443579White Arkitekter AB, Gothenburg, Sweden.
HERD. 2021 Jan;14(1):106-117. doi: 10.1177/1937586720971814. Epub 2020 Nov 18.
The objective of this discussion paper is to deepen the discourse on the complex interrelationship between "healing architecture" and "safe architecture," here labeled "," for the benefit of those who want to make informed decisions in the design of future psychiatric wards.
Today's psychiatric care sets the patient at the forefront. As a part of this ambition, the discussion regarding the patient's physical environment has also advanced. At the same time, staff are exposed to increasing threats and violence in their everyday work, which can lead to severe personal psychological suffering as well as physical injuries. The requirements of patients and staff are sometimes conflicting which has ethical implications.
The reasoning and arguments presented here mainly derive from discussions and dialogue with psychiatric facility management and other healthcare professionals in multidisciplinary working groups during the design process.
Offering patients and staff a healing and safe environment is the most important architectural challenge in the design of psychiatric wards. How architects, management, and staff evaluate and balance the two aspects will have a crucial impact on the building's final design and atmosphere and thereby influence staff and patient safety as well as civil protection.
In everyday practice, it is up to the multidisciplinary design teams and management to become better informed in order to make "the right decisions to the best of their ability" as evidence is still limited when it comes to "."
本文旨在深化关于“治愈性建筑”和“安全性建筑”之间复杂关系的讨论,将两者分别标记为“”和“”,以期为那些希望在未来精神病病房设计中做出明智决策的人提供参考。
当今的精神科护理将患者置于首位。作为这一目标的一部分,对患者物理环境的讨论也取得了进展。与此同时,医护人员在日常工作中面临着越来越多的威胁和暴力,这可能导致严重的身心伤害。患者和员工的需求有时相互冲突,这涉及到伦理问题。
本文的推理和论点主要源自设计过程中与精神病院管理层和其他医疗保健专业人员在多学科工作组中的讨论和对话。
为患者和员工提供一个治愈和安全的环境是精神病病房设计中最重要的建筑挑战。建筑师、管理层和员工如何评估和平衡这两个方面,将对建筑的最终设计和氛围产生至关重要的影响,从而影响员工和患者的安全以及民防。
在日常实践中,多学科设计团队和管理层需要更好地了解情况,以便“尽最大能力做出正确决策”,因为在“”方面,证据仍然有限。