search.noResults

search.searching

saml.title
dataCollection.invalidEmail
note.createNoteMessage

search.noResults

search.searching

orderForm.title

orderForm.productCode
orderForm.description
orderForm.quantity
orderForm.itemPrice
orderForm.price
orderForm.totalPrice
orderForm.deliveryDetails.billingAddress
orderForm.deliveryDetails.deliveryAddress
orderForm.noItems
TELEMEDICINE


Redesigning hospitals for the telehealth revolution


Michaela Sheahan, senior researcher at Hassell, explains how, with a significant switch to ‘virtual’ consultations during the COVID-19 pandemic, the international architecture, design, and urban planning practice collaborated with the Centre for Online Health, Centre for Health Services Research at The University of Queensland, to understand where and how digital consultations were undertaken in Australia in 2020. The firm surveyed and interviewed healthcare workers in Australian hospitals to better understand how telehealth spaces worked (or didn't) for them and their colleagues, with some interesting findings.


In 2020, while hospitals and healthcare providers grappled with infection control issues and community anxiety about COVID-19, the long-anticipated widespread uptake of telehealth consultations finally happened – seemingly overnight, and with chronic disease and an ageing population increase putting pressure on hospital space and staff, there is much to be gained from this significant, potentially permanent, shift in service delivery. What if we could sustain lower numbers of patients fronting up to hospitals in the first place, and then give that space to those who really need it? It sounds simple, but of course health systems are complex, risk-averse, and too important to fail. The pandemic is a once- in-a-generation real-time experiment to see where change can be made safely and effectively.


A generation of change


As the first wave of the pandemic began, and healthcare systems all over the world switched to telehealth wherever and however they could, one practitioner in London declared: ‘We’ve had ten years of change in one week.’1


Between February


and March 2020, registrations to use the UK’s NHS app more than doubled. Around the same time, virtual appointments with GPs tripled – from 25 to 71 per cent of all consultations. Visits to the NHS non-emergency online advice site increased by 257 per cent compared with 2019.2


A similar pattern was observed in other countries. In the US, demand for telehealth grew by over 60 percent.3 Australian government-funded virtual consultations grew exponentially too, jumping from one million appointments in March 2020, to over six million the very next month.4


While GPs delivered many of these consultations, hospital telehealth services also expanded, along with allied health, mental health, and nurse practitioner


consultations. Research shows that despite fears of compromising confidentiality, safety, and patient-doctor relationships, telehealth models can and do deliver lower mortality and hospitalisation rates across a range of patient groups, including the elderly, and people with chronic illnesses such as heart disease, diabetes, and stroke rehabilitation.5


A recent survey of


telehealth patients also shows that patients are a lot less reluctant to use, and are more satisfied with, telehealth services than might have been expected.6


A question of space


It’s safe to say we can anticipate at least some change over the long term in how services are delivered, and that has significant implications for hospital spaces


The Australian study was undertaken in conjunction with The Centre for Children’s Health Research, Brisbane.


and the design teams that plan them. However, information about telehealth space design in hospitals is hard to come by. Most telehealth research projects investigate the safety or efficacy of initiatives, rather than the spatial implications of changes to models of care. Compounding a lack of design research, many health facility guidelines refer to telehealth in only general terms, (e.g. ‘consider telehealth requirements’, ‘telehealth technology should be available for teaching and clinical assessment’, etc.),7


without recommendations on size, layout, lighting, or other design considerations. The assumption is that staff can just access a computer or phone in whatever space is available and make the best of it. However, when the COVID-19 crisis came, what spaces were actually available, and did they work?


Consultations from cupboards and other limitations


International design practice, Hassell, collaborated with the Centre for Online Health, Centre for Health Services Research at The University of Queensland, to understand where and how digital consultations were undertaken in Australia in 2020. We surveyed and interviewed healthcare workers in Australian hospitals to better understand how telehealth spaces worked (or didn't) for them and their colleagues. Were the clinicians using spaces that were appropriate for patients? Will hospitals need to re-think their spaces to accommodate this new model of care? Most importantly, how can we take advantage of this significant change in healthcare delivery to design hospitals that best support clinicians and patients? The research findings suggest that current hospital infrastructure in Australia (and likely everywhere else, too) was ill- equipped to accommodate the significant increase in telehealth services during the pandemic. Telehealth delivered at scale


October 2021 Health Estate Journal 27


©Christopher Frederick Jones


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100  |  Page 101  |  Page 102  |  Page 103  |  Page 104  |  Page 105  |  Page 106  |  Page 107  |  Page 108  |  Page 109  |  Page 110  |  Page 111  |  Page 112