A Review of Physical and Digital Mock-Up Applications in Healthcare Building Development
- What would the purposes of using PMU or DMU simulations be?
- At which phase of a hospital design would a PMU or DMU simulation be used, and what outcomes can be achieved?
- What methods can be used to conduct PMU and DMU simulations?
4.1. PMUs vs. DMUs
4.2. Limitations of Using a PMU or DMU Simulation
6. Theoretical and Practical Implications
- The clinical staff’s involvement is essential for mock-up simulations to facilitate their performing of specific tasks, which will help architects understand how the care model affects the simulated area in order to produce optimal design solutions.
- The healthcare design practitioners should be able to apply both PMU and DMU technologies and have the ability to select the appropriate one for some mock-up exercise or to combine their strengths. It increases the need for the integration of PMUs and DMUs. With the development of virtual reality visualization technology, especially immersive virtual reality technologies with various equipment, such as VR helmets and gloves, it is expected that the DMU techniques and methods will be improved signification.
- DMUs would be suitable to contribute to the biophilic design by testing and reviewing the variable design attributes in the design phases to enhance end-users’ health and well-being.
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
- Reiling, J.G. Creating a Culture of Patient Safety through Innovative Hospital Design. In Advances in Patient Safety: From Research to Implementation (Volume 2: Concepts and Methodology); Henriksen, K., Battles, J.B., Marks, E.S., Lewin, D.I., Eds.; Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality: Rockville, MD, USA, 2005; Volume 2, pp. 425–439. Available online: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK20491/ (accessed on 4 February 2022).
- Nemeth, C.P. Human Factors Methods for Design: Making Systems Human-Centered; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2004; p. 221. [Google Scholar]
- Marans, R.W. A multimodal approach to full-scale simulation—Evaluating hospital room designs. In Environmental Simulation—Research and Policy Issues; Marans, R.W., Stokols, D., Eds.; Plenum Press: New York, NY, USA, 1993; pp. 113–131. [Google Scholar]
- Hignett, S.; Lu, J.; Fray, M. Two case studies using mock-ups for planning adult and neonatal intensive care facilities. J. Healthc. Eng. 2010, 1, 399–413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Durham, J.; Kenyon, A. Mock-ups: Using experiential simulation models in the healthcare design process. HERD 2019, 12, 11–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Sachs, N.A.; Shepley, M.M.; Peditto, K.; Hankinson, M.T.; Smith, K.; Giebink, B.; Thompson, T. Evaluation of a mental and behavioral health patient room mockup at a VA facility. HERD 2020, 13, 46–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Evans, K.D.; Sommerich, C.M.; Sanders, E.B.-N.; Patterson, E.S.; Li, J.; Lavender, S.A. Opportunities for inpatient room designs that facilitate imaging professionals in providing diagnostic patient care: A mixed methods study. J. Diagn. Med. Sonogr. 2018, 34, 329–340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shultz, J.; Borkenhagen, D.; Rose, E.; Gribbons, B.; Rusak-Gillrie, H.; Fleck, S.; Muniak, A.; Filer, J. Simulation-based mock-up evaluation of a universal operating room. HERD 2020, 13, 68–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Pati, D.; Lee, J.; Mihandoust, S.; Kazem-Zadeh, M.; Oh, Y. Top five physical design factors contributing to fall initiation. HERD 2018, 11, 50–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Xiao, D.; Zhang, L.; Zhao, Y. Sensory design and experimental simulation of hospital interior space (in Chinese). Ind. Des. 2019, 9, 95–96. [Google Scholar]
- Wang, Y.; Liu, J.; Yu, T. Optimal design of the lighting in medical wards: A case study of Peking University International Hospital. CHA&E 2020, 21, 98–102. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Graves, E.; Davis, R.G.; DuBose, J.; Campiglia, G.C.; Wilkerson, A.; Zimring, C. Lighting the patient room of the future: Evaluating different lighting conditions for performing typical nursing tasks. HERD 2021, 14, 234–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- DuBose, J.; Davis, R.G.; Campiglia, G.; Wilkerson, A.; Zimring, C. Lighting the patient room of the future: Evaluating different lighting conditions from the patient perspective. HERD 2022, 15, 79–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rauen, C.A. Simulation as a teaching strategy for nursing education and orientation in cardiac surgery. Crit. Care Nurse 2004, 24, 46–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Okuda, K.; Quinones, J. The use of simulation in the education of emergency care providers for cardiac emergencies. Int. J. Emerg. Med. 2008, 1, 73–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Hilton, D.; Bentham, J.; Eastgate, R.; Cobb, S.; Wharrad, H.; Cable, R.; Cotrel-Gibbons, L. A Virtual Environment Ward Simulation for Clinical Education. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Technology, Education and Development Conference, Valencia, Spain, 9–11 March 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Watkins, N.; Myers, D.; Villasante, R. Mock-ups as “interactive laboratories”: Mixed methods research using inpatient unit room mock-ups. HERD 2008, 2, 66–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lu, J. Empirical Review of NHS Estates Ergonomic Drawings. Ph.D. Thesis, Loughborough University, Loughborough, UK, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Alexander, C. The Nature of Order: An Essay on the Art of Building and the Nature of the Universe, Book 3—A Vision of a Living World; Center for Environmental Structure; Routledge: Berkeley, CA, USA, 2005; pp. 177–190, 367–397. [Google Scholar]
- Remijn, S.L.M. Integrating Ergonomics into the Architectural Design Processes: Tools for User Participation in Hospital Design. In Proceedings of the International Ergonomics Association 16th World Congress on Ergonomics, Maastricht, The Netherlands, 10–14 July 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Healthcare Design Magazine. Mock-Ups: Giving Hospital Clients the Ultimate Reality Check. Available online: https://healthcaredesignmagazine.com/architecture/mock-ups-giving-hospital-clients-ultimate-reality-check/ (accessed on 4 February 2022).
- Lu, J.; Hignett, S. Evidence Based Design of Hospital Bed Space. In Proceedings of the International Ergonomics Association 16th World Congress on Ergonomics, Maastricht, The Netherlands, 10–14 July 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Carter, L.N.; Breunig, D.J. Inside information: Developing an effective design program. Healthc. Facil. Manag. 2006, 19, 31–38. [Google Scholar]
- Grix, J. The Foundations of Research, 3rd ed.; Red Globe Press: London, UK, 2019; pp. 89–94. [Google Scholar]
- Bryman, A.; Bell, E. Social Research Methods, 5th ed.; Oxford University Press: Toronto, ON, Canada, 2019; pp. 9–13. [Google Scholar]
- Carter, S.M.; Little, M. Justifying knowledge, justifying method, taking action: Epistemologies, methodologies, and methods in qualitative research. Qual. Health Res. 2007, 17, 1313–1328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Feast, L.; Melles, G. Epistemological Positions in Design Research: A Brief Review of the Literature. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Design Education, Sydney, Australia, 28 June–1 July 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Onwuegbuzie, A.J.; Frels, R.K. Seven Steps to a Comprehensive Literature Review; SAGE Publications Ltd.: London, UK, 2016; pp. 24–25. [Google Scholar]
- Green, B.N.; Claire, D.; Johnson, C.D.; Adams, A. Writing Narrative Literature Reviews for Peer-Reviewed Journals: Secrets of the Trade. J. Chiropr. Med. 2006, 5, 101–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Ferrari, R. Writing narrative style literature reviews. Medical Writ. 2005, 24, 230–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baumeister, R.F.; Leary, M.R. Writing narrative literature reviews. Rev. Gen. Psychol. 1997, 1, 311–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Peavey, E.K.; Zoss, J.; Watkins, N. Simulation and mock-up research methods to enhance design decision making. HERD 2012, 5, 133–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Traversari, R.; Goedhart, R.; Schraagen, J.M. Process simulation during the design process makes the difference: Process simulations applied to a traditional design. HERD 2013, 6, 58–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Bayramzadeh, S.; Joseph, A.; Allison, D.; Shultz, J.; Abernathy, J. Using an integrative mock-up simulation approach for evidence-based evaluation of operating room design prototypes. Appl. Ergon. 2018, 70, 288–299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Colman, N.; Edmond, M.B.; Dalpiaz, A.; Walter, S.; Miller, D.C.; Hebbar, K. Designing for patient safety and efficiency: Simulation-based hospital design testing. HERD 2020, 13, 68–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dunston, P.S.; Arns, L.L.; McGlothlin, J.D. Virtual reality mock-ups for healthcare facility design and a model for technology hub collaboration. J. Build. Perform. Simul. 2010, 3, 185–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Leicht, R.M.; Kumar, S.; Abdelkarim, P.M.; Messner, J.I. Gaining End User Involvement through Virtual Reality Mock-Ups: A Medical Facility Case Study. In Proceedings of the CIB W78 the 27th International Conference on Applications of IT in the AEC Industry, Cairo, Egypt, 16–19 November 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Wingler, D.; Machry, H.; Bayramzadeh, S.; Joseph, A.; Allison, D. Comparing the effectiveness of four different design media in communicating desired performance outcomes with clinical end users. HERD 2019, 12, 87–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dunston, P.S.; Arns, L.L.; McGlothlin, J.D. An Immersive Virtual Reality Mock-Up for Design Review of Hospital Patient Rooms. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Construction Applications of Virtual Reality, University Park, PA, USA, 22–23 October 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Drews, P.; Weyrich, M. A System for Digital Mock-Up’s and Virtual Prototype Design in Industry: ‘the Virtual Workbench’. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Symposium on Industrial Electronics ISIE ‘97, Guimaraes, Portugal, 7–11 July 1997; Institute of Electrical and Elecronics Engineers: New York, NY, USA, 1997. [Google Scholar]
- Hudi, J.; Spies, R. Integration of Digital Mock-Up and Multibody Simulation in the Product-Development Process. In Proceedings of the International ADAMS Users’ Conference, Berlin, Germany, 17–18 November 1999. [Google Scholar]
- Tideman, M.; van der Voort, M.C.; van Houten, F.J.A.M. A new product design method based on virtual reality, gaming and scenarios. Int. J. Interact. Des. Manuf. 2008, 2, 195–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, B.; Campbell, R.I. Real Time Integration of User Preferences into Virtual Prototypes. In Proceedings of the Design Research Society Conference 2008, Sheffield, UK, 16–19 July 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Weidlich, D.; Cser, L.; Polzin, T.; Cristiano, D.; Zickner, H. Virtual reality approaches for immersive design. Int. J. Interact. Des. Manuf. 2008, 3, 103–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Majumdar, T.; Fischer, M.A.; Schwegler, B.R. Conceptual Design Review with a Virtual Reality Mock-Up Model. In Proceedings of the Joint International Conference on Computing and Decision Making in Civil and Building Engineering, Montréal, QC, Canada, 14–16 June 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Halttunen, V.; Tuikka, T. Augmenting Virtual Prototyping with Physical Objects. In Proceedings of the Working Conference on Advanced Visual Interfaces, Palermo, Italy, 23–26 May 2000. [Google Scholar]
- Lämkull, D.; Hanson, L.; Örtengren, R. A comparative study of digital human modelling simulation results and their outcomes in reality: A case study within manual assembly of automobiles. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 2009, 39, 428–441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gibson, I.; Gao, Z.; Campbell, I. A comparative study of virtual prototyping and physical prototyping. Int. J. Manuf. Technol. Manag. 2004, 6, 503–522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Neugebauer, R.; Weidlich, D.; Zickner, H.; Polzin, T. Virtual reality aided design of parts and assemblies. Int. J. Interact. Des. Manuf. 2007, 1, 15–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Merienne, F. Editorial: Human factors consideration in the interaction process with virtual environment. Int. J. Interact. Des. Manuf. 2008, 4, 83–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Building Operating Management. Healing the Design Process. Available online: http://www.facilitiesnet.com/designconstruction/article/Healing-the-Design-Process--1629 (accessed on 4 February 2022).
- Building Research Information Knowledgebase. Beyond the Mock Up: The Value of Temporary Occupancy and Evaluation. Available online: https://www.brikbase.org/sites/default/files/aah_journal_v4p1_2001_oct_04_0.pdf (accessed on 4 February 2022).
- Healthcare Design Magazine. Children’s Hospital Boston: From the Mock-Up Room to Reality. Available online: https://healthcaredesignmagazine.com/architecture/childrens-hospital-boston-mock-room-reality/ (accessed on 4 February 2022).
- Building Research Information Knowledgebase. A Patient Room Prototype: Bridging Design and Research. Available online: https://www.brikbase.org/sites/default/files/aah_journal_v11_2008_sep_01_0.pdf (accessed on 4 February 2022).
- Healthcare Design Magazine. The Smart Choice: Test Drive Your Building Plan through Rapid Prototype Mock-Ups. Available online: https://healthcaredesignmagazine.com/architecture/smart-choice-test-drive-your-building-plan-through-rapid-prototype-mock-ups/ (accessed on 4 February 2022).
- Building Research Information Knowledgebase. Medical Simulation: Designing for the Future. Available online: https://www.brikbase.org/sites/default/files/aah_journal_v11_2008_sep_03_0.pdf (accessed on 4 February 2022).
- Terrapin Bright Green, LLC. Biophilia and Healing Environments: Healthy Principles for Designing the Built World. Available online: https://www.terrapinbrightgreen.com/report/biophilia-healing-environments/ (accessed on 2 May 2022).
- Facility Executive. How Biophilic Design Impacts Wellness. Available online: https://facilityexecutive.com/2019/11/how-biophilic-strategies-impact-wellness-healthcare-facilities/ (accessed on 2 May 2022).
- Create Street. Why We Should Build Beautiful Hospitals and How to Do It. Available online: https://www.createstreets.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Why-we-should-build-beautiful-hospitals_final.pdf (accessed on 2 May 2022).
- Ramadan, A.; Lu, J.; Tang, L.; Heath, T. Biophilic Design as a Medium towards Psychosocially-Supportive Design of the Outpatient-Clinics Settings. In Proceedings of the 2nd European Conference on Design4Health, Sheffield, UK, 3–5 July 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Grinde, B.; Patil, G.G. Biophilia: Does Visual Contact with Nature Impact on Health and Well-Being? Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2009, 6, 2332–2343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
- Ramadan, A.; Lu, J.; Heath, T. Psychologically-Supportive Design Stimuli [PSDS] to Promote Wellness through Healthcare Spatial Design. In Proceedings of the Well-Being Conference 2016, Birmingham, UK, 5–6 September 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Kozer, E.; Seto, W.; Verjee, Z.; Parshuram, C.; Khattak, S.; Koren, G.; Jarvis, D.A. Prospective observational study on the incidence of medication errors during simulated resuscitation in a paediatric emergency department. BMJ 2004, 329, 1321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
|Term of Mock-Up Simulation||Simulated Environment||Purpose/Intervention|
|Physical mock-up||Healthcare facility||Assessment|
|Digital mock-up||Health facility||Evaluation|
|Prototyping mock-up/model||Medical facility||Improvement|
|Physical/real-time prototype||Healthcare infrastructure||Functionality/function|
|Physical/real-time prototyping mock-up||Hospital department||Layout|
|Digital/virtual prototype||Hospital room||Clinical activity|
|Digital/virtual prototyping mock-up||Medical space||Efficiency|
|Model of care|
|Type of Mock-Ups||Authors||Purposes/Issues Addressed||Phases||Data Collection Methods||Outcomes/Achievements|
|PMU||Hignett, Lu, and Fray ||A cardiac intensive care unit and a neonatal intensive care, to determine functional space requirements for key clinical activities||Conceptual design, or design evaluation||Observation, video recording||The average functional space was identified. The findings were incorporated into government guidance.|
|PMU||Durham and Kenyon ||A low-acuity emergency department cubicle, to explore the design concept||Conceptual design||Feedback||A cubical size for a single patient and the options for converting the cubicles to multiple patient spaces were recommended. A preliminary departmental layout and equipment were also recommended.|
|PMU||Durham and Kenyon ||Medical–surgical and ICU rooms, to improve the designs by engaging users in the design process||Schematic design, or design development||Feedback||The locations of the wall-mounted computers and other wall-mounted items were adjusted based on the users’ feedback and the design team’s review.|
|PMU||Durham and Kenyon ||A medical–surgical room and an ICU room, to allow user reviews and final sing-off on space designs||Construction documents||Feedback||The location of selected light switches and the finishes in the rooms were slightly changed.|
|PMU||Sachs et al. ||A patient room and bathroom, to evaluate the design proposal||Design evaluation||Feedback forms (questionnaire) and listening sessions (focus group)||Detailed design of room layouts, furniture, daylight, materials etc., was evaluated qualitatively and quantitatively. |
A PMU was concluded to be an effective tool for design and evaluation applications.
|PMU||Evans et al. ||Prototype rooms for portable bedside imaging||Conceptual design, design evaluation||Interview and focus group session||Results suggested that a working area surrounding the patient’s bed for imaging is important. The designs should consider the imaging professionals providing the diagnostic patient care at the bedside and reduce the work-related musculoskeletal disorder risks.|
|PMU||Shultz et al. ||A universal operating room, to evaluate its layout||Conceptual design, design development and construction documents||Video recording (observation) and feedback (questionnaire)||Doors, booms, equipment, and supplies of the room template were relocated. The workstations were reconfigured. The recommendations were retested for the development and evaluation of the future design. It concluded that incorporating the recommended design changes resulted in better room functionality.|
|PMU||Pati et al. ||A patient room and bathroom, to look at the relationship of the role of the physical environment and patient falls||Conceptual design, or design evaluation||Video recording of the observed postures and in-depth query and expert critique||Five physical design elements of the room associated with clinicians’ postures were identified. Patient falls could be reduced through appropriate tests and reviews of the design elements.|
|PMU||Graves et al. ||A patient room, to explore and evaluate nurses’ perceptions of different lighting conditions in it.||Conceptual design, or design evaluation||Interview, a set of rating scales to measure the lighting conditions||Results provided nurses’ perceptions of the lighting distribution, favorable lighting zones, the use of colored lighting, and lighting at night. It would help architects understand the potential benefits and concerns of new features for lighting systems.|
|PMU||DuBose et al. ||A patient room, to explore how aspects of lighting were experienced and evaluated by patients||Conceptual design, or design evaluation||Questionnaire||Results provided patients’ perceptions of the lighting distribution, favorable lighting zones, the use of luminaire CCTs and colored lighting.|
|PMU||Watkins, Myers, and Villasante ||Patient rooms including acute care, ICU and isolation rooms, to test and establish EBD standards||Conceptual design, or design evaluation||Questionnaire and observation||Results identified space requirements, optimum clearances for operations, optimum room configurations, room size, room volume, the functional arrangement of furnishings, etc. Results also provided EBD guidelines.|
|PMU||Peavey, Zoss, and Watkins ||Three-phase PMUs for a medical-surgical patient room, to test the design assumptions||Conceptual design||Focus group, questionnaire, observation||Operational and design concepts, user safety, caregiver satisfaction, equipment usage, space utilization, and users’ experience were evaluated.|
|PMU||Traversari, Goedhart, and Schraagen ||An operating room, to evaluate the design for the optimization of the layout for workflows||Design development||Video recording (observation)||Results identified space requirements, optimum clearances for operations, optimum room configurations, room size, and equipment arrangement.|
|PMU||Bayramzadeh et al. ||An operating room, to develop a toolkit for design and evaluation of operating room prototypes||Conceptual design, design development||Observation and focus group||The paper described the PMU process in detail. An evaluation toolkit wad developed to help stakeholders decide the room size and zoning, the location of OR tables and doors, and visualize the workspace to provide feedback.|
|PMU||Colman et al. ||A set of full-scale cardboard mock-ups to evaluate the design of 11 clinical areas||Schematic design||Simulation-based hospital design testing (SbHDT) method, i.e., simulation scenarios, debriefing and failure mode and effect analysis (FMEA) scoring||The SbHDT method was described in detail to statistically identify and effectively mitigate safety concerns during the facility design. It demonstrated a collaborative process where clinical staff, architects and facilitators of PMU simulations better understood each other’s point of view.|
|DMU||Dunston, Arns, and McGlothlin ||A DMU for an existing patient room in the Bariatrics and Obstetrics department, to review critical design aspects||Design development||Feedback||The DMU reviewed detailed design aspects such as mobility of equipment; dimensions and placement of doors, windows and cabinetry; accessibility and safety of the bathrooms etc., helped stakeholders identify potential issues early in the project process and recognize the existing issues in the actual patient room. A HUB for the design of virtual healthcare environments would be developed.|
|DMU||Peavey, Zoss, and Watkins ||A DMU for an operating room, to gain user perspectives about efficiency and safety of the proposed design||Design development||Focus group, questionnaire||Results informed some of the design modifications and solutions to vacuum and telecom outlets (for operational flexibility), two universal booms, a fixed work station (for optimal visibility).|
|Both||Durham and Kenyon ||Rough PMUs of key rooms to review the design; the DMU of an operating room to allow users to stand in the PMU, and helped them fully understand the space and give their feedback.||Conceptual design, schematic design and design development||Feedback||The PMUs validated the proposed size and shape of the rooms and provided suggestions for improving the room functionality.|
The DMU helped users confirm the room size, shape and provide feedback on some key issues such as where to locate the booms, major equipment, and the nurse’s workstation.
|Both||Durham and Kenyon ||Rough PMUs and DMUs of the multiuse care room and infusion bays, to develop new room types, to test whether the new concept would meet the patient’s needs and be more functional.||Conceptual design||Feedback (handwritten notes taped to the walls)||PMU results confirmed that the design for both of new room types would meet the patients’ needs and was operationally efficient. DMUs helped users discuss with the design team their suggestions on how to improve the new room types.|
|Both||Leicht et al. ||A DMU of the pharmacy of a medical office building, to review the detailed design|
The on-site PMU just to offer the opportunity for different feedback from the DMU
|Construction documents||Observation and questionnaire||The DMU provided an opportunity for all stakeholders to have a review of two focus areas for the pharmacy (the cabinetry/casework and the electrical outlets), the equipment, textures and lighting.|
The PMU was used for comparison, but no outcome was specified.
|Both||Wingler et al. ||A PMU and a DMU of an operating room to compare different design communication media in helping clinical staff understand design information||Conceptual design||Interviews and focus group||PMUs may better promote a user-centered design process. DMUs seem less expensive, time-consuming, and labor-intensive media to support clinician engagement. However, DMUs may not be as effective for clinician evaluations of functionality.|
|Issues to be addressed||Room size, clearance for operations, room volume, patient safety and privacy, patient and family expectations and preferences, clinical activities such as manual handling, lifting, transferring, equipment/furniture arrangement, optimal layout, headwall, storage, position of en-suite, accessibility, infection control, and so on.||Room lighting, hand washing compliance rate, walking distance, staff planning; clinical productivity, staff work areas in a patient room, equipment/furniture, texture, storage, layout planning and evaluation, architectural features for infection control, patient capacity, bed capacity management, assessment of noise levels, emergency preparedness, biophilic design elements, and so on.|
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Lu, J.; Fu, C.; Zhou, T.; Xie, J.; Loo, Y.M. A Review of Physical and Digital Mock-Up Applications in Healthcare Building Development. Buildings 2022, 12, 745. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings12060745
Lu J, Fu C, Zhou T, Xie J, Loo YM. A Review of Physical and Digital Mock-Up Applications in Healthcare Building Development. Buildings. 2022; 12(6):745. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings12060745Chicago/Turabian Style
Lu, Jun, Changfeng Fu, Tongyu Zhou, Jing Xie, and Yat Ming Loo. 2022. "A Review of Physical and Digital Mock-Up Applications in Healthcare Building Development" Buildings 12, no. 6: 745. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings12060745