## 4 Discussion and Conclusions  
### Research Outlooks  
The qualitative and quantitative study conducted in the form of a literature review, case studies analyses, and a detailed area comparison of dedicated FSED and Hospital ED zones, revealed certain key findings that set the basis of structured knowledge about this hospital type. These preliminary findings are important for the possible structure/framework of design guidelines and, eventually when exploring adaptation of the FSED model in other context. By emphasizing the model's duality (the presence of both strengths and shortcomings), there is contention in the literature about whether FSEDs can provide prospective benefits such as reduced waiting times and reduced travel distance for emergency care, while others have argued that FSED may result in an increase in overall health care spending. Decision-makers and third-party payers may wish to consider altering the way these institutions are managed in order to account for patient acuity. The standalone model for serving emergencies in the neighborhood scale can be an excellent alternative to avoid the long waiting hours in the HBEDs for minor to an intermediate level of emergencies. The model might also tackle, in a more capillary way, possible emergency outbreak situations such as the ongoing pandemic of COVID-19, but no specific evidence has been found on this aspect. The understanding of the model's functionality in itself can suggest that such facilities might be able to become a containment unit for a neighborhood in times of emergency situations and can relieve a lot of working stress on the hospitals, where beds can be then spared for serious cases and diversion of the rest to these units. The analysis conducted made it evident that when studying an emergency department model from a different geographical context, it is important to evaluate the characteristics of alternative triage systems and the resulting spatial layouts in order to assure its viability and workability. When designing the functional and spatial layout of a new emergency department, it is indeed beneficial to consider inter-departmental connections, as well as the movement patterns of the users, to get a sense of the sequence and flow of spaces. The exam areas that are designated for varying intensities are typically located in close proximity to the triage area and nurse stations. It is common practice for ED facilities to situate the Imaging and Diagnostic Department adjacent to the central emergency area, with a secondary access point available from the waiting zone. Certain FSED facilities offer extra services such as an on-call specialist doctor, laboratory analysis, and other extended medical services, however, they are subject to change depending on the size, location, and demographic demand of the particular context in concern. It has been noted that the triage and core emergency areas, respectively, account for 12-20% and 16-22% of the total floor area in FSEDs, whereas they, respectively, account for a range of 8-15% and 20-28% of the total floor area in HBED. As a result of the greater size of the facility, the main emergency area in the hospital EDs is also larger. Areas dedicated to nurse stations and ancillary spaces fall in the range of 15-25% for Free Standing Emergency Department, while a lower ratio is highlighted (10-18%) for Hospital based Emergency Departments, which makes the former slightly more efficient and comfortable from the perspective of staff. It is observed that the percentages of space given to family lounges, waiting rooms, and cafeteria/restaurant facilities differ from one another as these services are optional and are frequently amended according to the size of the facility in consideration.