Abstract
Objectives Assess the impact of single rooms versus multioccupancy accommodation on inpatient health-care outcomes and processes.
Design Systematic review.
Setting Hospitals and secondary care units.
Participants Inpatients receiving routine, emergency, high-dependency, or intensive care with a named type of hospital accommodation.
Main outcome measures Qualitative synthesis of findings.
Results Of 4,861 citations initially identified, 215 were deemed suitable for full-text review, of which 145 were judged to be relevant to this review. Five main method types were reported: 60 before - and-after comparisons, 75 contemporaneous comparisons, 18 qualitative studies of accommodation preferences, 10 evidence syntheses. All studies had methodological issues that potentially biased the results by not adjusting for confounding factors that are likely to have contributed to the outcomes. Ninety-two papers compared clinical outcomes for patients in single rooms versus shared accommodation, but no clearly consistent conclusions could be drawn about overall benefits of single rooms versus shared accommodation (multioccupancy rooms, bays, or wards). Single rooms were most likely to be associated with a small overall clinical benefit for the most severely ill patients, especially neonates in intensive care. Patients who preferred single rooms tended to do so for privacy, and for reduced disturbances. By contrast, men, older adults, children, and adolescents were more likely to prefer shared accommodation to avoid loneliness. While shared accommodation seemed to be the most cost-effective approach for construction, greater costs associated with building single rooms were small and likely to be recouped over time by other efficiencies.
Conclusions The lack of difference between inpatient accommodation types in a large number of studies suggests that there would be little effect on clinical outcomes, particularly in routine care. Patients in intensive care areas are most likely to benefit from single rooms. Most patients preferred single rooms for privacy and some preferred shared accommodation for avoiding loneliness.
What is already known on this topic
The effects of single rooms versus shared accommodation on hospital inpatients’ outcomes are not well understood
Many studies are qualitative or narrative because randomised controlled trials are not practical and most comparative studies have only become possible after relocation to new facilities
This systematic review investigated the potential range of impacts that inpatient single rooms and shared accommodation have on the health-care processes, outcomes, and costs
What this study adds
The evidence, though extensive, revealed no clear advantage for one type of inpatient hospital accommodation for many of the areas assessed.
There was weak evidence indicating advantages for single bedrooms in some areas, such as lower risk of hospital acquired infection in adult intensive care and a range of outcomes in neonatal intensive care.
Most patients preferred single rooms for privacy and some preferred shared accommodation for avoiding loneliness.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Clinical Protocols
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=311689
Funding Statement
This study was funded by Department of Health and Social Care
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
The Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, the Sergey Brin Family Foundation, California Institute of Technology, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Imperial College London, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Stanford University, University of Washington, and Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.