EBD is Not a ‘Lavish Perk’
The debate continues on the merits of Evidence-based Design (EBD). The Wall St. Journal is jumping in with a blog post by one of its writers in response to an article written by Laura Landro in her “Informed Patient” column in today’s Journal.
The WSJ blogger says that EBD is a largely unproved “perk” that doesn’t make sense in this economic climate. However, what he doesn’t understand is that EBD is a process of making design decisions based on credible research that results in improved outcomes. If creating a facility that helps improve both the staff and patient experience results in shorter patient stays, reduced staff turnovers, and other clinical and operational improvements, it will actually save money.
What’s more annual operating expenses far outweigh annual capital budgets, so the investment in better building design is a good one. We know this, because we’ve made the business case using actual real data. (FYI, An updated white paper outlining the business case is being published soon — we’ll be posting it on our website for free download as well as a 10-minute webcast summary.)
I’m glad, though, that people are writing and blogging about EBD. We need to continue the conversation so that, one day, everyone understands exactly what it is and what it is not.