Arquitetura hospitalar: estudo microbiológico e qualidade ambiental

Abstract

The environments of Human Health Care Institutions are directly related to the permanency rates of microorganisms and, consequently, representing a risk to the spread of infectious diseases. The dynamics of microbial communities, in association with building structures and hospital architectural design, are scarcely explored. This project was concerned with investigating and discussing the priorities of hospital architecture/design in relation to microbial contamination or innocuity. Moreover, the reflection that is being allowed is: can Architecture make people different? Can Architecture be another hospital tool in the fight against diseases? Can Architecture contribute to healing? Two complementary parts were identified during the research: The first, main focus, 10 environments, with imprint collection from the microbial community before, during, and after the architectural reform, with identification and qualification of the environment. The second, with exposure of the architecture/design as an instrument of humanization, providing hospital environment more welcoming, using it as an effective tool in balancing and achieving environmental quality. The results were as follows: 1) It was possible to observe that all environments were contaminated with high microbial load, ranging from 80 to >400 UFC, especially ones with the worst quality; in the 1st Collection, access door and examination room (>400 UFC); in the 2nd Collection, access door and reception bathroom (>400 UFC). Considering the environments with lower microbial load, the following areas were observed: in the 1st Collection, reception bathroom (80 UFC); in the 2nd Collection, old bathrooms of employee and doctor (24 UFC). After all the construction procedures, as well as the implementation of control measures for disinfecting the environment, it was possible to observe a negative microbial load in all scenarios of the 3rd collection; 2) The insertion of hospital architecture as a humanized environment. It is not possible to measure the environmental quality, but with the new project, environments were added that would accommodate functions either for workers in the area, or for patients, previously non-existent. They are: physical disabled bathroom, larger reception and for a smaller number of patients with exclusive care, bathroom for patients within the restricted area, pre- and post-operative, rest room for doctors and nurses with bathroom for exclusive use, cleaning material deposit, office for the care of patients and families, coffee area, and toilets. As well, the beauty transcends the idea of hospital environment certainly bringing a welfare to those who are there. Conclusion: The current research has clearly demonstrated the change in bacterial diversity in periods before, during and post-construction working activity, as well as the alert for permanent environmental surveillance by health professionals and managers, in order to bring less clinical impact and consequent public health problem.