Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rfdh20
Design for Health
ISSN: 2473-5132 (Print) 2473-5140 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rfdh20
‘Humanizing’ healthcare environments:
architecture, art and design in modern hospitals
Victoria Bates
To cite this article: Victoria Bates (2018): ‘Humanizing’ healthcare environments: architecture, art
and design in modern hospitals, Design for Health, DOI: 10.1080/24735132.2018.1436304
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/24735132.2018.1436304
© 2018 The Author(s). Published by Informa
UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis
Group.
Published online: 15 Feb 2018.
Submit your article to this journal
View related articles
View Crossmark data
ARTICLE
‘Humanizing’healthcare environments: architecture, art
and design in modern hospitals
Victoria Bates
Department of History, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom
ARTICLE HISTORY
Received 4 August 2017
Accepted 31 January 2018
ABSTRACT
In recent decades, hospital design literature has paid
increasing attention to an apparent need to ‘humanize’
hospital environments. Despite the prevalence of this design
goal, the concept of ‘humanizing’a space has rarely been
defined or interrogated in depth. This article focuses on the
meaning of humanization, as a necessary step towards
understanding its implementation in practice. It explores the
recent history of humanistic design as a goal in healthcare
contexts, focusing on the UK in the late twentieth century. It
shows that many features of humanistic design were not
revolutionary, but that they were thought to serve a new
purpose in counterbalancing high-technology, scientific and
institutional medical practice. The humanistic hospital, as an
ideal, operated as a symbol for wider social concerns about
the loss –or decentring –of patients in modern medical
practice. Overall, this article indicates a need to interrogate
further the language of ‘humanization’and its history. The
term is not value free; it carries with it assumptions about the
dehumanization of modern medicine, and has often been
built on implicit binaries between the human and the
technological.
KEYWORDS
Humanistic design; hospital
architecture; interior design;
arts and health; nature;
homeliness
Introduction
In the early 1980s, an article in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) made the follow-
ing passing comment: ‘of course we must humanise hospitals’(Bardon 1981). Its
casual use of ‘of course’is highly revealing, implying that this comment was
made in a context of general acceptance that hospital care needed reform. Calls
to (re)humanize hospitals in the UK had indeed increased over the post-war
period, and were part of wider international trends. In 1958, the French Ministry
of Health had produced a circular on ‘humanisation des h^
opitaux’, which articu-
lated the need for humanistic hospital care under a system of universal health
care (Nardin 2009).
1
Nor were these concerns a product only of welfare states. In
1981, architect James Falick wrote an article for Hospitals journal under the
CONTACT Victoria Bates victoria.bates@bristol.ac.uk
© 2018 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.
org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is
properly cited.
DESIGN FOR HEALTH, 2018
https://doi.org/10.1080/24735132.2018.1436304
heading ‘Humanistic Design Sells your Hospital’, arguing for the value of paying
attention to hospital aesthetics as well as function in the more consumer-driven
United States. By the end of the century projects seeking to humanize hospitals
were evident across the globe, from Japan to Brazil (Lewis 1983; Misago et al.
1999; Santos and Siebert 2001). Some of these initiatives focused on daily life in
hospitals or on specific contexts of apparent ‘dehumanization’, most commonly
maternity care. Many others advocated the humanization of hospitals in broad
terms, which included reference to hospital architecture, layout and interior
design.
References to ‘humanizing’hospitals were made in a range of social and polit-
ical contexts across the world, a fact that raises some questions about the mean-
ing of the term. Humanistic design undoubtedly had very different implications
when its end goal was to support universal hospital care in France in the 1950s,
rather than to ‘sell’a US hospital in the 1980s, but few commentators ever drew
out such differences. The term was widely cited across different decades, coun-
tries, healthcare systems and types of patient in the late twentieth century, but
often uncritically. Despite the increasing influence of humanization as a design
goal, the concept remains under examined. This article seeks to unpick some of
the different ways in which the term has been used in this period, in order to
understand better its rhetorical power and continued influence over hospital
design. It focuses on ideas about humanistic design in UK medical and design lit-
erature under the new National Health Service (NHS) in the late twentieth cen-
tury, a context that drew on design theory both from Europe and the United
States. The article also makes comparisons with these geographical contexts,
where relevant, to highlight similarities and differences in the meanings of
humanistic design.
The discussion focuses on the spread of humanization as an idea, rather
than its implementation. The multiple meanings and ideological underpinnings
of ‘humanistic design’are worthy of detailed attention in their own right. Part
of the value of understanding this language is, of course, that it will enable a
better understanding of trends in ‘humanistic’healthcare design in practice.
However, it is important also to remember that the growing influence of an
idea and practice are not synonymous. Indeed, for practical and economic rea-
sons, there were a number of limits on the extent to which ‘humanistic’design
principles could be implemented in practice, but this does not undermine their
ideological significance. In many ways, the principles underpinning humanistic
design were nothing new. It remains significant, though, that late twentieth-
century medical and architectural literature presented some of these fairly tra-
ditional design features in the new language of ‘(re)humanization’. This termi-
nology is highly revealing in its implicit opposition to the ‘dehumanized’
modern hospital, which operated as a material representation of modern
medical practice (itself also a construct in many ways). Such fears about the
loss of the ‘human’aspects of medicine with the rise of technologies also have
2V. BATES
a long history in the UK, but grew exponentially in the wake of the Second
World War.
The article begins with a brief history of the human as a design goal in health-
care environments, and an overview of its different forms. Its second section
considers three different ways in which the human has been defined by its
opposition to features of the modern, dehumanized hospital and, implicitly, to
aspects of modern medical practice. These different forms of ‘humanization’
were bound together by a shared goal of person-centred, rather than science-
or technology-centred, medicine. The ‘human’aspects of design have increas-
ingly sought to address the needs of staff and visitors, but patients have been
the primary focus of concerns about ‘dehumanization’and its effects (see
Bromley 2012; Gesler et al. 2004). The ‘human’operated as an umbrella term in
opposition to constructions of ‘dehumanized’medical care, with its apparent
loss of patient agency, individualism and holism. With the continued prevalence of
the language of humanization in healthcare design today, the political and social
contexts in which these ideas were initially produced must be acknowledged.
The human as design goal: a brief history
In 2005, the South Tees Acute Hospitals NHS Trust published a study of the ‘art
and science of creating environments that prevent illness, speed healing and
promote well-being’(Macnaughton et al. 2005). Designing for Health, this publi-
cation argued, necessitated ‘humanis[ing] the “inhospitable”hospital’in a range
of ways, including providing a sense of control, external views, positive acous-
tics, natural light, pleasant fragrances, bodily comfort, varied colour and private
space. The length of this list indicates the wide range of different design features
considered to humanize a space, and the way in which the term is often used as
an umbrella to include anything that makes a hospital less ‘inhospitable’. This
section seeks briefly to outline how and why so many features of hospital design
came to be clustered under the heading of humanistic design in the late twenti-
eth century. It also considers why such design was thought particularly neces-
sary at this time.
Historicizing the language of ‘humanistic’medicine is a significant task, due to
its overlaps –and sometimes interchangeable use –with terms such as ‘humani-
tarian’,‘humanism’,‘humanity’, among others (Penman and Adams 1982;
Kopelman 1999). It is not possible to do justice to these linguistic complexities
here. However, it is worthy of note that the very language of humanistic medi-
cine carried with it a much longer history of ideas about good medical care and
the relationships between healthcare practitioners, patients and communities.
Its root alone, ‘human’, carries with it the weight of big questions about ‘what
makes us human?’that connect to themes such as –among others –human
rights, identities, emotions, creativity, sensibility and culture (Bourke 2011). The
concepts of humanization and dehumanization in hospital design often rested,
DESIGN FOR HEALTH 3
albeit almost always implicitly, upon culturally specific assumptions about what
the human was and –in particular –what it was not.
This article’s focus on the late twentieth century is not to claim that humanis-
tic design was an entirely new phenomenon in this period. Ideas about the
importance of holistic models of health care, including healthcare environments,
of the value of spaces for reflection when unwell, of cheerful spaces and distrac-
tion for the ill, and of the healing powers of nature can be traced back for centu-
ries (Hickman 2009). The Lancet commented in 1866 on the ‘humanising
influence’of ‘neatness and beauty of arrangement in the wards’of one typhus
hospital (Anon. 1866). A number of the features later identified as ‘humanistic’
ideals were also evident in famous examples of Victorian design, such as Flor-
ence Nightingale’s emphasis on visual stimulation, nature and colour in wards.
They were also found in some outstanding early twentieth-century modernist
hospitals, despite the tendency later to align modernism with ‘dehumanization’,
such as Alvar Aalto’s famous Paimio Sanitorium in Finland and Berthold
Lubetkin’s Finsbury Health Centre in London.
It is possible to keep going back further in history, across time and place, iden-
tifying such examples of ‘humanistic’design. To claim that humanization was a
particularly important idea in late twentieth-century design is, therefore, not to
claim that it marked a complete break from earlier paradigms of health and
design. These longer histories are key to understanding why the ‘humanistic’
value of certain design features –such as arts, gardens and homeliness –were
rarely questioned. ‘Humanization’also, though, represented something new.
These design features took on a specific meaning in relation to the language of
‘dehumanization’and a perceived need to (re)humanize hospitals, which indi-
cated a new sense of loss. Humanistic design was constructed in opposition to
particular features of modern medicine, particularly technologies and practices
that diminished the patient’s voice or individualism. Such concerns about the
loss of the individual may have reflected some of the wider –albeit highly com-
plex and much debated –tensions surrounding modernity itself and its impact
on the individual; modernity, capitalism, industrialism and globalization simulta-
neously encouraged and threatened individualism.
2
It is also important to
acknowledge that this model of the ‘human’is culturally specific, with its focus
on the individual and self-expression.
The language of humanization seemed to grow in a wide range of contexts at
a similar time, often as part of wider critiques of Western health care and big
institutions. These trends related in part to social shifts that promoted social
equality and sought to provide voices for the marginalized (including patients)
in the 1960s and 1970s. Some work in this area came from philosopher and
priest Ivan Illich, for example, who is well known for critiquing the medicalization
of society and medical iatrogenesis in Medical Nemesis (1975); Illich travelled
widely and his ideas gained significant attention in Europe and the United
States. Perhaps less well known is that Illich published similar ideas in an edited
4V. BATES
collection entitled Humanizing Hospital Care (Turner and Mapa 1979), showing
how interwoven these wider critiques of medicine were with the hospital
humanization agenda. Although this collection focused on human relationships
in hospitals, rather than design, these two issues have never really been separa-
ble. Many of these broad, international contemporary critiques of modern medi-
cine came from outside of the profession. In the 1960s and 1970s, they raised
concerns about the growing power of medical knowledge, the rise of technol-
ogy and the consequent shift of patient from subject to object, and the shift
towards large impersonal large institutions. Many of these works focused on psy-
chiatric institutions (for example, Goffman 1961), but others made broader cri-
tiques of medical knowledge about the body and of clinical spaces (for example,
Foucault 1973 [1963]). As a high technology space, the built environment of the
hospital came physically to represent many of these wider critiques.
Mechanization and technology were particularly prominent themes of litera-
ture on medical ‘dehumanization’, and on wider social dehumanization. Con-
cerns about the negative impact of technology on human relationships and on
health in general had a longer history, famously articulated through modern dis-
ease categories such as the famous late-Victorian ‘railway spine’and First World
War ‘shell shock’. In the hospital context, the health benefits of technology were
rarely in doubt, but the implications of high-technology environments for expe-
rience and care –as opposed to cure –became increasingly central themes of
discussions about hospital operations and design. According to those who
made such critiques, the (increasingly voiceless) patient’s body was reconcep-
tualized in modernity as a system, with its faulty parts to be identified and
repaired in the hospital (now a ‘machine for healing’). As one editorial com-
mented in the American Journal of Public Health in 1978, neatly summarizing the
prevailing intellectual mood, ‘for the past century, the more rapid the advance
has been in technology, the less emphasis there has been on the caring and
human aspects of medical practice’(Korsch 1978). These kinds of comments
relied on the construction of binaries, between care/humanity and cure/technol-
ogy. Such ideas were undoubtedly problematic in many ways, and some
contemporaries recognized them as such. In a sociology-driven article for Medi-
cal Care journal, Howard et al. (1977) argued that ‘technologies of the health-
care industry can be humanizing or dehumanizing depending on how and for
whom they are applied’, but that they still had a negative reputation. ‘In light of
its humanizing potential’, they asked ‘why is technology so often considered a
crucial source of dehumanization?’In seeking to challenge this idea, though,
they acknowledged its power and prevalence.
Humanization was also emerging as an agenda in wider medical practice,
including education, and in other architectural contexts such as workplace
design. One Canadian commentator noted the link between hospital and wider
design trends, when it wrote that ‘internationally renowned architect Eberhard
Zeidler …saw increasingly complex hospital technology and scientific approach
DESIGN FOR HEALTH 5
threatening to turn [the] vulnerable human into a faceless case. It is not
mere coincidence that, in the wider world, the word in office design today is
“humanize”’ (Kimball 1984). Concerns about the human aspects of design and
health were thus part of a wider culture shift –with circulation of ideas between
the United States, Canada and Europe –and were not limited to the medical
sphere.
In the UK, such trends were connected to the rise of the welfare state
and its more egalitarian model of public services provision, in which the
human was collective as well as individual. Various practical considerations
also necessitated the rethink of hospital design under the new NHS, shaping
the specificmeaningof‘humanization’in the UK. The NHS had inherited
very diverse hospitals, with a wide range of design features and daily practi-
ces,andneededtomaketheseservethepurposes of the entire population
for the first time. In moving towards understanding and standardizing these
hospitals, the Ministry of Health and the independent King’sFundhealth
charity commissioned several reports to understand how hospitals operated
and their impact on patients. These reports, which gathered extensive feed-
back from staff and patients, indicate that pressure for change was not
always driven by external forces. As David Armstrong (1998)notes,this
‘series of reports and publications during the 1950s and early 1960s pro-
posed measures to humanise the hospital’. Armstrong argues that there
was no specific political or economic agenda to these studies, but that
they resulted in ‘a wide-ranging technical critique of the hospital’.Manyof
these proposed measures related to daily routines, but many others related
specifically to hospital aesthetics. Humanizing medical practice and care in
hospitals was inseparable from the environment in which that care took
place.
Overall, the concept of humanistic hospital design was inextricably interwo-
ven with ideas about good medical care. In some ways it emerged as part of
large international, cultural shifts, and in others was shaped by specific national
and local contexts including patients’own voices. There were some common
features to these calls for ‘humanistic’hospital care and design. One was a ten-
dency for voices from outsides the medical profession to be those calling for
change, even though many medical practitioners were also receptive to these
ideas. The second was a shared emphasis on putting the patient back at the cen-
tre of hospital design. The perceived need to re-humanize hospital spaces was
grounded in a sense of loss, in terms of patients’apparent increasing voiceless-
ness and lack of visibility as both individuals and communities, in modern medi-
cal care. While undoubtedly a simplistic construction of modern hospital
medicine, and not one that was universally accepted, it had power. This context
is crucial for understanding the very wide range of design factors labelled as
humanistic in the late twentieth century, which at first seem to have very little in
common beyond a general goal of aesthetic improvement. In practice, though,
6V. BATES
they were bound together in opposition to the ‘machine for healing’: a symbol
of modern healthcare practices.
Scale and the soul: the human in hospital design
The human aspects of hospital design stood together in opposition to a partic-
ular construction of modern medical practice, but they took multiple forms.
This section will explore three of the different aspects of humanistic design
principles, considering how they operated in opposition to three different
types of modern medical practice in the UK. First, it considers the human as
not-institutional; this type of humanistic space took form through the idea
of human scale and modelling hospital spaces on the village or the home.
Second, it considers the human as not-technology; this humanization oper-
ated through hiding technologies and prioritizing natural sensescapes in the
hospital. Finally, the article considers the human as not-biomedical; this form
of humanistic design necessitated environments that addressed patients’
emotional and holistic needs. These three forms of ‘humanistic’design
undoubtedly overlapped, but were also distinct in some ways: the term oper-
ated as an umbrella, embracing all design features that opposed modern
‘dehumanized’medical practice. This implicit opposition to ‘dehumanized’
medicine gave ‘humanization’its rhetorical and ideological power in late
twentieth-century design literature.
Reducing the scale of buildings was one important goal of humanistic
architecture in the UK. It was in line with European intellectual trends, many
of which situated the human in opposition to the modern and contemporary
rise of large medical (and other) institutions (for example, Foucault 1965
[1961]). Concerns about scale also reflectedtheproblemofagrowingnumber
of hospital beds in existing buildings. During the initial post-war hospital
shortage, medical journal The Lancet reported that a medical officer from the
Ministry of Health argued for the number of beds in hospitals to be limited
on ‘humanistic grounds’(Anon. 1947). The ideal hospital scale was thus
humanistic on two levels: it would give patients space and privacy within spe-
cific spaces, such as the ward, and it would be easy to navigate and familiar
at an overall level. This humanistic scale operated in opposition to a compel-
ling stereotype of the modernist or functionalist hospital, which was com-
monly represented as large, intimidating and unwelcoming. In 1994, an article
in the BMJ,oneofthemostinfluential publications in the medical profession,
noted that the ‘big block approach to hospitals’of the 1960s and 1970s was
increasingly being dismissed as ‘inhumane’(Dormer 1994). As urban scholar
Malcolm Miles notes, echoing this contemporary rhetoric, many twentieth-
century hospitals had offered ‘new dehumanised alternatives’to old
neglected buildings and led ‘patients easily [to] feel dwarfed by impersonal
vastness’(cited in Barclay 2015).
DESIGN FOR HEALTH 7
Architects drew upon some international design trends in advocating for a turn
to smaller scale hospitals. After a mid-century trip to Scandinavia, architect D. J.
Petty and senior medical officerRobertMacdonaldShaw–who later played an
important role in developing the Ministry of Health Hospital Building Notes –wrote:
There were a large number of interesting points we noticed which are only possible to
touch upon. Perhaps one of the most striking was the very pleasant sense of scale
achieved inside the hospitals. There was an air of quiet welcoming efficiency without
any trace of the institutional feeling. We concluded that two of the reasons for this
effect were the comparatively low ceiling heights …and the widespread use of natu-
rally occurring timbers. (Shaw and Petty 1955)
Although they did not yet use the language of ‘humanistic’design, this extract
seems significant. They placed emphasis on the use of scale and ‘natural’materi-
als, both of which would later be advocated explicitly as features of humanistic
design, to remove ‘institutional feeling’. Larger scales –echoing commercial
spaces –were more commonly advocated as humanistic in the United States,
where Sloane and Sloane (2003) note that the shopping mall was promoted as a
model for its ‘familiarity and accessibility’. Although some UK hospitals did follow
this model, medical and design literature indicates ambivalence about the
‘humanistic’status of such design. The rise of patient as consumer was impor-
tant in the UK, and linked closely with the rise of patient-centred medicine. How-
ever, models for humanistic design seemingly aligned more with Scandinavian
than US trends, and drew more on the home than consumer culture.
In the UK, there were two preferred reference points for the human scale –as
opposed to institutional scale –hospital: the home, or ‘domestic scale’, and the
village. Such models were undoubtedly not new. Creating a domestic atmo-
sphere, for example, had long been an explicit goal of hospitals for the aged,
dying and chronically ill. However, the reframing of domestic scale as a (re)
humanization tool was a new conceptualization of this design goal. In an article
in Architect’s Journal, Professor of Social Medicine Thomas McKeown (1960)
directly linked hospital scale to new models of egalitarian community health in
the UK, indicating also how the application of this concept related to wider
social trends. Building a hospital community and focusing on healthy environ-
ments to prevent –rather than just cure –disease, he argued, required architec-
tural as well as functional change: ‘This should be domestic rather than
institutional. This change can be made by reducing the scale of buildings, by
introducing variety of structure and design, and by separating hospital buildings
by other amenities –shops, restaurants, amusements, etc.’McKeown suggested
building a complex of smaller buildings in line with this vision. It is noteworthy
that McKeown was also well known for publications that questioned the role of
medical progress in improved life expectancy, reinforcing points made above
about the connection between critiques of hospitals and of general medical
care.
8V. BATES
The BMJ later echoed McKeown’s language of the ‘hospital community’,
when architect John Weeks advocated the village scale as the hospital’s social
and architectural model. Weeks (1985) supported the nucleus hospital as a route
to the humanistic village model:
The departments that make up a hospital community are separate parts of the organi-
sation, yet they depend on each other …[A] hospital can have the human scale and
easily remembered shape of a village if the designers try, consciously, to learn from the
physical characteristics of a village.
Weeks noted that the older hospitals on the pavilion plan –for all their faults –
retained ‘human scale’through their circulation patterns, but that this had been
lost with new buildings designed to house ‘modern high technology medicine’.
His article was therefore an explicit re-humanization agenda, and a case for new
uses of scale that went beyond the scale of individual buildings. In line with
McKeown’s earlier plea, this idea of the human scale operating at a community
level echoed changes within health care and society. Reading Weeks’ideas in
more symbolic terms, his architectural goals directly replicated the wider aims of
humanistic treatment: to build a community, while acknowledging the individu-
ality of patients within it.
The increasing emphasis on patient individuality was also evident in subtle
shifts in humanistic design goals. By the very end of the twentieth century,
human scale was increasingly broken down into different groups with different
needs. In this framework, the human was a more individual one and situated in
opposition to the perceived anonymity of large institutions. Devlin and Arneill
(2003) note that medicine turned more towards created specialist building types
in the final decades of the twentieth century. As part of this move, architects
advocated ‘human scale’and homely spaces to support wayfinding within units
for people with dementia. Dalke, Littlefair, and Loe (2004) observe that ‘scale
and perspective are crucial to understanding the design of environments for
children. Some external entrances are child-centred in scale’. In line with wider
shifts in the language of the human in healthcare and medical education (see
Bates 2017), the communal models advocated by McKeown and Weeks gave
way to uses of scale that responded more to individual patients’needs. Overall,
ideas about human scale operated in a range of ways in the late twentieth cen-
tury, but always in opposition to institutional scale. It produced (complexes of)
buildings and rooms that allowed for individuality and variety, hid the true size
of the hospital’s operations, and were not overwhelming for patients.
The human aspects of hospital design also operated in terms of aesthetics and
interior design. Again, such humanistic design sought to minimize the visibility of
modern medicine. Rather than counterbalancing institutional scale, such design
sought to counterbalance high-technology medicine. John Weeks (1985) wrote that:
[The patient] is thankful that hospital care is available, thankful to all the men and
women who administer care, and often awed by the brush with high technology
DESIGN FOR HEALTH 9
medicine. But we should not assume that architectural celebration of the high technol-
ogy aspects of medicine will provide a reassuring environment in most people’s per-
ception. In common terms a hospital should be “human.”But what does the word
mean? Hidden in the concept there are at least two major components, one organisa-
tional and one physical.
Physically, Weeks noted, ‘a human hospital is small, architecturally familiar, nicely
decorated, and made of brick with a lot of flowers and wood inside and lawns
and trees outside. It has a pitched roof and ordinary sized windows’. He did not
delve into his reasons for labelling these physical features as ‘human’, but implic-
itly aligned nature with the ‘human’and situated both in opposition to ‘high
technology’environments. Artistic representations of nature were similarly
deemed ‘humanistic’and constructed as a counterbalance to high-technology
hospital environments. The influential doctor/author William Carlos Williams, to
cite a review of his work in the 1970s, promoted the value of ‘art as a humanizing
agent in a technological world’(Sherman 1976). This moment in time, in which
the ‘technological world’needed ‘humanizing’, reinvigorated a movement to
incorporate both nature and arts in hospitals.
As well as representing the non-technological, arts and nature served a func-
tion for the holistic dimensions of health care by tending to the patient’s spirit.
Richard Burton (1990), writing on St Mary’s Hospital on the Isle of Wight, equated
human design in the ward with visual ‘interest’. He drew on cultural inspirations,
such as Monet’s‘“waterlily”garden’and Japanese meditation gardens, for pro-
viding patients with ‘opportunities to divert their minds from their illness’. This
issue of holistic health represents a third type of humanistic design, which oper-
ated in opposition to modern biomedicine. Decades previously, under a section
heading ‘humanity’,The Lancet (Anon. 1953) had noted that ‘since the spirit of a
place is what determines the standard of the work done in it, it is well to begin
by making surroundings cheerful, even if they are not ideally equipped’. In 1989,
the Prince of Wales’publication A Vision of Britain drew links between human-
centred hospital design and the growth of holistic medicine (Glanville, Noble,
and Scher 1999).
Hospital design that treated body and soul was, of course, nothing new, but
again the goal of ‘humanizing’care in this way implied a sense of loss. It was
part of wider contemporary trends to advocate putting the patient as ‘whole
person’back at the centre of medical care, partly in response to modern speciali-
zation and the alleged tendency of biomedicine to reduce patients to their ill-
nesses (or pathological body parts). The renewed emphasis on ‘cheerful’
surroundings thus emerged from a particular context, which is not directly com-
parable to earlier hospital design that sought –for example –spiritual or reli-
gious goals. Again, the aim of ‘humanization’implied a counterbalance or a
remedy to a problem. David Howes and Constance Classen’sWays of Sensing
(2013) notes, in its brief section on hospitals, that ‘the hospital is a decidedly
unaesthetic place …the sensory and aesthetic experiences of patients are not
10 V. BATES
held to be crucial to their treatment for or recovery from illness. If nothing
else, this creates an alienating divide between bodily wellbeing and sensory
wellbeing’. Such a perception of the hospital as unaesthetic, and as treating only
the body, has commonly underpinned those aspects of humanistic interior
design that treat the soul and ‘sensory wellbeing’, such as nature and the arts.
At first the perceived relationship between nature, humanity and holistic care
was to some extent grounded in assumptions about their value or based on
anecdotal evidence. It gained a firmer foothold in the 1980s after Roger Ulrich’s
famous study showing more rapid healing for patients with a view of hospital
gardens (Ulrich 1984). While there are many critiques of the limits of this study,
it certainly provided an important boost for those seeking to justify attention to
the human aspects of hospital design in an increasingly evidence-based world.
In the same year, Hugh Baron and Lesley Greene (1984) argued strongly in the
BMJ for the value of greater investment in hospital arts for their humanistic
potential and ability to evoke emotions. In the light of these parallel trends, it is
perhaps no coincidence that so many hospital arts programmes represented
scenes of nature. When Southampton hospital set up a so-called ‘humanising’
committee in the early 1980s, one of its results was a colourful corridor pattern
of trees (Baron and Greene 1984). Due to the general goals of such artwork, of
providing distraction from the hospital environment and lifting spirits, it was
rare to see challenging or abstract artworks advocated as humanizing forces in
these contexts. Ideas about ‘art as a humanizing agent’thus need to be further
unpicked, as hospital design decisions indicate that not all visual art was per-
ceived as such.
It is not possible here to do justice to the influence of the principle of ‘humanistic
design’. It is for another article to explore in-depth case studies of ‘humanistic’
design and the factors that have enabled –and restricted –its implementation. It is
worth briefly noting one case study of ideal practice, however. Maggie’sCentres,
UK drop-in centres for people with cancer that first opened in Edinburgh in 1996,
physically embody all the features of ‘humanistic’design outlined above: the build-
ings are non-institutional, non-biomedical and non-technological. It is perhaps no
surprise that these centres are so often cited in literature on ‘therapeutic land-
scapes’(for example, Butterfield and Martin 2016). Jencks himself writes that they
were intended as part of a move ‘towards more humane and varied building types’
(Jencks and Heathcote 2010). The buildings emphasize light, nature and comfort.
The designs are all individual, and deliberately situated in opposition to the
‘machine for healing’model of impersonal health care. To quote Jencks further:
‘[i]nformal, like a home, a Maggie’s Centre is meant to be welcoming, domestic,
warm, skittish, personal, small-scaled’. Maggie’s Centres also draw further attention
to the materiality of ‘humanistic’design, including surfaces that are pleasant to
touch. While these are very specific and undoubtedly not representative of health
care more generally, which has often only been able to implement elements of
these design principles, Maggie’s Centres model humanistic design in practice.
DESIGN FOR HEALTH 11
Overall, the concept of ‘humanistic’design encompassed a wide range of
different design features. These were often not new, but were increasingly
understood in humanistic terms in the twentieth century. The most dominant
or commonly cited features of humanistic design bridged the non-institutional,
the non-technological and the non-biomedical. Homeliness, nature and the
arts were repeated themes of literature on humanistic design because they
touched upon at least two of the three categories. The precise forms that these
design features would –or, rather, should –take were diverse and ranged from
structural questions to interior decoration and sensory environments. What
drew them together, and with the intellectual trends outlined above, was a
sense of patient- (or human-) centredness. They were also defined as much by
what they were not, as by what they were. The three trends were all con-
structed as remedies to the same perceived problem or loss, in broad terms at
least, offering counterbalances to the apparently dehumanizing aspects of
modern medicine.
Conclusions
In 1983, the design journal Hospital Development observed that ‘in hospital
design matters …[a] strong trend is towards “humanisation”–a principle first
voiced by a few concerned people in the late 1960s. It was badly neglected then
but is now in full bloom, as can be seen in both the external and internal aspects
of many of the latest projects in the UK’(Anon. 1983). The above discussion has
briefly outlined some of these intellectual ‘voices’in the 1960s and 1970s, and
the forms in which these ideas entered medical literature and design practice by
the 1980s. Each of these forms could be the subject of an in-depth analysis but
there is also value in considering them together in relation to a bigger concep-
tual framework: the ‘human’. One important finding, from taking this birds-eye
view, is that the idea of humanistic design was both highly influential and
under-examined during the late twentieth century.
The term was used across a wide range of contexts, with particular implica-
tions in specific countries and for certain types of patient, but these differences
were rarely drawn out. As in the Hospital Development quote above, architectural
and medical commentators often referenced humanization as a ‘trend’or ‘princi-
ple’but failed to unpick its exact meaning and implications. Examining some of
the different forms and functions of humanization indicates that the term often
operated to repackage long-held ideas about holism and healthy design. This
claim is not to undermine its significance. It is highly revealing that architects,
designers and others were so keen to rebrand such design goals as humanistic
design. This rhetoric operated –albeit in a complex way in practice –as a driver
for change. The concept of the humanistic hospital tapped into a range of social,
political, intellectual and economic trends; it provided an opportunity for visible
resistance to (perceived) medical dehumanization.
12 V. BATES
The success or failure of these ideas is a subject for a different article, as a
wide range of practical, political and economic factors limited the ability to
implement humanistic design. Important questions also remain about what
humanistic design meant to patients, staff and visitors, and the extent to which
they were truly involved in human-centred design processes. The human in the
hospital has never been a homogeneous one; some feel soothed by high tech-
nology environments, while others have specific sensory or emotional needs.
It is therefore important not to assume that human-centred design has always
reflected (or consulted) the diverse wishes of patients, visitors and staff.
These questions are important and worthy of further scholarly attention.
While the term may have waned somewhat in its social and political poignancy
since the mid-twentieth century, it remains a regular feature of design and medi-
cal literature. It is crucial to pay critical attention to its meanings and forms in
order better to understand some of the assumptions that underpin its currency
as a design goal.
Notes
1. Nardin (2009) traces this trend back to the early twentieth century in France, although
notes that it became a newly pressing issue for government in the post-war period. The
AP-HP archive and Archives Nationales in Paris also both hold extensive papers that
show the ongoing interest of the government in ‘humanizing’hospitals in the decades
following this circular. A lot of this material focuses on care, but some also relates to the
design of humanistic environments; as this article shows, the two issues were never truly
separable.
2. Many of these debates about modernity and individualism were longstanding within
international sociology of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, in the work of Dur-
kheim among others. As Peter Kivisto (2010) notes, ‘Riesman called attention to the
threat of individualism in the middle of the past century brought about by the advent of
mass society, wheras [sic] a quarter of a century later Bellah and associates saw reason to
conclude that individualism had become sufficiently problematic that it was undermin-
ing community’.
Acknowledgments
Many thanks to three anonymous reviewers for taking the time to give feedback on an earlier
version of this article.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.
Funding
This research was supported by Wellcome Trust ISSF Funding through the Elizabeth Blackwell
Institute at the University of Bristol, as well as by the University of Bristol’s Strategic Research
Fund.
DESIGN FOR HEALTH 13
Notes on contributor
Victoria Bates is a lecturer in Modern History at the University of Bristol. Her research interests
include the historic interrelationship between medicine and the creative arts, including in
healthcare design and medical education, as well as medico-legal history surrounding facti-
tious disorders and the notion of sexual consent. Among other publications, Dr Bates is the
co-editor of Medicine, Health and the Arts: Approaches to the Medical Humanities (Routledge,
2014) and author of the monograph Sexual Forensics in Victorian and Edwardian England (Pal-
grave Macmillan, 2016).
ORCID
Victoria Bates http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3106-7764
References
Anon. 1866.“The Chorlton Pauper Hospital.”The Lancet 88 (2250): 421–422.
Anon. 1947.“Our Hospitals.”The Lancet 250 (6481): 726–727.
Anon. 1953.“Symbiosis at Hill End.”The Lancet 261 (6761): 641–642.
Anon. 1983.“Viewpoint.”Hospital Development 11 (6): 6.
Armstrong, David. 1998.“Decline of the Hospital: Reconstructing Institutional Dangers.”Sociol-
ogy of Health & Illness 20 (4): 445–457.
Barclay, Susan. 2015.“When It’s Not the Main Game: Art in Hospitals.”Diss., University of West-
ern Sydney.
Bardon, D. 1981.“No Place Like Home?”British Medical Journal 282 (6281): 2052.
Baron, Jeremy Hugh, and Lesley Greene. 1984.“Art in Hospitals.”British Medical Journal 289
(6460): 1731–1737.
Bates, Victoria. 2017.“Yesterday’s Doctors: The Human Aspects of Medical Education in Britain,
1957–93.”Medical History 61 (1): 48–65.
Bourke, Joanna. 2011.What It Means to Be Human: Reflections from 1791 to the Present.
London: Virago.
Bromley, Elizabeth. 2012.“Building Patient-Centeredness: Hospital Design as an Interpretive
Act.”Social Science & Medicine 75 (6): 1057–1066.
Burton, Richard. 1990.“St Mary’s Hospital, Isle of Wight: A Suitable Background for Caring.”
BMJ: British Medical Journal 301 (6766): 1423–1425.
Butterfield, Angie, and Daryl Martin. 2016.“Affective Sanctuaries: Understanding Maggie’sas
Therapeutic Landscapes.”Landscape Research 41 (6): 695–706.
Dalke, Hilary, Paul J. Littlefair, and David L. Loe. 2004.Lighting and Colour for Hospital Design.
Norwich: The Stationery Office.
Devlin, Ann Sloan, and Allison B. Arneill. 2003.“Health Care Environments and Patient Out-
comes: A Review of the Literature.”Environment and Behavior 35 (5): 665–694.
Dormer, Peter. 1994.“Improving Hospital Design.”British Medical Journal 309 (6962): 1170–1172.
Foucault, Michel, and Richard Howard. (trans.). 1965 [1961].Madness and Civilization. New
York: Pantheon.
Foucault, Michel, and Alan Sheridan. (trans.). 1973 [1963.]. The Birth of the Clinic: An Archaeol-
ogy of Medical Perception. London: Tavistock Publications.
Gesler, Wil, Morag Bell, Sarah Curtis, Phil Hubbard, and Susan Francis. 2004.“Therapy by
Design: Evaluating the UK Hospital Building Program.”Health & Place 10 (2): 117–128.
Glanville, Rosemary, Ann Noble, and Peter Scher. 1999.50 Years of Ideas in Health Care Build-
ings. London: Nuffield Trust.
14 V. BATES
Goffman, Erving. 1961.Asylums: Essays on the Social Situation of Mental Patients and Other
Inmates. New York: Doubleday.
Hickman, C. 2009.“Cheerful Prospects and Tranquil Restoration: The Visual Experience of
Landscape as Part of the Therapeutic Regime of the British Asylum, 1800-60.”History of Psy-
chiatry 20 (4): 425–441.
Howard, J., F. Davis, C. Pope, and S. Ruzek. 1977.“Humanizing Health Care: The Implications of
Technology, Centralization, and Self-care.”Medical Care 15 (5): 11–26.
Howes, David, and Constance Classen. 2013.Ways of Sensing: Understanding the Senses in
Society. London, New York: Routledge.
Illich, Ivan. 1975.Medical Nemesis: The Expropriation of Health. London: Calder and Boyars.
Jencks, Charles, and Edwin Heathcote. 2010.The Architecture of Hope. London: Frances Lincoln.
Kimball, Elizabeth. 1984.“Interior Design as Healing Agent.”Canadian Medical Association
Journal 130 (10): 1364–1372.
Kivisto, Peter. ed. 2010.Key Ideas in Sociology. London: Sage Publications Ltd.
Kopelman, Loretta M. 1999.“Values and Virtues: How Should They Be Taught?”Academic
Medicine 74 (12): 1307–1310.
Korsch, B. M. 1978.“Issues in Humanizing Care for Children.”American Journal of Public Health
68 (9): 831–832.
Lewis, Ian C. 1983.“Humanizing Paediatric Care.”Child Abuse & Neglect 7 (4): 413–419.
Macnaughton, R. J., P. J. Collins, M. White, K. Elliott, A. Soukas, G. Purves, P. Kellett, and
S. M. Coleman. 2005.Designing for Health: Architecture, Art and Design at the James Cook
University Hospital. London: NHS Estates.
McKeown, Thomas. 1960.“The Hospital Function.”The Architect’s Journal 132 (3403): 4–7.
Misago, Chizuru, Takusei Umenai, Daisuke Onuki, Kiyoshi Haneda, and Marsden Wagner. 1999.
“Humanised Maternity Care.”The Lancet 354 (9187): 1391–1392.
Nardin, Anne. (ed.). 2009.L’humanisation de l’h^
opital: Mode d’emploi. Paris: Mus
ee de l’Assist-
ance publique –H^
opitaux de Paris.
Penman, Kenneth A., and Samuel H. Adams. 1982.“Humane, Humanities, Humanitarian,
Humanism.”The Clearing House 55 (7): 308–310.
Santos, O. M. B., and E. R. C. Siebert. 2001.“The Humanization of Birth Experience at the
University of Santa Catarina Maternity Hospital.”International Journal of Gynecology &
Obstetrics 75 (meeting): S73–S79.
Shaw, R., and D. J. Petty. 1955.“Report of Joint Visit to Denmark, Sweden, Finland and
Norway.”London, Wellcome Library. PP/RMS/A/1.
Sherman, Paul. 1976.“Review: The Embodiment of Knowledge.”The Journal of English and
Germanic Philology 75 (1/2): 307–310.
Sloane, David Charles, and Beverlie Conant Sloane. 2003.Medicine Moves to the Mall.
Baltimore, London: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Turner, Gerald P., and Joseph Mapa. 1979.Humanizing Hospital Care. Toronto, New York:
McGraw-Hill Ryerson.
Ulrich, Roger. 1984.“View Through a Window May Influence Recovery.”Science 224 (4647):
224–225.
Weeks, John. 1985.“Hospitals for Health.”British Medical Journal 291 (6511): 1815–1817.
DESIGN FOR HEALTH 15
