tested. The result is that guiding principles, or design imperatives based on participatory methods, can form the basis for design decision making. Social implications The social implications are that some form of participatory decision making in facilities design has benefits to multiple constituencies, specifically, patients, staff and visitors. Originality/value Although this paper refers to many existing studies and places the results and conclusions within a context that is supported by the literature, much of the value is because the results are based on practice. More than a dozen projects form the basis for concluding that general principles of design, person‐environment interactions and participatory methods lead to desirable and beneficial outcomes.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it