Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Ambient Versus Traditional Environment in Pediatric Emergency Department
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Ambient Versus Traditional Environment in Pediatric Emergency Department
Do you wish to request the book?
Ambient Versus Traditional Environment in Pediatric Emergency Department
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Ambient Versus Traditional Environment in Pediatric Emergency Department
2015
Overview
Objective:
We sought to examine the effect of exposure to an ambient environment in a pediatric emergency department. We hypothesized that passive distraction from ambient lighting in an emergency department would lead to reduction in patient pain and anxiety and increased caregiver satisfaction with services.
Background:
Passive distraction has been associated with lower anxiety and pain in patients and affects perception of wait time. A pediatric ED was designed that optimized passive distraction techniques using colorful ambient lighting.
Methods:
Participants were nonrandomly assigned to either an ambient ED environment or a traditional ED environment. Entry and exit questionnaires assessed caregiver expectations and experiences. Pain ratings were obtained with age-appropriate scales, and wait times were recorded.
Results:
A total of 70 participants were assessed across conditions, that is, 40 in the ambient ED group and 30 in the traditional ED group. Caregivers in the traditional ED group expected a longer wait, had higher anxiety pretreatment, and felt more scared than those in the ambient ED group. Caregivers in the ambient ED group felt more included in the care of their child and rated quality of care higher than caregivers in the traditional ED group. Pain ratings and administrations of pain medication were lower in the ambient ED group.
Conclusions:
Mean scores for the ambient ED group were in the expected direction on several items measuring satisfaction with ED experiences. Results were suggestive of less stress in caregivers, less pain in patients, and higher satisfaction levels in the ambient ED group.
