ArticlePediatric quality & safety
The Business Case for Simulation-based Hospital Design Testing; $90M Saved in Costs Avoided.
Article in Pediatric quality & safety. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Optimisation of systems, safety and efficiency using simulation: a qualitative exploration of the value proposition for healthcare leaders.Advances in simulation (London, England) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Simulation-based hospital design testing (SbHDT) applied during the design of a healthcare facility ensures that the architectural design supports safe, high-quality, and efficient care delivery beyond applicable building code compliance. This prospective investigation assesses the financial impact of SbHDT in the form of cost avoidance. Methods: In designing a new free-standing 400+ bed children's hospital, SbHDT identified latent conditions early in the planning process to mitigate safety concerns related to the proposed design of 15 clinical areas. Architectural modifications were made to address concerns and resolve latent conditions before construction. The estimated cost of materials and labor to make an architectural change was documented for each architectural modification. Unit cost multiplied by unit count for each design element changed was summed together as total cost avoidance. Results: The cost to conduct the simulation was $1.6M (0.01% of overall project cost). Seven hundred twenty-two latent conditions were identified, and 57% of those latent conditions were mitigated by design changes. Ninety million dollars in costs were avoided by making design modifications before construction. Twenty-eight percent of latent conditions (n = 117) would have been cost-prohibitive to modify after construction. Conclusions: SbHDT harnessed evidence-based design to improve clinical care, optimize safety, and maximize investment. SbHDT was financially practical and had a significant impact on cost avoidance. Implementing SbHDT is associated with upfront costs, but long-term savings will accumulate over time through expenses avoided through mitigation of safety threats and operational savings.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.