Consultation Room Design and the Clinical Encounter: The Space and Interaction Randomized Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The design of the consultation room remains largely unaltered despite major changes in clinical practice, such as the electronic medical record and patient-centered care. The value of redesigning the consultation room to accommodate these changes and the effect of a redesign on patient-clinician interaction are unclear. METHODS: The authors randomly allocated 65 patient-physician dyads to consultations in a standard room (n = 30) or in an experimental room designed with a semicircular table around which the clinician and the patient sat, with equal access to the computer screen (n = 35). Participant responses to post-visit surveys, assessing patient experiences in these rooms, were compared in an intention-to-treat fashion. RESULTS: The authors found no differences between the rooms in terms of patient satisfaction with the consultation, mutual respect, or communication quality. Compared to the standard room, patients in the experimental room were better able to interact with the computer monitor (24 [75%] vs. 17 [59%], P = 0.07) and had a greater ability to look at the screen at any time (22 [73%] vs. 8 [28%], P < 0.001); and they reported that clinicians allowed them to review the medical record on the screen (22 [71%] vs. 13 [45%], P = 0.012), shared information on the computer screen (24 [80%] vs. 18 [60%], P = 0.037), and reviewed information on the Internet with the patient (13 [43%] vs. 7 [26%], P = 0.010) more than those in the standard room. CONCLUSIONS: The design of the consultation room affects the clinical encounter. In particular, ready access to a computer screen using the electronic medical record and the Internet may enhance information sharing.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".