Case study: Medical office building designed without regard for acoustical privacy.

Abstract

A newly constructed medical office building was designed (without the aid of an acoustical consultant) such that registration, waiting, and check‐out areas are closely spaced and lack architectural separation, making private verbal exchange of information impractical. A survey of patients conducted by the owner shortly after the building opened indicated that lack of oral privacy is the leading criticism of the facility. Measurements of existing privacy Index between several talker/listener position pairs demonstrate extreme deficiency relative to criteria provided by the Facilities Guidelines Institute, Green Guide for Health Care, and others. Reconfiguration would be prohibitively expensive, leaving electronic sound masking as the only practical option for improving privacy. However, the masking level that would be required to achieve adequate privacy would exceed that recommended for occupant comfort. The owner is faced with balancing the risk of litigation for breach of privacy law with the cost associated with upgrading the facility for compliance. Measured data, calculations, and an examination of the risks and benefits of various upgrade options will be presented.