Aim: To identify instruments measuring the quality of the physical healthcare environment, describe their psychometric properties.Background: The physical healthcare environment is regarded as a quality factor for health care. To facilitate evidence‐based design there is a need for valid and usable instruments that can evaluate the design of the healthcare environment.Design: Systematic psychometric review.Data sources: A systematic literature search in Medline, CINAHL, Psychinfo, Avery index and reference lists of eligible papers (1990–2016).Review method: Consensus based standards for selection of health measurement instruments guidelines were used to evaluate psychometric data reported.Results: Twenty‐three instruments were included. Most of the instruments are intended for healthcare environments related to the care of older people. Many of the instruments were old, lacked strong, contemporary theoretical foundations, varied in the extent to which they had been used in empirical studies and in the degree to which their validity and reliability had been evaluated.Conclusions: Although we found many instruments for measuring the quality of the physical healthcare environment, none met all of our criteria for robustness. Of the instruments, The Multiphasic environmental assessment procedure, The Professional environment assessment protocol and The therapeutic environment screening have been used and tested most frequently. The Perceived hospital quality indicators are user centred and combine aspects of the physical and social environment. The Sheffield care environment assessment matrix has potential as it is comprehensive developed using a theoretical framework that has the needs of older people at the centre. However, further psychometric and user‐evaluation of the instrument is required.

The physical environment is of particular importance for supporting activities and interactions among older people living in residential care facilities (RCFs) who spend most of their time inside the facility. More knowledge is needed regarding the complex relationships between older people and environmental aspects in long‐term care. The present study aimed to explore how the physical environment influences resident activities and interactions at two RCFs by using a mixed‐method approach. Environmental assessments were conducted via the Swedish version of the Sheffield Care Environment Assessment Matrix (S‐SCEAM), and resident activities, interactions and locations were assessed through an adapted version of the Dementia Care Mapping (DCM). The Observed Emotion Rating Scale (OERS) was used to assess residents’ affective states. Field notes and walk‐along interviews were also used. Findings indicate that the design of the physical environment influenced the residents’ activities and interactions. Private apartments and dining areas showed high environmental quality at both RCFs, whereas the overall layout had lower quality. Safety was highly supported. Despite high environmental quality in general, several factors restricted resident activities. To optimise care for older people, the design process must clearly focus on accessible environments that provide options for residents to use the facility independently.

Information and communication technology (ICT) can potentially support older adults in making decisions and increase their involvement in decision-making processes. Although the range of technical products has expanded in various areas of society, knowledge is lacking on the influence that ICT has on older adults’ decision-making in everyday situations. Based on the literature, we aimed to provide an overview of the role of ICT in home-dwelling older adults’ decision-making in relation to health, and health and social care services. A scoping review of articles published between 2010 and 2020 was undertaken by searching five electronic databases. Finally, 12 articles using qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-method designs were included. The articles were published in journals representing biology and medicine, nursing, informatics, and computer science. A majority of the articles were published in the last five years, and most articles came from European countries. The results are presented in three categories: (i) form and function of ICT for decision-making, (ii) perceived value and effect of ICT for decision-making, and (iii) factors influencing ICT use for decision-making. According to our findings, ICT for decision-making in relation to health, and health and social care services was more implicitly described than explicitly described, and we conclude that more research on this topic is needed. Future research should engage older adults and health professionals in developing technology based on their needs. Further, factors that influence older adults’ use of ICT should be evaluated to ensure that it is successfully integrated into their daily lives.

There is emerging evidence that the physical environment is important for health, quality of life and care, but there is a lack of valid instruments to assess health care environments. The Sheffield Care Environment Assessment Matrix (SCEAM), developed in the United Kingdom, provides a comprehensive assessment of the physical environment of residential care facilities for older people. This paper reports on the translation and adaptation of SCEAM for use in Swedish residential care facilities for older people, including information on its validity and reliability.

Aims: To investigate the associations between the quality of the physical environment and the psychological and social well‐being of older people living in residential care facilities.Background: Many older people in care facilities have cognitive and physical frailties and are at risk of experiencing low levels of well‐being. High‐quality physical environments can support older people as frailty increases and promote their well‐being. Although the importance of the physical environment for residents’ well‐being is recognized, more research is needed.Design: A cross‐sectional survey of 20 care facilities from each of which 10 residents were sampled. As the individual resident data were nested in the facilities, a multilevel analysis was conducted.Methods: Data were collected during 2013 and 2014. The care facilities were purposely sampled to ensure a high level of variation in their physical characteristics. Residents’ demographic and health data were collected via medical records and interviews. Residents’ well‐being and perceived quality of care were assessed via questionnaires and interviews. Environmental quality was assessed with a structured observational instrument.Results: Multilevel analysis indicated that cognitive support in the physical environment was associated with residents’ social well‐being, after controlling for independence and perceived care quality. However, no significant association was found between the physical environment and residents’ psychological well‐being.Conclusion: Our study demonstrates the role of the physical environment for enhancing the social well‐being of frail older people. Professionals and practitioners involved in the design of care facilities have a responsibility to ensure that such facilities meet high‐quality specifications.

Purpose: Organized care in specialist stroke units is fundamental for achieving better outcomes for persons with stroke. Although the importance of the physical environment for health and well-being is well recognized, research regarding how environmental features can influence stroke care is limited. The aim was to elucidate healthcare professionals’ experiences of the physical environment in newly built stroke units with respect to stroke care.Methods: Healthcare professionals (n = 42) representing eight professions participated in semi-structured, face-to-face interviews. Qualitative content analysis was used.Results: The physical environment both facilitated and restricted the professionals’ ability to provide stroke care. Five categories were identified: “Working towards patient engagement in single rooms”, “Hampered rehabilitation in an environment not always adapted to patients’ difficulties”, “Addressing patients’ psychosocial needs in the environment”, “Ensuring patient safety by using the environment in accordance with individual needs”, and “Collaboration and task fulfilment—a challenge due to care unit design”.Conclusions: The healthcare professionals viewed the physical environment mainly in relation to stroke patients’ specific needs, and several environmental features were considered poorly adapted to meet these needs. The physical environment is essential to high-quality care; thus, the process of planning and designing stroke units should be based on existing evidence.