Skip to main content
medRxiv
  • Home
  • About
  • Submit
  • ALERTS / RSS
Advanced Search

The clinical, humanistic, and economic outcomes, including experiencing of patient safety events, associated with admitting patients to single rooms compared with shared accommodation for acute hospital admissions. A narrative synthesis systematic literature review

Andrea Bertuzzi, View ORCID ProfileAlison Martin, Nicola Clarke, View ORCID ProfileCassandra Springate, View ORCID ProfileRachel Ashton, Wayne Smith, View ORCID ProfileAndi Orlowski, View ORCID ProfileDuncan McPherson
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.09.27.22280411
Andrea Bertuzzi
2Crystallise Ltd, 17 High Street, Stanford le Hope, Essex SS17 0HD, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Alison Martin
2Crystallise Ltd, 17 High Street, Stanford le Hope, Essex SS17 0HD, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Alison Martin
Nicola Clarke
2Crystallise Ltd, 17 High Street, Stanford le Hope, Essex SS17 0HD, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Cassandra Springate
2Crystallise Ltd, 17 High Street, Stanford le Hope, Essex SS17 0HD, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Cassandra Springate
Rachel Ashton
3The Health Economics Unit, NHS Midlands and Lancashire Commissioning Support Unit, Heron House, 120 Grove Road, Stoke on Trent ST4 4LX, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Rachel Ashton
Wayne Smith
3The Health Economics Unit, NHS Midlands and Lancashire Commissioning Support Unit, Heron House, 120 Grove Road, Stoke on Trent ST4 4LX, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Andi Orlowski
3The Health Economics Unit, NHS Midlands and Lancashire Commissioning Support Unit, Heron House, 120 Grove Road, Stoke on Trent ST4 4LX, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Andi Orlowski
Duncan McPherson
1New Hospital Programme, NHS England and Improvement, Skipton House, 80 London Road, London SE1 6LH, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Duncan McPherson
  • For correspondence: duncan.mcpherson1{at}nhs.net
  • Abstract
  • Full Text
  • Info/History
  • Metrics
  • Supplementary material
  • Data/Code
  • Preview PDF
Loading

Abstract

Objectives Assess the impact of single rooms versus multioccupancy accommodation on inpatient health-care outcomes and processes.

Design Systematic review.

Setting Hospitals and secondary care units.

Participants Inpatients receiving routine, emergency, high-dependency, or intensive care with a named type of hospital accommodation.

Main outcome measures Qualitative synthesis of findings.

Results Of 4,861 citations initially identified, 215 were deemed suitable for full-text review, of which 145 were judged to be relevant to this review. Five main method types were reported: 60 before - and-after comparisons, 75 contemporaneous comparisons, 18 qualitative studies of accommodation preferences, 10 evidence syntheses. All studies had methodological issues that potentially biased the results by not adjusting for confounding factors that are likely to have contributed to the outcomes. Ninety-two papers compared clinical outcomes for patients in single rooms versus shared accommodation, but no clearly consistent conclusions could be drawn about overall benefits of single rooms versus shared accommodation (multioccupancy rooms, bays, or wards). Single rooms were most likely to be associated with a small overall clinical benefit for the most severely ill patients, especially neonates in intensive care. Patients who preferred single rooms tended to do so for privacy, and for reduced disturbances. By contrast, men, older adults, children, and adolescents were more likely to prefer shared accommodation to avoid loneliness. While shared accommodation seemed to be the most cost-effective approach for construction, greater costs associated with building single rooms were small and likely to be recouped over time by other efficiencies.

Conclusions The lack of difference between inpatient accommodation types in a large number of studies suggests that there would be little effect on clinical outcomes, particularly in routine care. Patients in intensive care areas are most likely to benefit from single rooms. Most patients preferred single rooms for privacy and some preferred shared accommodation for avoiding loneliness.

What is already known on this topic

  • The effects of single rooms versus shared accommodation on hospital inpatients’ outcomes are not well understood

  • Many studies are qualitative or narrative because randomised controlled trials are not practical and most comparative studies have only become possible after relocation to new facilities

  • This systematic review investigated the potential range of impacts that inpatient single rooms and shared accommodation have on the health-care processes, outcomes, and costs

What this study adds

  • The evidence, though extensive, revealed no clear advantage for one type of inpatient hospital accommodation for many of the areas assessed.

  • There was weak evidence indicating advantages for single bedrooms in some areas, such as lower risk of hospital acquired infection in adult intensive care and a range of outcomes in neonatal intensive care.

  • Most patients preferred single rooms for privacy and some preferred shared accommodation for avoiding loneliness.

Competing Interest Statement

The authors have declared no competing interest.

Clinical Protocols

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=311689

Funding Statement

This study was funded by Department of Health and Social Care

Author Declarations

I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.

Yes

I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.

Yes

I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).

Yes

I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.

Yes

Data Availability

All data produced in the present work are contained in the manuscript or supplementary material.

Copyright 
The copyright holder for this preprint is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under a CC-BY-NC 4.0 International license.
Back to top
PreviousNext
Posted September 27, 2022.
Download PDF

Supplementary Material

Data/Code
Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about medRxiv.

NOTE: Your email address is requested solely to identify you as the sender of this article.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
The clinical, humanistic, and economic outcomes, including experiencing of patient safety events, associated with admitting patients to single rooms compared with shared accommodation for acute hospital admissions. A narrative synthesis systematic litera…
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from medRxiv
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the medRxiv website.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
The clinical, humanistic, and economic outcomes, including experiencing of patient safety events, associated with admitting patients to single rooms compared with shared accommodation for acute hospital admissions. A narrative synthesis systematic literature review
Andrea Bertuzzi, Alison Martin, Nicola Clarke, Cassandra Springate, Rachel Ashton, Wayne Smith, Andi Orlowski, Duncan McPherson
medRxiv 2022.09.27.22280411; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.09.27.22280411
Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools
The clinical, humanistic, and economic outcomes, including experiencing of patient safety events, associated with admitting patients to single rooms compared with shared accommodation for acute hospital admissions. A narrative synthesis systematic literature review
Andrea Bertuzzi, Alison Martin, Nicola Clarke, Cassandra Springate, Rachel Ashton, Wayne Smith, Andi Orlowski, Duncan McPherson
medRxiv 2022.09.27.22280411; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.09.27.22280411

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Subject Area

  • Health Systems and Quality Improvement
Subject Areas
All Articles
  • Addiction Medicine (349)
  • Allergy and Immunology (668)
  • Allergy and Immunology (668)
  • Anesthesia (181)
  • Cardiovascular Medicine (2648)
  • Dentistry and Oral Medicine (316)
  • Dermatology (223)
  • Emergency Medicine (399)
  • Endocrinology (including Diabetes Mellitus and Metabolic Disease) (942)
  • Epidemiology (12228)
  • Forensic Medicine (10)
  • Gastroenterology (759)
  • Genetic and Genomic Medicine (4103)
  • Geriatric Medicine (387)
  • Health Economics (680)
  • Health Informatics (2657)
  • Health Policy (1005)
  • Health Systems and Quality Improvement (985)
  • Hematology (363)
  • HIV/AIDS (851)
  • Infectious Diseases (except HIV/AIDS) (13695)
  • Intensive Care and Critical Care Medicine (797)
  • Medical Education (399)
  • Medical Ethics (109)
  • Nephrology (436)
  • Neurology (3882)
  • Nursing (209)
  • Nutrition (577)
  • Obstetrics and Gynecology (739)
  • Occupational and Environmental Health (695)
  • Oncology (2030)
  • Ophthalmology (585)
  • Orthopedics (240)
  • Otolaryngology (306)
  • Pain Medicine (250)
  • Palliative Medicine (75)
  • Pathology (473)
  • Pediatrics (1115)
  • Pharmacology and Therapeutics (466)
  • Primary Care Research (452)
  • Psychiatry and Clinical Psychology (3432)
  • Public and Global Health (6527)
  • Radiology and Imaging (1403)
  • Rehabilitation Medicine and Physical Therapy (814)
  • Respiratory Medicine (871)
  • Rheumatology (409)
  • Sexual and Reproductive Health (410)
  • Sports Medicine (342)
  • Surgery (448)
  • Toxicology (53)
  • Transplantation (185)
  • Urology (165)