Nursing home design: Characteristics of social spaces and social behavior of residents.

摘要

This study addresses social spaces in nursing homes. More specifically, the goal of the study is to generate information about the design of social spaces supportive of social behavior in nursing homes.;Social spaces are compared with one another based on: (1) the social behavior they contain and on (2) four architectural characteristics (centrality, openness, stimulation, accessibility). Social behavior includes congregation, interaction and non-interaction, occurring in the context of organized activities (structured behavior) or spontaneous activities (unstructured behavior).;Results are based on behavioral observations, complemented by interviews, diaries, physical and contextual data. The sample includes 50 social spaces from 5 nursing homes. Fifty residents served as respondents for interviews and diaries. Case studies, a cluster analysis, and a log linear analysis are performed to analyze the results.;The main findings indicate that: (1) spaces where unstructured behavior dominates are more opened and central than others, (2) there is more interaction in sociopetal spaces (U or L shaped seating) than in sociofugal ones (linear seating) but this effect is curtailed when sociopetality is imposed (e.g. meal time), (3) residents use social spaces nearby their bedroom more frequently than those further away and distance is most influential on the use of spaces where unstructured behavior dominates.;A search for stimulation may explain why unstructured behavior occurs in open and central spaces. A passerby may see somebody in the space and be tempted to stop in. Residents may also go to open and central spaces because they provide a view on stimulating activities to "watch.";Previous literature suggests that residents sitting in social spaces to "watch" activities may do so because they are too impaired to engage in activities. Alternatively, this research suggests that they sit and "watch" for lack of anything better to do. Although both explanations may be true, the first takes a prosthetic approach focusing on residents' impairments whereas the second focuses on potentials for active behavior.;A focus on potentials for active behavior is needed to compensate for the overly prosthetic approach commonly adopted in previous literature.