Spatial and Behavioural Cognition of Wayfinding System in Hospital Buildings in Terms of Oncology Patients’ Comfort

MAZURKIEWICZ, Weronika; SITEK, Michał

doi:10.2478/acee-2024-0029

Figures & Tables

Legend of the values of syntactic measures

First floor of the National Institute of Oncology in Gliwice; two variants of the changes made. Variant A and Variant B in Model 1

Diagram of the conventional division of the first floor of the National Institute of Oncology in Gliwice

Left: Model 1 – Branch divided into closed and open spaces (accessible to external users). Open spaces filled with paint. Right: Model 2 – all offices open to users.

The indicated decision points. Left: waiting room. Right: main hall by the patient lifts

Example results of users’ behaviour mapping for the patient route to mammography registration (W1)

Results of users’ behaviour mapping for the patient route to Nuclear Medicine Department (W3)

Survey results regarding the criteria of analysis according to the age groups

The obtained data were analysed and grouped according to the specific of each factor (as it is presented in Table 3)

Visual step depth for the starting point

VGA analysis of model 1 connectivity parameter (min. 15 – max. 2163)

VGA analysis of model 2. Connectivity parameter (min. 6 – max. 2208)

Variant A in Model 1: One corridor closed to users

VGA analysis for Variant A in model 1. Connectivity parameter (min 4 – max 629)

Visual step depth – comparison of the situation before and after the Variant A

Variant B in Model 1. Separate the two zones (right and left) by adding one door and closing one corridor in the section leading to the diagnostic imaging space to outside users

VGA analysis for variant B in model 1 – part I. Connectivity parameter (min. 26 – max. 1635)

VGA analysis for variant B in model 1 – part II and III. Connectivity parameter (min. 15 – max. 1605

Visual step depth for variant B – part I

Visual step depth for variant B – part II and III

A diagram of the process of examining the space of complex buildings in terms of wayfinding systems

Wayfinding experiences indicated by patients and staff (in terms of criteria included in Table 2)

Criteria of analysis	Meaning of the indicated space features	Behavioural interpretation
A. spatial features determining orientation in the building
A2. Characteristic elements in the space (landmarks)	Confusing movement to destination, asking people/staff for directions	Stress, sense of confusion,
A4. Zoning of the functional areas in the building, difference in areas and buildings at the site	Unconscious movement to destination, difficult finding the desired location,	The embarrassment of having to ask staff for directions
B. features of the existing visual identity system
B1. Visibility of visual identification system	Location of signage in areas not visible from the initial decision point, difficult to find the right sign	Visual and cognitive barriers
B2. Legibility of the signage system	Directional signage located under the ceiling is not always legible, too little signage to see from a distance, and incomprehensible names of the locations	Visual barriers
B3. Characteristic signs in the circular area	Individual landmarks, e.g. fishes, pots of greenery, green steps	Difficulties in building the mental maps
C. behavioural factors
C1. Overloading of distractors and obscuring elements	Older patients have indicated confusion with many information and inconsistent nomenclature	Confusion, stress
C2. Cognitive bariers	Unintelligible names of medical functions	Confusion

Main results of research walks

Criteria of analysis	Characteristics of the indicated features of the space	Proposed methods of further research
A. spatial features determining orientation in the building
A1. Legibility of the communication layout	illegibility of the communication layout, numerous staircases that are not distinguished in the communication space	S
A2. Characteristic elements in the space (landmarks)	few landmarks to help remember routes,	Q
A3. Visual accessibility of the destination/decision point	insufficient differentiation of the target points in the communication space (no colour codes, no characteristic elements of the equipment)	S
A4. Zoning of the functional areas in the building, difference in areas and buildings at the site	No clear functional zones, no colour codes applied consistently, Excessive colour elements without a coherent system	Q/S
A5. Number of changes in direction along each route	multiple changes of direction	S
A6. Location of vertical communication	Failure to distinguish the location of staircases in the communication space	S
B. features of the existing visual identity system
B1. Visibility of visual identification system	Location of signage in areas not visible from the initial decision point	Q/S
B2. Legibility of the signage system	Directional signage located under the ceiling is not always legible	Q
B3. Characteristic signs in the circular area	Individual landmarks, e.g., fishes, pots of greenery, murals with nature motives	Q
C. behavioural factors
C1. Overloading of distractors and obscuring elements	Too much information posted, information posted is misleading (no update of information posted)	Q
C2. Cognitive bariers	Unintelligible names of medical functions	Q
Explanation: Q – qualitative research; S – simulation research

The identified key issues for planning the research on wayfinding systems in hospitals

Main architectural components of wayfinding system	Exploratory walks Detected results	Space Syntax Detected results	Complementary simulation method
legibility of the communication layout	*	*	*
Characteristic elements in the space (landmarks)	*		*
Visual accessibility of the destination/decision point	*	*	*
Zoning of the functional areas in the building, difference in areas and buildings at the site		*	*
Visibility of visual identification system	*		*
Legibility of the signage system	*		*
Number of changes in direction along each route		*	*
Overloading of distractors and obscuring elements	*		*
Characteristic points and functions in the circular area	*		*

List of research methods used in the project

Research method	Main analyse criteria
Exploratory walks involving volunteers (n=22)	direction and location signs: visibility of signs and their location, legibility of text; occurrence of landmarks, characteristics of landmarks: legibility and visibility of the existing visual identity system using volunteers’ perception
Exploratory walks involving patients (n=8)	characteristic features of the space (landmarks, interior colours, furnishings, graphic elements, views from the window, etc.). legibility and visibility of the existing visual identity system using patient’s perception
Mapping the behaviours	identification of spatial features, user behaviour and phenomena and their location on object projections, definition of decision points
Space Syntax methodology	checking the visual step depth (Visual step depth) for the selected starting point in the first floor and analysing building interiors as the visibility graph analysis (VGA)

Spatial and Behavioural Cognition of Wayfinding System in Hospital Buildings in Terms of Oncology Patients’ Comfort

Figures & Tables

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Figure 4.

Figure 5.

Figure 6.

Figure 7.

Figure 8.

Figure 9.

Figure 10.

Figure 11.

Figure 12.

Figure 13.

Figure 14.

Figure 15.

Figure 16.

Figure 17.

Figure 18.

Figure 19.

Figure 20.

Figure 21.

Wayfinding experiences indicated by patients and staff (in terms of criteria included in Table 2)

Main results of research walks

The identified key issues for planning the research on wayfinding systems in hospitals

List of research methods used in the project

Paradigm

My account