Article Text

One size fits all? Mixed methods evaluation of the impact of 100% single-room accommodation on staff and patient experience, safety and costs
  1. Jill Maben1,
  2. Peter Griffiths2,
  3. Clarissa Penfold1,
  4. Michael Simon3,4,
  5. Janet E Anderson1,
  6. Glenn Robert1,
  7. Elena Pizzo5,
  8. Jane Hughes6,
  9. Trevor Murrells1,
  10. James Barlow7
  1. 1Florence Nightingale Faculty of Nursing and Midwifery, King's College London, London, UK
  2. 2Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
  3. 3Institute of Nursing Science, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland
  4. 4Directorate of Nursing/AHP, Inselspital Bern University Hospital, Bern, Switzerland
  5. 5Faculty of Population Health Sciences, Institute of Epidemiology & Health, UCL, London, UK
  6. 6Independent researcher, Winchester, UK
  7. 7Business School, Imperial College, London, UK
  1. Correspondence to Professor Jill Maben, Florence Nightingale Faculty of Nursing and Midwifery, King's College London, London SE1 8WA, UK; jill.maben{at}


Background and objectives There is little strong evidence relating to the impact of single-room accommodation on healthcare quality and safety. We explore the impact of all single rooms on staff and patient experience; safety outcomes; and costs.

Methods Mixed methods pre/post ‘move’ comparison within four nested case study wards in a single acute hospital with 100% single rooms; quasi-experimental before-and-after study with two control hospitals; analysis of capital and operational costs associated with single rooms.

Results Two-thirds of patients expressed a preference for single rooms with comfort and control outweighing any disadvantages (sense of isolation) felt by some. Patients appreciated privacy, confidentiality and flexibility for visitors afforded by single rooms. Staff perceived improvements (patient comfort and confidentiality), but single rooms were worse for visibility, surveillance, teamwork, monitoring and keeping patients safe. Staff walking distances increased significantly post move. A temporary increase of falls and medication errors in one ward was likely to be associated with the need to adjust work patterns rather than associated with single rooms per se. We found no evidence that single rooms reduced infection rates. Building an all single-room hospital can cost 5% more with higher housekeeping and cleaning costs but the difference is marginal over time.

Conclusions Staff needed to adapt their working practices significantly and felt unprepared for new ways of working with potentially significant implications for the nature of teamwork in the longer term. Staff preference remained for a mix of single rooms and bays. Patients preferred single rooms.

  • Nurses
  • Patient safety
  • Patient satisfaction
  • Infection control
  • Human factors

This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt and build upon this work, for commercial use, provided the original work is properly cited. See:

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Supplementary materials

  • Supplementary Data

    This web only file has been produced by the BMJ Publishing Group from an electronic file supplied by the author(s) and has not been edited for content.

Linked Articles