Dataset Information

A Comparison of Hospital Area Measurement in Germany, Canada, Australia, and the United States: Part 1.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

This article compares national standards for area measurements of healthcare facilities in four countries and examines the risks and differences that can arise when comparing building areas of healthcare facilities internationally.

Background

In the planning and management of healthcare facilities, the utilization and comparison of building floor areas plays a major role. Differences in terminology, classification, and methodology help to reduce planning and cost risks when applied on a local and national level. The proper allocation of building floor space is vital in the design of room programs, determination of floor space, construction costs, and operating costs.

Methods

Each of the four hospital area measurement standards is compared to discern similarities and differences.

Results

Most countries use a three-tier system of hospital area measurement: building gross area, department gross area, and department net area. Few differences were found between country standards for department area, though the German standards do not fully address this tier. Variation is found in whether a country includes certain functions in the hospital area-such as research space, shell space, or central energy plants-which can have a significant impact on the overall hospital area.

Conclusions

This article informs further development of individual country standards and highlights principles to consider for international hospital area comparison.

SUBMITTER: Viergutz HS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9251743 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo compare the volume and quality of original research in primary care published by researchers from primary care in the United Kingdom against five countries with well established academic primary care.DesignBibliometric analysis.SettingUnited Kingdom, United States, Australia, Canada, Germany, and the Netherlands. Studies reviewed Research publications relevant to comprehensive primary care and authored by researchers from primary care, recorded in Medline and Embase, with publication dates 2001-7 inclusive.Main outcome measuresVolume of published activity of generalist primary care researchers and the quality of the research output by those publishing the most using citation metrics: numbers of cited papers, proportion of cited papers, and mean citation scores.Results82,169 papers published between 2001 and 2007 in the six countries were classified as research on primary care. In a 15% pragmatic random sample of these records, 40% of research on primary care from the United Kingdom and 46% from the Netherlands was authored by researchers employed in a primary care setting or employed in academic departments of primary care. The 141 researchers with the highest volume of publications reporting research findings published between 2001 and 2007 (inclusive) authored or part authored 8.3% of the total sample of papers. For authors with the highest proportion of publications cited at least five times, the best performers came from the United States (n=5), United Kingdom (n=4), and the Netherlands (n=2). In the top 10 of authors with the highest proportions of publications achieving 20 or more citations, six were from the United Kingdom and four from the United States. The mean Hirsch index (measure of a researcher's productivity and impact of the published work) was 14 for the Netherlands, 13 for the United Kingdom, 12 for the United States, 7 for Canada, 4 for Australia, and 3 for Germany.ConclusionThis international comparison of the volume and citation rates of papers by researchers from primary care consistently placed UK researchers among the best performers internationally.

Project description:BackgroundThe Episodic Disability Questionnaire (EDQ) is a generic 35-item patient-reported outcome measure of presence, severity and episodic nature of disability. We assessed the measurement properties of the Episodic Disability Questionnaire (EDQ) with adults living with HIV.MethodsWe conducted a measurement study with adults living with HIV in eight clinical settings in Canada, Ireland, United Kingdom, and United States. We electronically administered the EDQ followed by three reference measures (World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule; Patient Health Questionnaire; Social Support Scale) and a demographic questionnaire. We administered the EDQ only 1 week later. We assessed the internal consistency reliability (Cronbach's alpha; > 0.7 acceptable), and test-retest reliability (Intra Class Correlation Coefficient; > 0.7 acceptable). We estimated required change in EDQ domain scores to be 95% certain that a change was not due to measurement error (Minimum Detectable Change (MDC95%)). We evaluated construct validity by assessing 36 primary hypotheses of relationships between EDQ scores and scores on the reference measures (> 75% hypotheses confirmed indicated validity).ResultsThree hundred fifty nine participants completed the questionnaires at time point 1, of which 321 (89%) completed the EDQ approximately 1 week later. Cronbach's alpha for internal consistency ranged from 0.84 (social domain) to 0.91 (day domain) for the EDQ severity scale, and 0.72 (uncertainty domain) to 0.88 (day domain) for the EDQ presence scale, and 0.87 (physical, cognitive, mental-emotional domains) to 0.89 (uncertainty domain) for the EDQ episodic scale. ICCs for test-retest reliability ranged from 0.79 (physical domain) to 0.88 (day domain) for the EDQ severity scale and from 0.71 (uncertainty domain) to 0.85 (day domain) for the EDQ presence scale. Highest precision was demonstrated in the severity scale for each domain (MDC95% range: 19-25 out of 100), followed by the presence (MDC95% range: 37-54) and episodic scales (MDC95% range:44-76). Twenty-nine of 36 (81%) construct validity hypotheses were confirmed.ConclusionsThe EDQ possesses internal consistency reliability, construct validity, and test-retest reliability, with limited precision when administered electronically with adults living with HIV across in clinical settings in four countries. Given the measurement properties, the EDQ can be used for group level comparisons for research and program evaluation in adults living with HIV.

Project description:BACKGROUND:People living in rural and remote communities commonly experience significant health disadvantages. Geographical barriers and reduced specialist and generalist services impact access to care when compared with metropolitan context. Innovative models of care have been developed for people living with chronic diseases in rural areas with the goal of overcoming these inequities. The aim of this paper was to describe the characteristics and outcomes of studies investigating innovative models of care for people living with chronic disease in rural areas of developed countries where a metropolitan comparator was included. METHODS:An integrative systematic review was undertaken. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) method was used to understand the empirical and theoretical data on clinical outcomes for people living with chronic disease in rural compared with metropolitan contexts and their models of care in Australia, New Zealand, United States, Canada and the United Kingdom. RESULTS:Literature searching revealed 620 articles published in English between 1st January 2000 and 31st March 2019. One hundred sixty were included in the review including 68 from the United States, 59 from Australia and New Zealand (5), 21 from Canada and 11 from the United Kingdom and Ireland. 53% (84) focused on cardiovascular disease; 27% (43) diabetes mellitus; 8% (12) chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; and 13% (27) chronic kidney disease. Mortality was only reported in 10% (16) of studies and only 18% (29) reported data on Indigenous populations. CONCLUSIONS:This integrated review reveals that the published literature on common chronic health issues pertaining to rural and remote populations is largely descriptive. Only a small number of publications focus on mortality and comparative health outcomes from health care models in both urban and non-urban populations. Innovative service models and telehealth are together well represented in the published literature but data on health outcomes is relatively sparse. There is significant scope for further directly comparative studies detailing the effect of service delivery models on the health outcomes of urban and rural populations. We believe that such data would further knowledge in this field and help to break the deadly synergy between increased rurality and poorer outcomes for people with chronic disease.