guidance of evidence-based designers. The Center for Health Design developed the Pebble Project, a joint research effort by CHD and selected healthcare providers on the effect of building environments on patients and staff. Health Environment Research & Design journal and the Health Care Advisory Board are additional sources of information and database on EBD. The Evidence Based Design Accreditation and Certification (EDAC) program was introduced in 2009 by The Center for Health Design to provide internationally recognized certification and promote the use of EBD in healthcare building projects, making EBD an accepted and credible approach to improving healthcare outcomes. EDAC identifies those experienced in EBD and teaches about the research process: identifying, hypothesizing, implementing, gathering and reporting data associated with a healthcare project. Process There are four components to evidence-based design: Gather qualitative and quantitative intelligence Map strategic, cultural and research goals Hypothesize outcomes, innovate, and implement translational design Measure and share outcomes Meta-analysis template for literature review In his book Evidence-based Policy: A Realistic Perspective, Ray Pawson suggests a meta-analysis template which may be applied to EBD. With this protocol, the field will be able to provide designers with a source for evidence-based design. A systematic review process should follow five steps: Formulating the review question Identifying and collecting evidence Evaluating the quality of the evidence Extracting, processing and systematizing data Disseminating findings Conceptual model According to Hamilton, architects have a responsibility in translation of research in the field, and its application in informing designs. He further illustrates a conceptual model architects could use, that identifies four levels of addressing research and methods base on varying levels of commitment: Level 1 Informed design decisions based on available literature on environmental research, based on applicability, such as the use of a state of the art technology or strategy based on the physical setting of the project Level 2 Design decisions based on predictive performance and measurable outcomes, rather than subjective decisions based on random choice Level 3 Results reported publicly, with the objective of moving information on the methods and results moving information beyond the design team, The peer review, makes the process more robust, as it could include varying perspectives from those who may or may not agree with the findings Level 4 Publishing findings in peer-reviewed journals Collaborating with academic and social scientists Working model A white paper (series 3/5) from the Center for Health Design presents a