• Sian Saha, Harriet Noble, Andreas Xyrichis, Daniel Hadfield, Thomas Best, Philip Hopkins, and Louise Rose.
• Critical Care, King's College Hospital, Denmark Hill, London SE5 9RS, UK; Florence Nightingale Faculty of Nursing, Midwifery and Palliative Care, King's College London, James Clerk Maxwell Building, 57 Waterloo Road, London SE1 8WA, UK. Electronic address: Sian.saha@nhs.net.
• J Crit Care. 2022 Feb 1; 67: 3-13.

PurposeScoping review to map outcomes and describe effects of intensive care unit (ICU) design features on patients, family, and healthcare professionals (HCPs).Materials And MethodsIteratively developed search strategy executed across seven databases. We included studies (January 2007 to May 2020) exploring ICU design features using any study design. We grouped studies into 12 design features and categorized outcomes into four domains.ResultsOf 18,577 citations screened, 44 studies met inclusion criteria. Newly built or renovated ICUs/ICU rooms were evaluated in 27 (61%) studies; 17 (39%) evaluated existing designs/features. Most commonly evaluated design features were lighting (24, 55%), single vs multi-occupancy rooms/pods (17, 39%), and family-centered design (13, 30%). We identified 63 distinct outcomes in four domains; HCP-related (20, 45%); patient-related (20, 45%); family-related (11, 25%); and environment-related (7, 16%). Eleven (25%) studies measured patient/family-reported outcomes. In studies evaluating single occupancy rooms, three reported increased family satisfaction, two reported decreased delirium burden, while six reported negative consequences on HCP wellbeing and working.ConclusionStudies evaluating ICU design measure disparate outcomes. Few studies included patient/ family-reported outcomes; fewer measured objective environment characteristics. Single room layouts may benefit patients and family but contribute to adverse HCP-related outcomes.Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier Inc.

9 keywords...

hide…