The Future of Hospital Sound: Transforming Healthcare Through Sound Experience
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.47513/mmd.v12i1.708Abstract
Several years ago, a classically trained electronic musician got sick and spent many hours in hospitals. Being a musician, sensitive to sound, she was disturbed by the noise around her: people talking and screaming, doors getting slammed, phones and pagers ringing non-stop, overhead speakers announcing emergencies… and the cacophony of alarms beeping in the dissonance of tritones. Since then, she and her husband (co-author and innovation policy researcher) have embarked on a mission to transform sound experience in hospitals, in collaboration with Johns Hopkins Sibley Memorial Hospital, Stanford Medicine X, TEDMED, and medical device companies.
When we listen to people talking about sound, their stories are always more than about sound; they reveal what it means to be a human during the most vulnerable times of their lives. In this article, we explore noise as a symptom of culture, how sound reveals the importance of caring for caregivers, the future of auditory alarm design, and the aesthetic realm in palliative care. These perspectives result from a human-centric (rather than technology-centric) approach to innovation, and how transforming the sound of healthcare means focusing on people and their experiences.
Riferimenti bibliografici
Nightingale F. Notes on nursing: What it is, and what it is not. Reprint. Mineola, NY: Dover; 1969. 47.
Sen, A. Island+Bridge: How transformative innovation is organized in the federal government. Sci Public Policy. 2017; 44(5): 707–721
Nelson RR, Winter SG. An evolutionary theory of economic change. Cambridge, MA: Belknap press; 1982.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Frascati manual: Proposed standard practice for surveys on research and experimental development. Paris, France: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development; 2015.
Abernathy WJ, Utterback JM. Patterns of industrial innovation. Technol Rev. 1978; 80(7): 40-47.
Nowotny H, Scott P, Gibbons M. Re-thinking science: Knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty. Cambridge, UK: Polity; 2001.
Wickson F, Carew A, Russell A. (2006). Transdisciplinary research: Characteristics, quandaries and quality. Futures. 2006; 38(9): 1046–1059.
Madni A. Transdisiplinarity: Reaching beyond disciplines to find connections. Journal of Integrated Design & Process Science. 2007; 11(1): 1-11.
Funtowicz SO, Ravetz, JR. Science for the post-normal age. Futures. 1993; 25(7): 739-755.
Hill CT. The Post-Scientific Society. Issues Sci Technol. 2007; 24(1): 78-84.
Di Stefano G, Gambardella A, Verona G. Technology push and demand pull perspectives in innovation studies: Current findings and future research directions. Res Policy. 2012; 41(8): 1283-1295.
Butler D. Translational research: Crossing the valley of death. Nature. 2008; 453:840-842.
Hymes D. Two types of linguistic relativity. In: Bright W, ed. Sociolinguistics. The Hague, NL: Mouton; 1966: 114–158.
Rittel H, Webber M. Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning. Policy Sciences. 1973; 4:155-169.
Page SE. The Difference: How the Power of Diversity Creates Better Groups, Firms, Schools, and Societies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; 2007.
Sclove R. Reinventing technology assessment: A 21st century model. Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars; 2010.
Ibid.
Sharma A. Professional as Agent: Knowledge Asymmetry in Agency Exchange. Acad Manage Rev. 1997; 22(3): 758-798.
Shabani P, Omid A. Democracy, Power and Legitimacy: The Critical Theory of Jürgen Habermas. Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press; 2003.
IDEO. Design Kit: Extremes and Mainstreams. Available at: http://www.designkit.org/methods/45 Accessed on June 10, 2019
