With campuses opening up and stimulating interactions among different campus users more and more, we aim to identify the characteristics of successful meeting places (locations) on campus. These can help practitioners such as campus managers and directors to further optimize their campus to facilitate unplanned or serendipitous meetings between academic staff and companies. A survey on three Dutch campuses, including questions on both services and locations, was analyzed both spatially and statistically using principal component (PC) and regression analysis. Four PCs were found for services (Relax, Network, Proximity and Availability) and three PCs were found for locations (Aesthetics, Cleaned and Indoor Environment). Personal characteristics as explanatory variables were not significant or only had very small effect sizes, indicating that a campus’ design does not need to be tailored to certain user groups but can be effective for all. The pattern of successful locations is discussed, including the variables in each PC. These PCs provide a framework for practitioners who want to improve their campus’ design to further facilitate unplanned meetings, thus contributing to cooperation between campus users, hopefully leading to further innovation.
Walking meetings are a promising way to reduce unhealthy sedentary behavior at the office. Some aspects of walking meetings are however hard to assess using traditional research approaches that do not account well for the embodied experience of walking meetings. We conducted a series of 16 bodystorming sessions, featuring unusual walking meeting situations to engage participants (N=45) in a reflective experience. After each bodystorming, participants completed three tasks: a body map, an empathy map, and a rating of workload using the NASA-TLX scale. These embodied explorations provide insights on key themes related to walking meetings: material and tools, physical and mental demand, connection with the environment, social dynamics, and privacy. We discuss the role of technology and opportunities for technology-mediated walking meetings. We draw implications for the design of walking meeting technologies or services to account for embodied experiences, and the individual, social, and environmental factors at play.
BackgroundTo improve transmural palliative care for older adults acutely admitted to hospital, the PalliSupport intervention, comprising an educational programme and transmural palliative care pathway, was developed. This care pathway involves timely identification of palliative care needs, advance care planning, multidisciplinary team meetings, warm handover, and follow-up home visits. With this study, we evaluate changes in patient-related outcomes and transmural collaboration after implementation of the care pathway.MethodsWe conducted a before-after study, in which we compared 1) unplanned hospital admission and death at place of preference and 2) transmural collaboration before implementation, up to six months, and six to 18 months after implementation. Data from palliative care team consultations were collected between February 2017 and February 2020 in a teaching hospital in the Netherlands.ResultsThe palliative care team held 711 first-time consultations. The number of consultation, as well as the number of consultations for patients with non-malignant diseases, and consultations for advance care planning increased after implementation. The implementation of the pathway had no statistically significant effect on unplanned hospitalization but associated positively with death at place of preference more than six months after implementation (during/shortly after adjusted OR: 2.12; 95% CI: 0.84–5.35; p-value: 0.11, long term after adjusted OR: 3.14; 95% CI: 1.49–6.62; p-value: 0.003). Effects on transmural collaboration showed that there were more warm handovers during/shortly after implementation, but not on long term. Primary care professionals attended multidisciplinary team meetings more often during and shortly after implementation, but did not more than six months after implementation.ConclusionsThe pathway did not affect unplanned hospital admissions, but more patients died at their place of preference after implementation. Implementation of the pathway increased attention to- and awareness for in-hospital palliative care, but did not improve transmural collaboration on long-term. For some patients, the hospital admissions might helped in facilitating death at place of preference.
MULTIFILE
