NYHET KLUCK 2 är ett projekt som vill skapa kunskap om byggnadsmiljö, luftkvalitet och hälsa i Kvarkenregionen. Resultaten presenteras vid ett heldagsseminarium på restaurang Rex. Hör bland andra Géza Fischl, arkitekt vid UMA, om "Design of a therapeutic environment".
Under fyra år har forskare och studenter från Sverige och Finland genomfört olika aktiviteter för att öka kunskapen inom området för byggnadsmiljö, luftkvalitet och hälsa i Kvarkenregionen. Som en del i projektet genomfördes en workshop för masterstudenterna vid Arkitekthögskolan. Resultaten av projektet presenteras vid ett heldagsseminarium där bland andra Géza Fischl, arkitekt vid Arkitekthögskolan, kommer att prata om sambanden mellan arkitektur och hälsa under rubriken"Design of a therapeutic environment". Rex konferensvåning, onsdagen den 9:e november kl. 8.30-17.00.
För mer info och anmälan här.
Architecture and health
Géza Fischl, PhD, Architecht SAR/MSA
Thomas Olofsson, PhD
Design of a therapeutic environment Therapeutic environments are powerful agents of healing for patients. As such, therapeutic environments improved medical outcomes of patients by reducing stress. Stress alleviation occurred with the increased perception of control and privacy, enhanced social support, and by offering positive distractions, such as art, music, and access to nature. Congruent research findings show that therapeutic environments for patients allow recovery from stress through access to nature, exercise and physical movement, and enhanced social activities. Outcome-based research findings are beginning to reveal that therapeutic environments are positively related to improved health and behavioral outcomes of patients beyond recovery from stress. Yet therapeutic environments are little understood by the public, and therefore they have not yet learned to demand. Probably one of the most important ways to introduce therapeutic environments is through education. At Umeå Arkitekthögskola an attempt was made for master students to design a therapeutic environment in a short workshop setting, because the physical design of healthcare facilities is recognized as an integral part of the patients’ experience and satisfaction with healthcare services. The results revealed that students can accommodate their design concept around therapeutic environments, they understand the concept, and able to analyze the proposed scenarios, however they do not have a skilled problem solving technique to overcome initial solutions. The delivered results incorporated flexible design parameters for functional solutions, using mobile wall concepts and layered structures that are performing in a way that the users can practice control and privacy. Positive distractions were also incorporated into the initial design solutions as well as personalization for the therapeutic environment. The users of the therapeutic environments were all invented, and as such, being personas that are imaginary users of the designed facility. As an overall conclusion, the complexity of a therapeutic environment is far much greater than that could be introduced, tested, and evaluated in a short workshop.
Design solutions at this stage are not particularly refined and therefore students were unable to deliver a detailed view, for instance, about the materials in use for therapeutic environments. On the contrary, the overall design concepts showed a tremendous innovation potential that can be realized later in the continuous work for a hospital setting. This was for instance the “friendly door” concept, which could change how we look at interactions in a therapeutic environment.