Designing a Child-, Family-, and Healthcare Provider–Centered Procedure Room in a Tertiary Care Children’s Hospital
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: The study aim was to co-design new pediatric procedure room prototypes with children, caregivers, and healthcare providers (HCPs). BACKGROUND: Medical procedures can cause pain and anxiety for children and their families. If spaces are not designed for patients' needs, procedures may take longer, require sedation, and result in an inferior care experience. Involving HCPs in co-designing optimal spaces can result in more efficient and safer environments. co-designing spaces with patients and their families can inform psychologically safer and less traumatic environments. METHODS: We followed human-centered design methodology. Data were collected via semi-structured interviews, field observations, and two multidisciplinary design workshops with patients, caregivers, and HCPs. Themes from the data were extracted using a content analysis and used to make evidence-informed recommendations for design features. RESULTS: The study took place from October 2021 to February 2022. Patients, families, and HCPs reported similar needs: (1) control over the environment, including the ability to adjust lighting, temperature, and sound; (2) space that supports patient privacy; (3) the use of evidence-based pain reduction and distraction methods; (4) attention to the sensory environment, including visual (light, color), tactile (textures of furniture and equipment), auditory, and olfactory stimuli; (5) human factors organization of the space and equipment; (6) accessible and equitable spatial design; and (7) the significance of the journey leading up to and after the procedure. CONCLUSIONS: It is feasible to co-design procedure rooms that support evidence-based psychological, physical, and pharmacological interventions that are known to minimize pain for children.
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 | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".