Name of the residential care centre
Anne Jeffery (no longer existing)
Company Old Colonists’ Association of Victoria
Address 20 Rushall Crescent
City/Town Fitzroy North
State/Province Victoria ZIP/Postal Code 3068
Country Australia
Email Address enquiries@ocav.com.au Contact Person Phillip Wohlers Chief
Executive Officer
Vision
Provide a supportive environment for people living with dementia.
How well does the design of the building support this vision: self-report
See additional information.
What are the most important elements in design
z Unobtrusive safety
z Spaces that are of a domestic scale
z Good lines of sight to help people living with dementia to see the key places they want to go to z Good lines of sight for supervision of people living
with dementia
z Easily seen wayfinding cues z Familiar furnishings
z Easily found and unobstructed access to a garden, courtyard or outside space
z Opportunities to bring in personal items z Provision of places to be alone
z Being designed with a specific vision of how people living with dementia should be supported
Plan
Path to lounge and dining area from bedroom areas.
Sit out area in garden with pathway leading from bedroom areas to the dining room and lounge room.
Courtyard with raised planter boxes.
72 DESIGN DIGNITY DEMENTIA – RESIDENTIAl CARE CENTRES
Overview
Anne Jeffery is no longer operating. It opened in 1998 as a purposefully designed residential care centre for people living with dementia. It accommodated 6 residents, with an additional flexi 6 rooms that could be either for residents with dementia, their partners or mainstream aged care.
It was part of a larger care unit accommodating more than 100 residents. In the original design, the people living with dementia were confined to the special unit.
Risks from internal and external trip hazards, such as uneven surfaces, steps and highly contrasting floor finishes, were practically eliminated i.e. extremely well avoided. Other safety features including fences, door locks and barriers to movement were still somewhat obvious.
Places residents wished to access such as a toilet, garden or activity space, were easy to see from where they spent most of their time. Staff could also easily observe residents when working around the centre.
Reducing noise levels as a part of unhelpful stimulation received great attention, with a little emphasis
on reducing clutter within the centre. For helpful stimulation, camouflaging doors received a moderate amount of attention, with a great deal of emphasis on the use of colour, contrast and lighting to highlight areas residents wished to find, such as the toilet door.
The residents were able to see the way to outside spaces, walking from inside to outside and visa versa through a very clear and unobstructed access route.
While the centre did not have corridor ends to use as engagement destinations, it placed some emphasis on providing objects and activities for resident engagement as they moved around.
The furniture style in the centre was exactly what residents were accustomed to, with many familiar decorations, ornaments and pieces of artwork. Residents were also invited to bring their own familiar objects.
There were a few places available where residents could opt to be alone. If they chose to be with others there were many areas available for conversation with a small group.
All rooms were clearly identifiable and their purpose was very clear.
The centre did not provide amenities or spaces where residents could choose to be with the local community.
Additional information
HoW WEll DoES THE DESIGN SuPPoRT THE VISIoN?
In a review of Anne Jeffery by Kirsty Bennett (Residential facilities for people with dementia: How do residents use these and what is best, 2005), even though the facility had a relatively low area (35sqm) per resident, the facility scored high (43 second highest of the 8 facilities studied) on the Professional Environmental Assessment Protocol (PEAP) and third highest for
‘Adherence to Design Principles Scale’.
Staff observations included: fantastically homelike;
residents improved when moved from the hostel into Anne Jeffery; very simple plan is good; choice of socializing spaces and low number of residents. Of the 8 facilities studied, the residents of Anne Jeffery were most often observed in engaging activities despite staff ratios being some of the lowest.
The most polarising feature used at Anne Jeffery was the separation of the bedrooms from the living areas, with circulation via veranda spaces, with staff seeing both positive and negative aspects of the design. ‘The design is not dominated by corridors and the residents engaged with the outside’ The evidence is that all the resident will have transitioned via the outside from their bedrooms to the living area during the day. The use of the external spaces was only observed at one other facility despite some cases doors being open and the weather fine. Other researchers observe the importance for the psychological health and wellbeing for every-day contact with the outside. Bennett also notes in a conclusion that the more privacy the higher the incidence of engagement and the higher the provision of safety and security the lower the incidence of residents engaging with others. This is borne out by other researchers in relating the architectural depth of a building to social engagement.
How well did the design support the vision? From the families point of view, they did not want relatives to leave the unit when they become too frail. At night residents stayed in their rooms while during the day they interacted and engaged with others in the lounge, dining and kitchen areas, with a low staff ratio and small building area.