waiting room stand up experiment

Neighbors blog – from Action Pact

Brain Game: Tendency to Mimic Behavior Can Lead to Positive Change

After only a few beeps, the subject began standing up with the rest. She was not rewarded or instructed to do so, but she did it anyway. Slowly all the other participants left the waiting room, leaving only the subject. She kept standing at the beep. Then as new subjects entered the waiting area, all but one person mimicked her behavior and stood at each beep.

We humans are funny creatures. We have a natural tendency to go along with the crowd. Perhaps wanting to fit in is a survival mechanism, or maybe it is a social thing. Regardless, the fact is that even without logical reason we will conform to the environment and behaviors around us. We see it in residents demanding clothing protectors, even thought they never used them before. We see residents head back to their rooms after the evening meal and, at the call light, race to go to bed even though they used to enjoy staying up in the evenings. Could this be an anchor that has held long-term care in its institutional mindset?

Doing what everyone else does is a powerful human trait, but maybe we can use this tendency to create positive change. If people are so strongly driven to replicate the behaviors they are exposed to, then let’s give them some positive behaviors to grab ahold. And this goes for staff, families and residents alike. Look at an objective in your daily environment. What behaviors are mimicked by others? Are they positive ones? Are we building people up or tearing them down? The good news I see in the Brain Game experiment is that even when just one person exhibited a behavior, those around joined in. So it only takes one person to get something positive started.

We have the opportunity to use this human trait to make change, to plant seeds for positive behaviors and actions. If those around join in and behave the way we behave, then we can be a catalyst for change. However, we must be very consistent and aware of how others see us. If we are positive and supportive sometimes, and grumpy and talk about others behind their backs at other times, which behavior will others most likely repeat? Try playing some brain games of your own, and present those around you with positive behaviors. At the same time be very conscious of any negative behaviors you may be conforming to and speak up about them.

Share this:

Leave a comment Cancel reply

• Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
• Subscribe Subscribed
• Copy shortlink
• Report this content
• View post in Reader
• Manage subscriptions
• Collapse this bar

Course blog for INFO 2040/CS 2850/Econ 2040/SOC 2090

Social Experiment: Information Cascade

http://dailyoftheday.com/social-experiment-of-the-day-social-conformity/

The article and video (in the article) discuss social conformity. The video shows a social experiment that was done. A woman walked into an optometrist’s waiting room. The waiting room was full of other “patients” that were part of the experiment. A little after she sat down, there was a beep in the waiting room and all the patients stood up and sat down. The woman just looked around and after three beeps of this happening, she joined them in standing up and sitting down without knowing why they were doing it or even asking why. This continued for a while, and all the patients were called into the doctor’s office until she was the only one in the waiting room. She continued to stand every time there was a beep even when she was alone. Another patient came in (not part of the experiment/doesn’t know what’s happening) and observed her doing this, asked her why she was doing it which she responded to with “Everyone was doing it…so I thought I was supposed to,” and joined her in standing up and sitting down in the next beep. Soon the waiting room was full of new patients who all were standing up and sitting down after every beep without knowing why.

This is an example of an information cascade. The woman and every person after her inferred that the reason people were standing up every time they heard a beep was more powerful than their own private information so it made sense for them to join in standing up even though their private information gives them no reason to. They left their own information for inferences based on earlier people’s actions. The article argues that this is social conformity, but as what was said in lecture and stated in the textbook, it’s not always easy to tell an information cascade apart from social conformity. I don’t think the patients in the waiting room mindlessly followed the croud–i think they all thought there must be a good reason for everyone to stand up when it beeps so I will too. 

December 4, 2019 | category: Uncategorized

Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

Blogging Calendar

©2024 Cornell University Powered by Edublogs Campus and running on blogs.cornell.edu

• My presentations

Auth with social network:

Download presentation

We think you have liked this presentation. If you wish to download it, please recommend it to your friends in any social system. Share buttons are a little bit lower. Thank you!

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

The Waiting Room Experiment

Published by Douglas Robinson Modified over 5 years ago

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "The Waiting Room Experiment"— Presentation transcript:

In chapter four Solomon uses this principle to summarize and emphasize what he has said in the first three chapters. Personal note: As an experienced educator.

WELCOME TO TUESDAY’S CHAPEL LESSON. ROCK OF AGES THERE IS NO ROCK, THERE IS NO GOD LIKE OUR GOD NO OTHER NAME WORTHY OF ALL OUR PRAISE THE ROCK OF SALVATION.

Dig Site 18 A Really Bad Decision Exodus 32:1-30.

How Can I Know God’s Will For My Life? What Does The Bible Say About Knowing God’s Will?

Romans 12:2 “How do I get God’s best for my life?”

Rick Snodgrass. Proverbs 14:12 There is a way that appears to be right, but in the end it leads to death.

Proverbs 3:5-6 Trust in the Lord. Introduction:  “Trust yourself”  “Believe in yourself”  “Find your own strength”  “Develop self-sufficiency”

God’s desire for our life

Rod Thom. Chapter 5; “NEW COMMANDS and a NEW COVENANT.

JAMES (Series) FOLLOWING JESUS THROUGH LIFE’S OBSTACLE S! James 1:5- 18.

Closing the Door on satan: Battling Pressures Genesis 4:7.

CHANGE The irresistible force A 12 Step Program for Change 1.Ponder you motivation 2.Position yourself for change 3.Prepare to change by study 4.Purposely.

OUR MISSION: To guide those far from God into the new start found in Jesus Christ.

The Way of Wisdom Proverbs 4:  In our last lesson (Proverbs 2-3) we saw how to get wisdom:  You must value wisdom and diligently search for it.

Influence Definition: Influence is the capacity to have an effect on the character, development, or behavior of someone else.

or.. How to keep your shopping cart from swerving. Making Good Decisions?

PURPOSE DRIVEN LIFE “Don’t Waste Your Life”. “Be careful how you live, not as fools but as those who are wise. Make the most of every opportunity for.

VICTIMS OF CIRCUMSTANCE?

 Instrumental music  “modes” of baptism  Women leadership  Plan of salvation  Church organization  Church centralization  Praying to saints  Falling.

Supplication James 4:3.

About project

© 2024 SlidePlayer.com Inc. All rights reserved.

Where to sit in a waiting room: density, age and gender effects on proxemic choices

• Published: July 2002
• Volume 17 , pages 175–185, ( 2002 )

Cite this article

• Camperio Ciani A. 1 &
• Malaman M. 1  

167 Accesses

8 Citations

Explore all metrics

We studied proxemic behaviour in an hospital waiting room by recording who chose to stand and who chose to sit and which chair, row and position. We distinguished sex and two categories of age, mature and old. We found that fenales sit together more easily than males and more frequently chose to sit close, especially mature ones. Males tend to keep more distances from neighbours by standing up. In general, proxemic behaviour in a waiting room seems to be an indicator confirming the sexual startegies in partner choice described in the evolutionary psychology paradigm.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

No evidence for effects of fitness relevance or sex differences in a virtual hunting and gathering task.

Under pressure: the interaction between high-stakes contexts and individual differences in decision-making in humans and non-human species

Evidence of object permanence, short-term spatial memory, causality, understanding of object properties and gravity across five different ungulate species

Ahmed S. M. S. (1979). Invasion of personal space: a study of departure time as affected by sex of the intruder, sex of the subject, and saliency condition. Perceptual and Motor Skills , 49, 85–86.

Google Scholar  

Aiello J. R. (1987). Human spatial behavior, in Stokols D., Altman I., Handbook of Environmental Psychology , vol. 2, Wiley, New York, pp. 389–504.

Aiello J. R., Headly L. A., and Thompson D. E. (1978). Effects of crowding on the elderly: A preliminary investigation. Journal of population , 1 (4), 283–297.

Ajdukovic D. (1988). A conurbation to the methodology of personal space research. Psychologische Beitrage , 30, 198–208.

Altmann I. (1975). The environment and social behavior . Brooks/Cole, Montery.

Altmann I. (1979). Property and territoriality, in Von Cranach M., Foppa K., Lepenies W. and Ploog D., Human ethnology: claims and e limits of a new discipline , Cambridge University Press, pp. 95–132

Argyle M. (1988) Spatial behaviour, in Bodily Communication (2nd edition), Methuen & Co. Ltd, London New York, pp. 168–187.

Argyle M. and Dean J. (1965). Eye contact, distance and affiliation. Sociometry , 28, 289–304.

Article   Google Scholar  

Baum A. Greenberg C. I. (1973). Waiting for a crowd: the behavioural and perceptual effects of anticipated crowding. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 32 (4), 671–679.

Baum A. and Koman S. (1976). Differential response to anticipated crowding: psychological effects of social and spatial density. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 34 (3), 526–536.

Baum A. and Paulus P. B. (1987). Crowding, in Stokols D., Altman I., Handbook of Environmental Psychology , vol. 2, Wiley, New York, pp. 533–570.

Baxter J. C. (1970). Interpersonal spacing in natural settings. Sociometry , 4, 444–456.

Beaugrand J. P. (1989). Osservazione diretta del comportamento, in AA. VV. a cura di Robert M., La ricerca scientifica in psicologia , Editori Laterza, Bari, pp. 187–243.

Becker F. D. (1973). Study of spatial markers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 26 (3), 439–445.

Bleda P. R. and Bleda S. E. (1978). Effects of sex and smoking on reaction to spatial invasion at a shopping mall. The Journal of Social Psychology , 104, 311–312.

Bonino S., Fonzi A., Saglione G. (1982). Tra noi e gli altri: studio psicologico della distanza personale , Giunti Barbera, Firenze.

Burgoon J. K. (1991). Relational message interpretation of touch, conversational distance, and posture. Journal of Nonverbal behavior , 15(4), 233–259.

Buss D. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures, in Behavioural and Brain Sciences , 12, 1–49.

Buss D. M. (1994). Evolution of desire , Basic Books

Buss D. M. and Schmitt D. P. (1993). Sexual strategy theory: an evolutionary perspective on human mating, in Psychological Review , 100 (2), 204–232.

Camperio Ciani A. (1983). Ecologia e comportamento di Macaca mulatta a Simla (India): grooming e plasticità sociale , in Antropologia contemporanea , 6 (3), 275–284.

Dobbs J. M., Stokes N. A. (1975). Beauty is power: the use of space in the sidewalk. Sociometry , 38 (4), 551–557.

De Long A. (1970). The micro-spatial structure of the older person: some implications of planning the social and spatial environment in Pastalan L. A. & Carson D. H., Spatial behavior of older people. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Eibl-Eibesfeldt (1989). Human ethology , Aldine De Gruyter, New York.

Evans G. W., Howard R. B. (1973). Personal space. Psychological Bullettin , 80 (4), 334–344.

Fisher D. and Byrne D. (1975). Too close for comfort: sex differences in response to invasions of personal space. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 32 (1), 15–21.

Gifford R. and Sacilotto P. A. (1993). Social isolation and personal space: a field study. Journal of Behavioural Sciences , 25 (2), 165–174.

Gioiella E. C. (1977). The relationships between slowness of response, state anxiety, social isolation and self-esteem and preferred personal space in the elderly. Disertation Abstract International, 38. University Microfilms , No 77-20, 743).

Hai D. M., Khairulla Z. Y. and Coulmas N. (1982). Sex and the single armrest: use of personal space during air travel. Psychological Reports , 51, 743–749.

Hayduk L. A. (1983). Personal space: where we now stand. Psychological Bullettin , 94, 293–335.

Hall E. T. (1966). The hidden dimension , Doubleday, Garden City, New York.

Hartnett J. J., Bailey G., and Gibson F. W. (1970). Personal space as influenced by sex and type movement. The journal of Psycology , 76, 139–144.

Heshka S. and Nelson Y. (1972). Interpersonal speaking distance as a function of age, sex, and relationships. Sociometry , 35 (4), 491–498.

Hughes J. and Goldman M. (1978). Eye contact, facial expression, sex, and violation of personal space. Perceptual and Motor Skill , 46, 579–584.

Kenner A. N. and Katsimaglis G. 1993 Gender differences in proxemics: taxi-seat choice. Psychological Reports , 72, 625–626.

Leibman M. (1970). The effects of sex and race norms on personal space. Environment and behavior , 2, 208–246.

Lockard J. S., Mc Vittie R. I., and Isaac, L. M., (1977). Functional significance of the affiliative smile. Bulletin of Psychonomic Society , 9 (5), 367–370.

Long G. T., Selby J. W., and Calhoun L. G., (1980). Effects of situational stress and sex on interpersonal distance preference. The Journal of Psycology , 105, 231–237.

Mackintosh E., Saegert S., & West S., (1975). Two studies of crowding in urban public spaces. Environment and Behavior , 7 (2), 159–184.

Malaman M. (1999) La scelta del posto in una sala d’attesa . Tesi di laurea in Psicologia non publicata. Universita’ di Padova.

Martin P., Bateson P. (1989). La misurazione del comportamento , Liguori Editore, Napoli.

Mc Burney D. H. (1986). Metodologia della ricerca in psicologia , II Mulino; Bologna.

Mehrabian A. and Diamond S. G. (1971). Seating arrangement and conversation. Sociometry , 34 (2), 281–289.

Mercer G. W., Benjamin M. L. (1980). Spatial behavior of university undergraduates in double-occupany residence rooms: an inventory effects. Journal of Applied Social Psychology , 10 (1), 32–44.

Morris D. (1977). Segnali territoriali in L’uomo e i suoi gesti , Arnoldo Mondadori Editore, Milano, pp. 126–132.

Polit D. and La France M. (1977). Sex differences in reaction to spatial invasion. The Journal of Social Psychology , 102, 59–60.

Pregnolato Rotta-Loria F. (1982). Spazio e comportamento: introduzione alla prossemica , Levrotto e Bella, Torino.

Remland M. S., Jones T. S., Brinkman H. (1991). Proxemic and haptic behavior in three european countries. Journal of Nonverbal behavior , 15 (4), 215–232.

Remland M. S., Jones T. S., Brinkman H. (1995). Interpersonal distance, body orientation, and touch: effects of culture, gender, and age. The Journal of Social Psychology , 135 (3), 281–297.

Ross M., Layton B., Erickson B., and Schopler J. (1973). Affect, facial regard, and reactions to crowding. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 28, (1), 69–76.

Rüstemli Ahmet (1991). Crowding effects of density and interpersonal distance. The journal of Social Psychology , 132 (1), 51–58.

Smith M. J., Reinheimer R. E., Gabbard-Alley A. (1981). Crowding, task performance, and communicative interaction in youth and old age. Human Communication Research , 7 (3), 259–272.

Sommer R. (1969). Personal Space: The behavioral basis of design , Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs.

Stokols D., Rall M., Pinner B., Schopler J. (1973). Phisical, social, and personal determinants of the perception of crowding. Environment and Behavior , 5, 87–115.

Sundstrom E. (1975). An experimental study of crowding: effects of room size, intrusion, and goal blocking on nonverbal behavior, self-disclosure, and self-reported stress. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 32, (4), 645–654.

Sussman N. M. and Rosenfeld M. (1978). Touch, justification, and sex: influences on the aversiveness of spatial violation. The journal of Social Psychology , 106, 215–225.

Townsend J. M., Levy G. D. (1989). Effect of potential partners’ costume and phisical attractiveness on sexuality and partner selection, in The journal of Psychology , 124 (4), 371–389.

Verticale M. S., Camperio Ciani A. (1995). Analisi della distribuzione prossemica tra i passeggeri dei treni. Tesi di laurea . Facoltà di Psicologia. Università degli Studi di Padova.

Winogrond I. R., (1981). A comparison of interpersonal distancing behavior in young and elderly adults. International Journal of Aging and Human Development , 13, 53–60.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Dept. General Psychology, University of Padova, Via Venezia 8, 35100, Padova, Italy

Camperio Ciani A. & Malaman M.

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Camperio, C.A., Malaman, M. Where to sit in a waiting room: density, age and gender effects on proxemic choices. Hum. Evol. 17 , 175–185 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02436369

Download citation

Received : 05 January 2001

Accepted : 10 March 2001

Issue Date : July 2002

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02436369

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Proxemic choices
• Gender study
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

• About Dr. Campbell
• Contact Dr. Campbell
• Dr. Kevin Campbell, MD: Comprehensive Mission Statement
• www.drkevincampbellmd.com

The Psychology of the Surgical Waiting Room: Personal Observations and Adventures in Waiting

All of us hate waiting in lines.  Our society breeds a “me-first” attitude.  Often the lines in which we wait are slow to move and, we become irritable and angry.  Somehow there is always someone who is able to outsmart the system and get served ahead of their place in the queue. In the typical queue at the grocery store, (or at the apple store genius bar) we become impatient because we want to get what we need and move on with our lives.  The surgical/procedural waiting room is an entirely different beast.  Here, stress, anxiety, uncertainty and fear serve to make even the shortest of waits seem unbearable.  Families sit crouched forward in their uncomfortable chairs watching the door in hopes of seeing the smiling face of their surgeon with every turn of the doorknob.  Here the wait may be rewarded by preservation of a life or, unfortunately, sometimes by a less desirable outcome.

Recently, I had the uncomfortable experience of sitting in the surgical waiting room in support of a patient, not as the physician breezing in to deliver the much anticipated news.  Needless to say this experience has left me wanting to better communicate with my patients’ families as they sit and wait for me to complete a procedure.

While waiting in support of the patient, I began to wonder how families cope with the surgical waiting room.   After a 2 hour journey through the pre-operative process, the patient I was supporting was eventually taken to the operating room and the real wait for family and friends began.  After saying our goodbyes, we were  escorted out to a bare bones waiting area and started to stare at the clock.  Most of my hospital experience has been on the “other side” of the restricted area–time always moved quickly there.  However, on the patient and family side, time crawled and the hands on the clock seemed to be stuck in place…In order to kill time and occupy my mind, I opened my laptop and began to research what had been written in peer reviewed journals concerning waiting for the doctor. 

What I found was quite helpful to me.

Much has been written about the psychology of waiting as it relates to medicine and doctors.  Several principles are common in literature:

1. Unoccupied time feels longer than occupied time –Lots of  friends came by and checked on our group while  we were waiting.  The conversation was a much needed diversion and stopped me from watching the clock so frequently.  In addition, I was on call and my beeper and phone had to be answered several times during the wait.  The occasional distraction from clock watching really made time jump forward a few times during the ordeal.

2. Anxiety makes waits seem longer –Boy, is this a true statement.  The procedure was not without risk. Pulmonary Embolus , tearing of venous structures , bleeding and other catastrophic complications were possible.  As I fretted, the clock seemed to stand still.  I began to run thru possible scenarios and how life would be different if a serious complication occurred.  During this time, I heard every click of the second hand on the clock.  The  surgeon called back to the waiting room and spoke to our group via his staff during the procedure to let us know what he had found and what his intraoperative plan was.  This really helped and significantly reduced our anxiety level.  The power of the single phone call update was amazing and will become a routine part of my practice going forward.

3. Uncertain waits seem longer than known finite waits –When certain expectations are provided, even longer waits become more tolerable.  Providing reasonable estimations of time required for a procedure really makes a significant difference in the quality of the wait.  Certainly, I try to provide family with a time estimate on the high side rather than the low side as to not produce alarm if the procedure goes longer than expected.  Our surgeon did just that and I appreciated the fact that I had reasonable expectations going in.

4. Solo waits seem longer than group waits. –Having support and company in the waiting room was essential.  Even though I think of myself as tough and able to stand on my own, one cannot underestimate the value of friends, family and clergy during the hours spent in the surgical waiting area.  Fortunately, all three support groups were available during our wait.

Luckily, our  story has a good outcome thus far.  The acute issue was successfully treated and an uncomplicated recovery is expected.   This experience has helped me grow as a physician.   I now have a better understanding of the surgical waiting room and the psychological stressors it places upon loved ones.   I have always emphasized good communication with family members in my practice but I think I can do a better job.  Going forward, I will make every effort to provide each family guidance for the wait.  I will strive to set reasonable expectations as to time, suggest family support during the wait, call from the procedure with updates and provide immediate feedback post-operatively.  Most importantly, I will share these personal observations with my colleagues, medical students, residents and fellows in hopes that they will provide the same courtesy to their patients and families in the future.

Share this:

4 responses to “ the psychology of the surgical waiting room: personal observations and adventures in waiting ”.

great blog Kevin! I too have been on the other end like yourself and I must say the feeling is an unbearable one at times. A needed distraction definitely helps.

Thanks for the comments. It is truly very different when you are on the “other side”. The experience can hopefully make us all better clinicians in the future.

Pingback: The Psychology of the Surgical Waiting Room: Personal Observations and Adventures in Waiting - The Doctor Weighs In | The Doctor Weighs In

Pingback: The Surgery Waiting Room and Patient Anxiety | ePatientExperience.com

Leave a comment Cancel reply

Search this blog, follow blog via email.

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Email Address:

Recent Posts

• Finding The Lost Art of Medicine (and myself) In the South Pacific: Service, Compassion and The Human Connection
• Back To Basics in Healthcare:  Barbershops, High Blood Pressure and Better Outcomes
• Trump, Sanjay Gupta and The “Goldwater Rule” :The Fallout From the President’s Latest Health Report
• The CDC Bans Words “Science Based” and “Evidence Based”: Is this 2017 or 1984 and the Thought Police?
• CVS, Aetna and REM: It’s The End Of The {Healthcare} World As We Know it

Social Media

• January 2018
• December 2017
• November 2017
• October 2017
• August 2017
• February 2017
• January 2017
• December 2016
• November 2016
• October 2016
• September 2016
• August 2016
• February 2016
• January 2016
• November 2015
• October 2015
• September 2015
• August 2015
• February 2015
• January 2015
• December 2014
• November 2014
• October 2014
• September 2014
• August 2014
• February 2014
• January 2014
• December 2013
• November 2013
• October 2013
• September 2013
• August 2013
• February 2013
• January 2013
• December 2012
• November 2012
• October 2012
• September 2012
• August 2012
• February 2012
• January 2012
• Disparities in Care
• Doctor Patient Relationships
• Emotional Health
• Healthcare Reform
• Healthcare Technology
• Holiday Fun
• Medical Education
• medical ethics
• Optimizing Patient Care
• Physician journalism
• Professional Well-Being
• The Business of Medicine
• Uncategorized

Recent Tweets

• Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
• Subscribe Subscribed
• Copy shortlink
• Report this content
• View post in Reader
• Manage subscriptions
• Collapse this bar

• Infection Control

Improving the Patient Experience Starts in the Waiting Room

By Brandon Zauche

Consider the following scenarios that occur when people enter a doctor’s office. Patients open the door to the waiting room. They fill out paperwork using a pen provided by the receptionist. Maybe they make a payment on the office’s smart terminal. Then they sit down to wait, skimming through the magazines lying on a table.

What do all these activities have in common? In each situation, patients are interacting with surfaces that can contain disease-spreading microbes—all before they even enter the exam room. Waiting rooms can be a major contributor to infections, with patients waiting an average of 20 minutes before seeing a doctor, according to the Medical Group Management Association . In fact, the CDC reports that  one in 31 hospital patients  has at least one healthcare-associated infection (HAI) on any given day.

While this may seem scary, there are ways healthcare facilities can help prevent the spread of HAIs. One helpful tactic is using antimicrobial-treated products.

What is antimicrobial technology?

Antimicrobial technology can make surfaces less inhabitable to bacteria. This technology takes the form of agents that can be applied to products either during manufacturing or afterward as a protective coating. Antimicrobial protection can accomplish many things, including:

• Promote cleanliness— The technology can eliminate surface odors and stains caused by microbes, creating a cleaner and more pleasant doctor’s visit.
• Prevent colonization— Antimicrobial agents can prevent bacteria from colonizing on a product’s surface.
• Replace abrasive cleaners— With antimicrobial technology, staff will no longer need to use overly abrasive cleaners that contain harmful chemicals. This extends the operational life of products by reducing degradation of plastics and other surface materials.

The impact of antimicrobial technology

Antimicrobial technology is already being used within healthcare settings on surfaces that include mobile charts, surgical drapes, medical curtains, and hospital beds. Good candidates for antimicrobial technology in a care setting are anything that can be considered “high-contact” items—and this consideration should extend into the waiting room, which is filled with such items. Equipping waiting rooms with antimicrobial technology will shield patients from disease-spreading microbes, helping to keep them safe.

Another benefit of investing in antimicrobial technology is the chance to improve patient perception. Through good communication, including materials like signage, brochures, and mailings, healthcare providers can help patients understand that their facility has invested in antimicrobial technology and is therefore providing the best care possible—even in the waiting room. This helps patients trust their preferred healthcare facility even more, knowing they can seek care with less fear of infection.

Layering protection to keep patients safe  

While antimicrobial technology has numerous benefits, no single prevention method will eliminate the spread of HAIs. It is best to utilize layers of protection to prevent the spread of germs and bacteria at every endpoint. In addition to using antimicrobial-treated products and equipment as often as possible, facilities can increase their protection by:

• Following guidelines— Healthcare facilities can limit the spread of bacteria and disease by following infection prevention guidelines from the CDC and other regulatory organizations.
• Offering wellness stations— Facilities can offer stations for patient and visitor use that include tissues, face masks, hand sanitizer, and/or handwashing sinks.
• Maintaining and enforcing policies— Healthcare organizations should enforce regular handwashing policies for staff.
• Educating patients— Through posters and brochures, providers can educate their patients on the spread of disease to encourage better prevention practices.
• Designating space— Hospitals and healthcare facilities should consider designating space in waiting areas for those who are sick vs. those who are visiting the facility for a wellness visit.

Patients go to care facilities to get treated for an illness and should feel safe while they are there. From their first step through the door, patients put their full trust in the doctors and staff around them to prioritize their health. This should include not only treating their current illnesses but also preventing new risks. While health systems make great efforts to keep patients safe, the waiting room is an area that’s more overlooked than it should be—and one where antimicrobial treatment at checkout stations and on payment terminals can help.

Brandon Zauche is an account executive with Ingenico.

Be the Expert! Share this: