Design features in the entrance area of Dutch healthcare centers

Peer-reviewed Conference Paper / Full Paper

Track title: Stream inclusive design/health promotion – communal design (4B)

Design features in the entrance area of Dutch healthcare centers

L.A.M. Willekens MD, MSc ¹*, L. Krabshuis MSc² and E. Miedema PhD³

¹ Complex Projects, Faculty of Architecture and the Built Environment, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands, l.a.m.willekens@tudelft.nl;0000-0001-6467-9399

² Atelier LK, atelier@loukrabshuis.nl, 0000-0001-9409-6557

³ Division Architectural Theory and Method, Department of Architecture and Civil Engineering, Chalmers

University of Technology, Gothenburg, Sweden; miedema@chalmers.se; 0000-0002-8440-4859

* corresponding author.

Names of the Topic editors: Clarine van Oel Names of the reviewers Karin Høyland Journal: The Evolving Scholar DOI:10.24404/62cfb285cfcc4677f6cbde1d Submitted: 14 March 2022 Accepted: 22 August 2022 Published: 1 June 2024 Citation: Willekens, L., Krabshuis, L. & Miedema, E. (2022). Design features in the entrance area of Dutch healthcare centers. The Evolving Scholar | ARCH22. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution BY license (CC BY). © 2022 Willekens, L., Krabshuis, L. & Miedema, E. published by TU Delft OPEN on behalf of the authors.

Abstract: The design of healthcare buildings influences healthcare quality; hospital and ward design features can increase patient and staff satisfaction, improve treatment outcomes, and reduce stress. However, due to societal changes, there is increasing attention to outpatient healthcare facilities close to communities, such as healthcare centres (HCC). However, few studies concern HCC. Nor has there been much attention paid to the entrance areas of healthcare buildings. This study, therefore, investigates four health-related design features (i.e., privacy, nature, daylight, and wayfinding) in the entrance area of two award-winning Dutch HCCs. Research question: How does the entrance design of HCC support views on nature, privacy, daylight, and wayfinding? This study compares two awarded HCCs based on a selective thematic analysis focused on descriptions and observations of the four features in the HCC design. Data includes descriptions by professionals, jury reports, floor plans, and photos. The data show that views on nature are not mentioned in the data, privacy is mentioned and observed implicitly in both projects, and daylight and wayfinding are only observed in the floor plans and pictures. Most attention concerned daylight, wayfinding, and privacy in the waiting areas. However, while the importance of view of nature has been highlighted in many previous studies, these projects show little attention to view of nature and privacy for HCCs. The study revealed that the awarded healthcare buildings incorporate health-related design features, mostly implicit in the designs. However, in the descriptions by professionals and the jury, they are not explicitly mentioned.

Keywords: the Netherlands, healthcare centres, healing architecture/EBD, view of nature, daylight, privacy, wayfinding, person-centred care.

1. Introduction

This paper studies the design of the entrance areas in two outpatient healthcare centres (HCCs) in the Netherlands in relation to views on nature, privacy, daylight, and wayfinding.

The design of healthcare buildings has an impact on the health of their users, such as patients and staff (Morgan et al., 2021; Sundstrom et al., 2017; Malenbaum et al., 2008; Devlin & Arneill, 2003), as well as healthcare quality (Morgan et al., 2021). Consequently, designers of healthcare buildings should consider how their design supports health, care, and wellbeing (Devlin & Arneill, 2003). The majority of research on healthcare buildings focused on inpatient care (Devlin, Arneill, 2003). However, there are few studies focused on the design of outpatient care, such as primary care and HCC (Warin et al., 2000). These studies highlight the need for careful design of the interiors of HCCs with attention to feeling welcome (Morgan et al., 2021; Sundstrom et al., 2017).

HCCs generally refer to a small outpatient care organisation with several general practitioners in a common primary care practice, often combined with other outpatient services such as physiotherapists, social workers, district nurses, and a pharmacy. HCCs provide most everyday health issues and maintenance; they increasingly aim to stimulate people's health literacy and take control of their own health (Warin et al., 2000).

In the Netherlands, HCCs are central to the distribution of healthcare, as the general practitioner is often the first point of contact with healthcare providers for health complaints. The HCC buildings, therefore, are a representation of the system (Malenbaum et al., 2008) and should be welcoming to patients (Warin et al., 2000).

This paper focuses on HCCs' entrance areas, which include the entrance door and surrounding area, the reception area, the waiting area, and the routes in between. The entrance area is important, as it should be welcoming to all and easily recognised as a healthcare facility (Little et al., 2005). Some argue that a recognizable entrance can improve treatment outcomes (Dalke et al. 2018). HCCs typically have their entrance area, in particular the reception area and waiting area, integrated with the routing through the building. However, this can lead to internal rooms with poor privacy and without access to direct daylight, poor wayfinding, or a lack of views of nature. Previous research on the design of the entrance area of healthcare facilities (in general) pays attention to the outdoor environment near the entrance (Morgan et al., 2021), accessibility of the entrance, the presence of a smoking area, signalling, and direct contact with the environment (Leather et al., 2003). A renovated entrance hall with a service corner, light colours, and new materials improves the results of treatment (Dalke et al. 2018).

The reception area is important as clients share their reasons for visiting the HCC, which will likely include private information about their healthcare (Rachel, 2018; Van der Zwart, 2015). Lack of privacy in such conversations can affect clear communication and increase stress levels (Sundstrom et al., 2013). However, only a few studies focused on the design of the reception and the privacy it provides to clients (Morgan et al., 2021; Warin et al., 2000).

The design of the waiting area has also been researched (Margolies et al., 2015; Mclaughan et al., 2018; Dalke et al., 2018; Leather et al., 2003; Van der Zwart & van der Voort, 2015). As patients often stay longer in the waiting area of an HCC than in the consultation room, the waiting area can be considered one of the most important areas for patients. In several studies, privacy, distancing, a view of nature (even artificial), and sufficient distraction are considered important aspects of waiting areas (Abbas, 2000; Pati, Unas, 2011; Beukeboom, 2012). There are no studies that research the waiting area in primary care facilities.

2. Background

2.1 Design features

Several design features of healthcare buildings have been researched for health-related outcomes (Ulrich et al., 2010). This paper focused on four design features: view of nature, privacy, daylight, and wayfinding. These features appear to be the most important elements for users, clients, and professionals in their state of well-being and feeling ’at home’ in health centres (Ulrich et al., 2004; Morgan et al., 2021; Sundstrom et al., 2017; Warin et al., 2000).

2.1.1. View of nature

Research indicating the role of the view of nature as part of healthcare design to improve human health in hospitals is rapidly growing (Ulrich et al., 1984; Malenbaum et al., 2008; Ulrich et al., 2004). Studies investigated health-related effects (e.g., pain reduction, stress reduction, shorter length of stay) on patients and staff by views on nature (Weerasuria et al., 2019), access to nature (Beukeboom et al., 2012), as well as nature-inspired art (Beukeboom et al., 2012). They mention that views on nature, even when artificial, provide positive distraction for clients and reduce perceived waiting time (Beukeboom et al., 2012).

2.1.2. Privacy

Privacy, both speech and visual, is also recognised as important for healthcare building design (Rachel, 2018). For instance, it is essential for good and thorough communication between patients and caretakers (Morgan et al., 2021). Patients tend to share more personal information when speech privacy is guaranteed (Morgan et al., 2021) and show higher levels of satisfaction when the design of patient rooms improves the feeling of visual privacy (Sundstrom et al., 2017; Margolies et al., 2015). Although there is a lot of research done on privacy in hospital environments, almost no research has been done on levels of privacy in HCC. Yet, one study focused on the design and lack of privacy for staff communication, including the reception area design; they found that the level of communication, as well as job satisfaction, is lower with less privacy (Lim et al., 2020).

2.1.3. Daylight

A lack of daylight disrupts our biological clock, and this leads to depressive feelings and fatigue (Moenssens, 2013). Instead, sufficient daylight can support orientation and performing tasks that require excellent visual feedback (Moenssens, 2013). Daylight has also been linked to health-related outcomes for healthcare staff and clients, such as reducing medical errors, pain, depression, and length of stay (Malenbaum et al. 2008). Daylight can improve patient sleep, communication between patients and their relatives, staff, and patient satisfaction (Morgan et al., 2021). In our study, we focus mainly on the reception area and waiting area in relation to daylight.

2.1.4 Wayfinding

The effect of wayfinding on patients has been extensively researched in hospitals (Morag et al., 2016). Wayfinding refers to environments where people can orientate and navigate themselves well, which makes individuals feel more at ease and reduces stress and anxiety (Morag et al., 2016). Wayfinding could also improve good diagnosis and treatment (Morgan et al., 2021). However, there is a lack of research on wayfinding in outpatient health centres, especially in the entrance area.

2.2 Problem Identification

To sum up, there is a lack of research on the design of HCCs as well as entrance areas (Ulrich et al., 2008). There is a lack of studies situated in the Netherlands (Beukeboom et. al., 2012), and only a few studies combine attention to views on nature, privacy, daylight, and wayfinding (Ulrich et al., 2008). In order to inform the design processes and design decision-making of HCCs generally, and particularly in the Dutch context, this study asks the question: To what extent do the projects, in their project descriptions and in the design solutions, pay attention to views on nature, privacy, daylight, and wayfinding?

3. Method

Research design is based upon a case study approach with two projects, using written, visual project documentation and an on-site visit focused on attention to view of nature, privacy, daylight, and wayfinding.

The study is situated in two HCCs in the Netherlands, both of which have been awarded the LHV award (see Table 1). The LHV-award is a bi-annual award organised by the Dutch general practitioner’s organisation (Landelijke Huisartsen Vereniging, e.g., LHV). LHV supports general practitioners in all aspects concerning the management and household of their practices, including staff and employment, equipment and storage, patient documentation and archiving, as well as their building design (ref). The LHV-award is given to healthcare practices that have recently redesigned their practice in accordance with the seven golden rules (see Table 2). The LHV golden rules do include wayfinding, privacy, and daylight, either as main ‘rule’ or subrule, yet views on nature are not addressed. The rules provide evaluation guidelines for the jury reports, who also visit the project sites and read through project descriptions submitted by healthcare professionals. The jury consists of both professionals, general practitioners, and designers. The project names, project descriptions, and jury reports can be found on the public website of the organisation.

Table 1. Description of basic information about the two projects.

Project	Gezondheidscentrum Haverstraat Oldenzaal	Huisartsenpraktijk Kapelle
Year design	2016	2018
M2	320 m2	430 m2
Amount of patients per year	5100	5800
Types of facilities	general practitioners physiotherapist, podotherapy, home care, psychologist	general practitioners, pharmacy
Architect	Loman architecten	Archikon,  Interior green dot design

Table 2. Overview of LHV ‘Golden rules’ translated and condensed from (LHV-bouwadviesgroep, 2016).

Translated themes in LHV ‘gouden regels’	Condensed summary of the themes as interpreted by the authors: Attention for:
optimal floor plan layout	Care processes Routing Assistant workspace central
optimal privacy	Speech privacy Visual privacy Sound insulation
distinction between calm and lively areas	Public (lively) versus private (calm)
care about accessibility	Accessibility for all: people with visual disabilities, reading difficulties, sensory disabilities
care about experience, atmosphere, and comfort	colours, daylight solutions, furniture, and finishing. comfortable acoustic atmosphere indoor climate (e.g., temperature, ventilation)
care about quality	LHV norms, building regulations, and technical requirements
care for healthy building financing	The facility costs should be in balance. with the organisational overall budget

The data were collected in 2019–2021 and included (1) written documentation (descriptions by professionals, jury reports, and design documentation), (2) visual documentation (plans and photos), and (3) observations. The written and visual data were collected from the LHV website. The observations were done in 2020 and 2021 by the main author. He visited both HCCs, examined the entrance reception area and waiting room, and included notes focused on the four design features as well as a comparison of the written and visual data provided on the LHV website. All data was stored in one digital folder accessible to the team.

The data were analysed through several iterative steps, including selective text analysis (text of professionals as well as jury reports) and thematic observations (plans, photo material, observation notes). The question guiding the analysis states, "To what extent do the projects, in their project descriptions and in the design solutions, pay attention to views on nature, privacy, daylight, and wayfinding?"

Selective text analysis is used for analysing written documentation to describe and quantify content in relation to prior selected themes (Cavanagh, 1997). Each text section that concerned the four themes (e.g., the original meaning unit) was extracted from the document into a digital spreadsheet. These (Dutch) meaning units were then translated and summarised (condensed meaning units). Those condensed meaning units were grouped according to the four features.

The visual documentation was analysed through plan analysis, as inspired by Van der Zwart and Van der Voort (2015). This meant that the plans, drawings, and photos were translated into a simple 3D sketch model (SketchUp) representing the layout (shape, sizes), openings (windows, doors), furniture, and plants. While the document is mainly white, a few features were highlighted. For instance, the reception (orange), floor (yellow), and furniture waiting area (brown). The SketchUp models made several representations, including a plan, axonometry, and perspectives of the entrance, reception, and waiting area. These base drawings were used to develop diagrammatic interpretations.

4. Results

The data shows the different projects and to what extent they address views on nature, privacy, daylight, and wayfinding as described in the written and visual documentation and observed on site.

4.1 Gezondheidscentrum Oldenzaal

4.1.1. Views on nature

Views on nature are not mentioned in the jury reports or project descriptions. The visual documentation shows that both the waiting areas and the back offices have windows to the outside (Figures 1– 3). The waiting patients look out over a parking lot. The staff overlooks the bike storage, a small garden, and the neighbour's fencing. There is no visual connection to the outside from the reception areas, so there is no view of nature from this point.

Observations by the author are in line with the findings of the analysis of visual data: there is no view of nature from the outside, but there is a great wallpaper drawing of flowers in the waiting area.

Figure 1. Picture of entrance area Oldenzaal outside

4.1.2. Privacy

Figure 2. Reception area Oldenzaal

Privacy is not mentioned in jury reports or descriptions. Since there is no physical separation between the reception area and entrance, private conversations can easily be overheard by passersby or waiting patients in the waiting area. This implies a lack of speech privacy.

Patients can easily keep their distance from each other in the waiting area (Figure 3), thanks to the space between the two sides of the area. The facing benches in the waiting area make patients face each other while waiting.

Observation shows that the entrance hall is small and closed with sliding doors. The sliding doors are transparent on all sides of the reception area. So, if a client is in conversation with the assistant, on each side, the next client can see this and wait to enter. So, although the reception area is in the routing, privacy is well maintained. In the waiting area, there is a table with chairs around it in the middle of the area. Privacy is not well maintained because there is one long bench on one of the wall sides.

Figure 3. Part of the floor plan of Oldenzaal, the entrance area and waiting area.

4.1.3. Daylight

In the jury reports and descriptions, there is no mention of daylight. The visual data show that daylight shines through the glass entrance doors into the entrance area (Figure 3). The waiting area is also on this side of the building, which receives light from the north. There is no daylight at the reception area. Two windows lead to the back office, which receives daylight from the west.

Observations show that the entrance area is indeed visible and recognizable from the streetside. Inside the building, the reception area receives little daylight. However, the waiting area is spacious and full of daylight.

4.1.4. Wayfinding.

Wayfinding is not explicitly mentioned in the jury reports or descriptions. However, they mention the building's functional layout. The photos and floor plans show that the entrance to this HCC is surrounded by parked cars (Figure 1) but still recognisable from the street. Once patients enter through the main door, there is a long corridor separated by a glass connecting door. After passing through this second door, patients can walk directly towards the reception area, which is clearly located in the corridor.

The waiting area is located on the other side, visible from the reception area (Figure 3). The consulting areas can be reached via the waiting area and the corridor by passing another door. When patients go back after their consultation, they pass the waiting area and reception area. Before going out, they can visit the pharmacy area on the right.

Observations by the author according to wayfinding are completely in line with the findings and analysis of visual data.

4.2 Huisartsenpraktijk Kapelle

4.2.1.View of nature

In the jury report, there is no mention of views on nature. The visual data analysis reveals a view of nature from the entrance and waiting area (Fig. 4). From these windows, you can see a slow-traffic street, two-level buildings, plant borders, and low trees. In contrast, it is not possible to have a view of nature from the reception area.

From the waiting area to the outside, there is almost no view of nature.

Figure 4. Entrance area Kapelle outside

4.2.2.Privacy.

The reception area is placed right behind the entrance (Figure 5). It is a wide, semi-circular space that is part of the walking route to the other areas of the building.

”The welcoming desk is left open, which fits the village-like character most.”. 

Since there is no physical separation, privacy-sensitive conversations can be overheard by passers-by.

 

The waiting area (Figure 5) is at a sufficient distance from the reception area and can be closed. The seats in the waiting area are sufficiently spaced, so patients can easily keep their distance from each other. However, when the area is full, patients face each other while waiting. Finally, the jury report mentions the usefulness of a separate back office for making privacy-sensitive telephone calls.

Observation showed the reception area is partly being used by the pharmacy. Benches in the waiting area are placed so that clients don’t have to face one another.

4.2.3.Daylight

Figure 5. part of floorplan, reception area and waiting room

The visual data show windows in the waiting area and back offices (Figure 5). However, there is no direct daylight into the reception area; it is only indirectly available through the back office.

The observations show daylight in the entrance area because of a rooflight at the reception area and big windows in the waiting area.

4.2.4.Wayfinding

The entrance is clearly visible from the street, according to visual data. When entering, patients are guided to the semi-circular entrance hall and are directly welcomed by the reception area. After registering for the visit, patients can reorient themselves by turning around. They can then go in one line to the waiting area. This is directly visible from the area and has glass interior frames and a glass door.

The observations indicated that the turn to the waiting area was not obvious from the reception, yet a visual connection when turned helped find the waiting area.

5. Discussion

This study examined the integration of health-related features in two Dutch HCCs, including views of nature, privacy, daylight, and wayfinding. In general, we see in the results that there is implicit knowledge and use of these 4 elements in the designs of HCCs. However, the features are almost never explicitly mentioned in descriptions or jury reports.

5.1 View on nature

The results show that the view of nature is not addressed in any of the data. This is surprising, as there is much research about the view of nature in hospitals (Ulrich et al., 2008). This can be explained by the lack of research on a view of nature in HCCs specifically, and probably because there is not very much exchange of knowledge about health care facility design professionals in hospitals and HCCs. Still, based upon previous research in both healthcare and workplaces, it only seems logical that view and access to nature are also important to HCCs, in particular in the waiting area, where clients stay longer while often concerned about their health and can use the positive distraction. We, therefore, advise that a view of nature should be added to the golden rules of the LHV-advise group. 

5.2 Privacy

The analysis shows little mention of privacy, while floorplans indicate that privacy has been considered in the design, e.g., sliding doors between different sections and enough area for a good distance in waiting areas and entrance sections. As mentioned, previous studies have already indicated the importance of visual and speech privacy in hospital wards, as well as privacy to accommodate sensitive staff conversations (Morgan et. al., 2020). This study indicates that some design solutions should be altered to improve privacy.

If clients and professionals were earlier and better heard in the design process, this could help to improve privacy, especially in the reception area and waiting area. However, it would have been expected that in award-winning projects like these, there would be even more privacy. This is even more surprising, as privacy is widely described as being important under the golden rules.

5.3 Daylight

The analysis showed one mention of daylight, while the floor plans and pictures indicate attention to daylight in the design of working and waiting areas. Yet, in both projects, the reception area, which is also a working area, lacks direct sunlight. This is surprising as research highlights the need for daylight and the negative health-related outcomes of a lack of daylight, such as problems in orientation, performing tasks, causing medical errors, pain, sleeping problems, and decreasing staff and patient satisfaction (Ulrich et al., 2008).

5.4 Wayfinding

The results showed that in both projects, the walking route is easy to understand because it is visible from the entrance to where to go next. Previous research has emphasized the importance of good wayfinding in stress reduction and wellbeing improvement (Morag et al., 2016).

5.4 Other reflections

The jury should, in their reporting, probably use the golden rules. And the rules should include a view of nature as an additional design feature.

There are some research limitations due to the number of datasets used for the two projects. Still, the triangulation of the data from different documentation types (e.g., jury reports, design guidelines, photo plans, etc.) allowed us to get an initial understanding of how the main design features are implemented and recognised in the design and design guidelines (e.g., golden rules). This thus provided input to revise the guidelines and may serve as a starting point for future discussion, either to collect more data for these projects or to compare them with other HCCs. Except for research done generally on health centres (Van der Zwart, 2016), there needs to be more research done.

5. Conclusions

This study investigated the incorporation of health-related features in two Dutch HCCs, including privacy, daylight, wayfinding, and a view of nature. The results indicate awareness and implicit knowledge of the importance of daylight, wayfinding, and privacy. However, while research on healthcare architecture often highlights views on nature, it was not found in the projects. We recommend that the LHV-advise group incorporate views on nature and other EBD framework components into their guidelines. Additionally, with this paper, we hope to make a contribution to the discussion about wellbeing in HCCs, to help broaden awareness of features in healthcare design that improve the well-being of patients as well as professionals in primary healthcare, and to stimulate designers to incorporate the remarks of all users, professionals, and clients in their design.

Contributor statement

Conceptualization: LW and EM

Methodology: EM and LW

Visualization: LK

Writing - Original Draft: LW, LK and EM

Writing –Editing: LK and EM

References

1. Abbas, Mohamed Yusoff (2000). Proxemics in waiting areas of health centres : a cross-cultural study. PhD thesis,

University of Sheffield.

2. Aburas, R., Pati, D., Casanova, R., & Adams, N. G. (2017). 

The Influence of Nature Stimulus in Enhancing the Birth Experience. HERD: Health Environments Research & Design Journal, 10(2), 81–100. https://doi.org/10.1177/1937586716665581

3. Beukeboom, C. J., Langeveld, D., Tanja-Dijkstra, K. (2012). Stress-reducing effects of real and artificial nature in a hospital waiting room. The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, 18(4), 329–333. https://doi.org/10.1089/acm.2011.0488

4. Cavanagh, S. (1997). Content analysis: concepts, methods and applications. Nurse researcher, 4(3), 5-16.

5. Dalke, H., Little, J., Niemann, E., Camgoz, N., Steadman, G., Hill, S., & Stott, L. (2006). Colour and lighting in hospital design. Optics & Laser Technology, 38(4-6), 343-365.

6. Devlin, A. S., & Arneill, A. B. (2003). Health Care Environments and Patient Outcomes: A 

review of the literature. Environment and behavior, 35(5), 665-694.

7. Lim, L. et al. (2020) ‘Backstage Staff Communication: The Effects of Different Levels of Visual Exposure to Patients’, Health Environments Research & Design Journal, 13(3), pp. 54–69. doi: 10.1177/1937586719888903.

8. MacAllister, L., Zimring, C., & Ryherd, E. (2016). Environmental variables that influence patient satisfaction: A review of the literature. HERD: Health Environments Research & Design Journal, 10(1), 155-169.

9. Sara Malenbaum, Francis J. Keefe, Amanda Williams, Roger Ulrich, and Tamara J. Somers (2008)

Pain in its Environmental Context: Implications for Designing Environments to Enhance Pain Control, Pain, 134(3): 241–244.

10. Rebecca Margolies, BSE, Harshad Gurnaney, MBBS, MPH, Marc Egeth, PhD, 

Nicole Fink, PhD, Jennifer Soosaar, PhD, Adam Shames, MBA, Mohamed Rehman, MD, FAAP

Positioning Patient Status Monitors in a Family Waiting Room (2015). HERD: Health Environments, Research & Design Journal, 15(1)

11. Rebecca Mc Laughan, Ahmed Sadek, Julie Willis (2018). Attractions to Fuel the Imagination: Reframing

Understandings of the Role of Distraction Relative to Well-Being in the Pediatric Hospital. HERD: Health Environments Research & Design Journal, 12(2), 130-146.

12. Moenssens, N (2013). Een donker gebouw: slecht voor mens, milieu en budget lirias.kuleuven.be [PDF] kuleuven.be

13. Morag, I., Heylighen, A., & Pintelon, L. (2016). Evaluating the inclusivity of hospital wayfinding systems for people with diverse needs and abilities. Journal of health services research & policy, 21(4), 243-248.

14. J. Morgan, S., Pullon, S., McKinlay, E., Garrett, S., Kennedy, J., & Watson, B. (2021). 

Collaborative Care in Primary Care: The Influence of Practice Interior Architecture on 

Informal Face-to-Face Communication—An Observational Study. HERD: Health 

Environments Research & Design Journal, 14(1), 190–209. 

15. Rachel, N. (2018). Effects and Influence of Entrance and Lobby Design on the Care of Mental Health Clients. SHARED BEHAVIORAL OUTCOMES.

16. Sundstrom, E., Burt, R. E., & Kamp, D. (1980). Privacy at work: Architectural correlates of job satisfaction and job performance. Academy of management journal, 23(1), 101-117.

17. Ulrich, R. S., Zimring, C., Zhu, X., DuBose, J., Seo, H.-B., Choi, Y.-S., Quan, X., & Joseph, A. (2008). A Review of the Research Literature on Evidence-Based Healthcare Design. HERD: Health Environments Research & Design Journal, 1(3), 61–125. https://doi.org/10.1177/193758670800100306

18. Warin, M., Baum, F., Kalucy, E., Murray, C., & Veale, B. (2000). The power of place: space and time in women's and community health centres in South Australia. Social Science & Medicine, 50(12), 1863-1875

19. Weerasuriya, R., Henderson-Wilson, C., & Townsend, M. (2019). Accessing Green Spaces Within a Healthcare Setting: A Mixed Studies Review of Barriers and Facilitators. HERD: Health Environments Research & Design Journal, 12(3), 119–140.

20. Van der Zwart J, van der Voordt TJM (2015). Pre-Occupancy Evaluation of Patient Satisfaction in Hospitals. HERD: Health Environments Research & Design Journal. 9(1):110-124. doi:10.1177/1937586715595506