Horizon of Medical Education Development

Horizon of Medical Education Development

The Criteria for The Optimal Architecture of Clinical Medical Education Buildings

Document Type : Original Article

Authors
kiavash ghazvini 1
Mahdi Zandieh 2
Mohsen vafamehr 3
1 Department of Civil and architecture,, Shirvan Branch, Islamic Azad University, Shirvan, Iran
2 Department of Architecture, Faculty of Architecture and Urbanism, Imam Khomeini International University (IKIU), Qazvin, Iran
3 Department of Architecture, School of Architecture and environmental design, Iran University of Science and Technology (IUST), Tehran, IRAN
10.22038/hmed.2025.85592.1476
Abstract
Introduction: The architecture of healthcare spaces is highly complex, and this complexity intensifies when these spaces are also intended for educational purposes. This study introduces key criteria for optimizing architectural design and systematic decision-making in addressing the intricate challenges of designing clinical education spaces in medical facilities.
Materials&Methods:In this research, a multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) approach was employed to systematically design clinical education spaces. Key design criteria and their corresponding sub-criteria for medical clinical education spaces were identified. Structured surveys and interviews with stakeholders were conducted to perform pairwise comparisons for evaluating the relative importance of the criteria. The results of these pairwise comparisons were synthesized into a super matrix, capturing interdependencies and feedback among the criteria, ultimately calculating the overall weights and rankings of each criterion.
Results: Six key criteria for medical facility design, along with their corresponding sub-criteria, were identified in the studies: functionality and spatial organization, patient-centered/student-centered design, safety and compliance, sustainability and environmental considerations, staff efficiency and well-being, and technology integration. The Analytic Network Process (ANP), a method within the MCDM framework, revealed that functionality and spatial efficiency emerged as the most critical criteria for the design of healthcare/educational buildings, with a global weight of 32%. This finding underscores the significance of efficient spatial planning and workflow optimization. Patient-oriented/student-oriented design ranked second with a weight of 27%, highlighting the priority of enhancing the comfort and experience of both patients and students. Safety and compliance with standards ranked third at 18%, followed by sustainability and environmental considerations at 12%.
Conclusion: This research indicates that the most important criteria for designing healthcare/educational buildings are spatial functionality, patient-/student-oriented design, and safety and standards compliance. The findings emphasize the need for balancing these three aspects in the architectural design of healthcare/educational facilities.

Acknowledgments:The authors would like to express their sincere gratitude to the medical students of Mashhad University of Medical Sciences and the architecture faculty members of the Islamic Azad University, Shirvan Branch, for their valuable participation in the tests and surveys that made this study possible.

Availability of data and materials:The datasets analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Conflicts of interest: The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Consent for publication: Not applicable.

Ethical approval and consent to participate:Although this study was exempt from formal ethics committee approval, written informed consent for participation and voice recording was obtained from all participants. Participants were informed that their participation was entirely voluntary. Data were analyzed and reported anonymously and confidentially.The study was conducted in accordance with the ethical principles outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki.

Funding:The authors declare no competing interests regarding the publication of this manuscript.

Authors’ Contributions:K. Ghazvini: Conceptualization (50%), Study design (60%), Data collection and/or processing (70%), Analysis and/or interpretation (60%), Writing - original draft (80%), Critical review and editing (70%), Finalization (60%), Accountability for all aspects of the work (60%). M. Zandieh: Conceptualization (25%), Study design (30%), Data collection and/or processing (15%), Analysis and/or interpretation (20%), Writing - original draft (10%), Critical review and editing (20%), Finalization (20%), Accountability for all aspects of the work (20%). M. Vofamehr: Conceptualization (25%), Study design (10%), Data collection and/or processing (15%), Analysis and/or interpretation (20%), Writing - original draft (10%), Critical review and editing (10%), Finalization (20%), Accountability for all aspects of the work (20%).

Open Access Policy: This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0), which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, adaptation, distribution, and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original author(s) and source are properly credited. To view a copy of this licence, visit.
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0
Keywords
architectural design
clinical medical education buildings
multi-criteria decision making
Analytic Network Process (ANP)
1.Gripko M, Joseph A, MohammadiGorji S. Effects of the physical environment on children and families in hospital-based emergency departments: a systematic literature review. J Environ Psychol. 2023;86:101970. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2023.101970.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2023.101970
PMid:37366532 PMCid:PMC10292152
2.Ulrich R, Zimring C, Choudhary R. The role of the physical environment in the hospital of the21stcentury:aonce-in-a-lifetime opportunity. Concord (CA): The Center for Health Design; 2004.
3. Saaty TL. Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. Int J Serv Sci. 2008;1(1):83-98.https://doi.org/10.1504/IJSSCI.2008.017590
4.Saaty TL, Vargas LG. Decision making with the analytic network process: economic, political, social and technological applications with benefits, opportunities, costs, and risks. New York: Springer; 2006.
5.Corsini F, Laurenti R, Meinherz F, Appio FP, Mora L. The advent of practice theories in research on sustainable consumption: past, current and future directions of the field. Sustainability.2019;11(2):341. doi:10.3390/su11020341.https://doi.org/10.3390/su11020341
6.Salgado EG, Lopes MM, Silva CA. Application of the analytic network process in evaluating sustainable design criteria for hospital buildings. Build Environ. 2021;195:107761. doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2021.107761
7.Chatterjee P, Kar SK. Application of hybrid MCDM techniques for architectural design assessment in healthcare facilities. Oper Res Perspect.2020;7:100171. doi:10.1016/j.orp.2020.100171https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orp.2020.100171 
8.Harputlugil T, Gültekin A, Prins M, Topcu I. Architectural design quality assessment based on analytic hierarchy process: a case study. METU J Fac Archit. 2014;31:139-161. doi:10.4305/METU.JFA.2014.2.8https://doi.org/10.4305/METU.JFA.2014.2.8
9.Saaty TL. Decision making-the analytic hierarchy and network processes (AHP/ANP). J Syst Sci Syst Eng. 2004;13(1):1-35. doi:10.1007/s11518-006-0151-5https://doi.org/10.1007/s11518-006-0151-5 
10. Lee YS, Kim SH, Park JW. Evaluation of sustainable design indicators for office buildings: a comparative study. Build Environ. 2016;105:242-251. doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2016.05.012
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2016.05.012
11.Eryürük Ş, Kürüm Varolgüneş F, Varolgüneş S. Assessment of stakeholder satisfaction as additive to improve building design quality: AHP-based approach. J Hous BuiltEnviron.2022;37:1-24. doi:10.1007/s10901-021-09855-8https://doi.org/10.1007/s10901-021-09855-8
12.Govindan K, Khodaverdi R, Jafarian A. A fuzzy multi-criteria approach for measuring sustainability performance of a supplier based on the triple bottom line approach. J Clean Prod.2013;47:345-354. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.04.014
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.04.014
13.Ren J, Liang H, Xie K. Multi-criteria decision-making analysis of offshore wind energy project investment using an extended ANP method. Expert Syst Appl. 2015;42(3):1312-1324. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2015.04.010https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2015.04.010
14.Govindan K, Shankar M, Kannan D. Sustainable supplier selection: a multi-criteria decision-making approach. J Clean Prod. 2013;40:46-58. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.07.002https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.07.002
15.Bock EP, Nilsson S, Jansson PA, Wijk H, Alexiou E, Lindahl G, et al. Literature review: evidence-based health outcomes and perceptions of the built environment in pediatric hospital facilities. J Pediatr Nurs. 2021;61:e42-e50.doi:10.1016/j.pedn.2021.04.013
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pedn.2021.04.013PMid:33875322
16.Choi JH, et al. Effects of hospital design on patient safety and outcomes. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2017;14(2):102.
17. Calkins M. Designing for patient safety: guidelines for the built environment. Healthc Des. 2009;9(5):16-22.
18.Marquardt G. Wayfinding for people with dementia: a review of the role of architectural design.HERD.2011;4(2):75-90. doi:10.1177/193758671100400207.
https://doi.org/10.1177/193758671100400207PMid:21465436
19.Kellert SR, Heerwagen JH, Mador ML, editors. Biophilic design: the theory, science, and practice of bringing buildings to life. Hoboken (NJ): Wiley; 2008. 
20. Van den Berg AE. Nature and health: the influence of nature on social, psychological, and physical well-being. In: Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Research in Environmental Design; 2009.
21.Alvaro C, Wilkinson A, Gallant S, Kostovski D, Gardner P. Evaluating intention and effect: the impact of healthcare facility design on patient and staff well-being. HERD. 2015;9(1):81-94. doi:10.1177/1937586715605779
https://doi.org/10.1177/1937586715605779PMid:26446306
22.Institute of Medicine. Disaster preparedness. In: Hospital-based emergency care: at the breaking point. Washington (DC): National AcademiesPress;2007.p.195-221. doi:10.17226/11621https://doi.org/10.17226/11621
23.Zimring C. Sustainability and healthcare design. In: Sustainable healthcare architecture. Hoboken (NJ): Wiley; 2013.
24. Riley RL, et al. Indoor air quality and health in hospital environments: a review. Environ Health Perspect. 2002;110(1):61-69
25.Harris M. The role of water and waste management in healthcare facility design. J Environ Manage. 2014;137:171-179.
26.Carayon P, et al. Work system design for patient safety: the role of the physical environment. Health Aff (Millwood). 2014;33(5):838-846.
27.Lorusso S, et al. Impact of architectural design on healthcare workers' stress and burnout: a review of the literature. Work. 2020;67(4):927-935.
28. Agha L, Agha R. Smart hospital design: an overview of technological advancements in healthcare facilities. J Med Syst. 2020;44(4):71.
9. Ulrich RS, Zimring C, Zhu X, DuBose J, Seo HB, Choi YS, Quan X, Joseph A. A review of the research literature on evidence-based healthcare design. HERD. 2008;1(3):61-125.https://doi.org/10.1177/193758670800100306PMid:21161908 PMCid:PMC13024816
30.Yousefi, M. (2025). Architectural features of educational and medical structures in the era of Islamic civilization’s flourishing. Horizon of Medical Education Development, 16(1),1-6. doi:10.22038/hmed.2024.78784.1353(Persian).
Horizon of Medical Education Development
Volume 17, Issue 3
Summer 2026
Pages 64-53