Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Original Article
  • Published:

The impact of single family room design on patients and caregivers: executive summary

Journal of Perinatology volume 26, pages S38–S48 (2006)Cite this article

Abstract

Objective:

To explore the implications of the single family room (SFR) care environment of neonatal intensive care units (NICU) compared to Open-bay, Combination and Double-occupancy configurations, focusing on family experience, neonate outcomes, staff perceptions, cost and environmental design.

Study design:

This study uses a multimethod design with 11 Level III NICUs. Space allocations, construction costs, staff preferences and perceptions, and occupant behaviors were evaluated.

Results:

SFR NICU design provides solutions for increasing parent privacy and presence, supporting Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act compliance, minimizing the number of undesirable beds, increasing staff satisfaction and reducing staff stress.

Conclusion:

The analysis of this study suggests that there are benefits to SFR NICU. This study is an initial, comprehensive effort, the purpose of which is to spawn future, narrower, in-depth studies focused on SFR NICU design.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Als H Lawhon G, Duffy F, McAnulty G, Gibes-Grossman R, Blickman J . Individualized developmental care for the very low birth-weight preterm infant – medical and neurofunctional effects. J Am Med Assoc 1994; 272: 853–858.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Ferber SG, Makhoul IR . The effect of skin-to-skin contact (kangaroo care) shortly after birth on the neurobehavioral responses of the term newborn: a randomized controlled trial. Pediatrics 2004; 113 (4): 858–865.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Mathur NS . A single-room NICU – the next-generation evolution in the design of neonatal intensive care units. Am Inst Archit Acad J 2004, Retrieved November 12, 2004, from http://www.aia.org/AAh_a_Jrn/_0401_article3.

  4. Miles MS, Funk SG . Parental Stressor Scale: Neonatal Intensive Care Unit. 1998 [cited July 15, 2005]; Available from: http://nursing.unc.edu/crci/instruments/pssnicu/nicuman.pdf.

  5. Bialoskurski M, Cox C, Wiggins R . The relationship between maternal needs and priorities in a neonatal intensive care environment. J Adv Nurs 2002; 37 (1): 62–69.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Cescutti-Butler L, Galvin K . Parents' perceptions of staff competency in a neonatal intensive care unit. J Clin Nurs 2003; 12: 752–761.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Conner J, Nelson E . Neonatal intensive care: satisfaction measured from a parent's perspective. Pediatrics 1999; 103 (1): 336–349.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Kent W, Tan A, Clarke M, Bardell T . Excessive noise levels in the neonatal ICU: potential effects on auditory system development. J Otolaryngol 2002; 31 (6): 355–360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Chang Y, Lin C, Lin L . Noise and related events in a neonatal intensive care unit. Acta Paediatr Taiwanica 2001; 42 (4): 212–217.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Gray L, Philbin M . Effects of the neonatal intensive care unit on auditory attention and distraction. Clin Pediatr 2004; 31 (2): 246–260.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Philbin M . The influence of auditory experience on the behavior of preterm newborns. J Perinatol 2000; 20 (8 Part 2): S77–S87.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Philbin M, Gray L . Changing levels of quiet in an intensive care nursery. J Perinatol 2002; 22 (6): 455–460.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Philbin M, Klass P . Hearing and behavioral responses to sound in full-term newborns. J Perinatol 2000; 20 (8 Part 2): S68–S76.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Berens R, Weigle C . Cost analysis of ceiling tile replacement for noise abatement. J Perinatol 1996; 16 (3): 199–201.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Johnson A . Adapting the neonatal intensive care environment to decrease noise. J Perinatal Neonatal Nurs 2003; 17 (4): 280–288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Ulrich R, Zimring C . The Role of the Physical Environment in the Hospital of the 21st Century: A Once-in-a-Lifetime Opportunity. The Center for Health Design: San Francisco, CA, 2004, May.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Oren I, Haddad N, Finkelstein R, Rowe J . Invasive pulmonary aspergillosis in neutropenic patitents during hospital construction: before and after chemoprophylaxis and institution of HEPA filters. Am J Hemotol 2001; 66 (4): 257–262.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Dharan S, Pittet D . Environmental controls in operating theatres. J Hosp Infect 2002; 51 (2): 79–84.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Adams-Chapman I, Stoll B . Prevention of nosocomial infections in the neonatal intensive care unit. Curr Opin Pediatr 2002; 14 (2): 157–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Cohen B, Saiman L, Cimiotti J, Larson E . Factors associated with hand hygiene practices in two neonatal intensive care units. Pediatr Infect Dis J 2003; 22 (6): 494–499.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Gelber S, Ratner A . Hospital-acquired viral pathogens in the neonatal intensive care unit. Semin Perinatol 2002; 26 (5): 346–356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Saiman L . Risk factors for hospital-acquired infections in the neonatal intensive care unit. Semin Perinatol 2002; 26 (5): 315–321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Brown P, Taquino L . Designing and delivering neonatal care in single rooms. J Prenatal Neonatal Nurs 2001; 15 (1): 68–83.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Bowie B, Hall R, Faulkner J, Anderson B . Single-room infant care: future trends in special care nursery planning and design. Neonatal Network 2003; 22 (4): 27–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Pector E . Views of bereaved multiple-birth parents on life support decisions, the dying process, and discussions surrounding death. J Perinatol 2004; 24 (1): 4–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. White R . Individual rooms in the NICU: an evolving concept. J Perinatol 2003; 23: S22–S24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Oelrich T . Single room NICU: Fad or future. AIA Academy of Architecture for Health Conference; 2003, November; Denver, CO; 2003.

  28. Rosenblum D . Single family room care: before and after data. The Physical and Developmental Environment of the High-Risk Infant Conference; Clearwater, FL; 2005.

  29. Cuevas K . The cost of prematurity: hospital charges at birth and frequency of rehospitalizations and acute care visits over the first year of life. Am J Nurs 2005; 105 (7): 56–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. LaPine T, Jackson J, Bennett F . Outcomes of infants weighing less than 800 g at birth: 15 year's experience. Pediatrics 1995; 96: 479–483.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Merritt T, Pillers D, Prows S . Early NICU discharge of very low birth weight infants: a critical review and analysis. Semin Neonatol 2003; 8: 95–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. O'Shea T, Klinepeter K, Goldstein J, Jackson B, Dillard R . Survival and develop-mental disability in infants with birth weights of 501–800 g, born between 1997 and 1994. Pediatrics 1997; 100: 982–986.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Rogowski J . Using economic information in a quality improvement collaborative. Pediatrics 2003; 111: e411–e418.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Roth J, Resnick M, Ariet M, Carter R, Eitzman D, Curran J et al. Changes in survival patterns of very low-birth-weight infants from 1980 to 1993. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 1995; 149: 1311–1317.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Doyle L, Murton L, Kitchen W . Increasing the survival of extremely immature (24–28 weeks gestation) infants – at what costs? Med J Australia 1989; 150: 558–568.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Powell P, Powell J, Hollis S, Robinson J . When will my baby go home? Arch Dis Children 1992; 123: 307–309.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Walker D, Vohr B, Oh W . Economic analysis of regionalized neonatal care for very low-birth-weight infants in the state of Rhode Island. Pediatrics 1985; 76: 69–74.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Als H . Individualized, family-focused developmental care for the very low birth weight preterm infant in the NICU. In: Sigman SLFMD (ed). Advances in Applied Develop-Mental Psychology 6: The Psychological Development of Low-Birthweight Children. Ablex Publishing Company: Norwood, 1992, p 341–388.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Als H, Lawhon G, Brown E, Gibes R, Duffy F, McAnulty G et al. Individualized behavioral environmental care can benefit the very low birthweight preterm infant at high-risk for bronchopulmonary dysplasia: neonatal intensive care unit and development outcome. Pediatrics 1986; 78: 1123–1131.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Als H . The Very Immature Infant – Environmental and Care Issues. The Physical and Developmental Environment of the High-Risk Infant 1996, January; Clearwater Beach: FL January.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Fleisher B, Vandenber K, Constantinou J, Heller C, Benitz W, Johnson A et al. Individualized developmental care for very low birth weight premature infants. Clin Pediatr 1995; 34: 523–529.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Petryshen P, Stevens B, Hawkins J, Stewart M . Comparing nursing costs for preterm infants receiving conventional vs developmental care. Nurs Eonom 1997; 15: 138–147.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Moon S . Construction and costs – going up. Mod Healthcare 2005; 35 (10): 30–42.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Waier PR . R.S. Means Building Construction Cost Data, 63rd revised edn RS Means Company: Kingston, 2005.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study was supported by a research grant from the Coalition for Health Environments Research (CHER) and is available at www.cheresearch.org. Support was also provided by the Regional Newborn Program at Memorial Hospital, South Bend, IN. Preliminary data were presented at the High Risk Infant Conference, Orlando, FL, 27 January 2006. We thank the participating hospitals, architecture firms and construction companies. We especially thank the other members of the research team: Stanley Graven, MD; Leslie Parker, ARNP; Beverly Johnson; Judy Smith, MHA; Teri Oelrich, RN; and Kathleen Philbin, PhD for their contributions to the completion of this project.

Statistical Reviewer: Xiaobo Quan, M ARCH, College of Architecture, Texas A&M University.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Interior Design, College of Design, Construction and Planning, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA

    D D Harris

  2. Department of Architecture, College of Architecture, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, USA

    M M Shepley

  3. Regional Newborn Program, Memorial Hospital, South Bend, IN, USA

    R D White

  4. Center for Health Sciences Advising, College of Science, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN, USA

    K J S Kolberg

  5. Harrell Group, Inc., Cincinnati, OH, USA

    J W Harrell

Authors
  1. D D Harris
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. M M Shepley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. R D White
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. K J S Kolberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. J W Harrell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to D D Harris.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Harris, D., Shepley, M., White, R. et al. The impact of single family room design on patients and caregivers: executive summary. J Perinatol 26 (Suppl 3), S38–S48 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.jp.7211583

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.jp.7211583

Keywords

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links