About

Jodie C. Gary, PhD, RN, is an Associate Professor at the Texas A&M College of Nursing. Her educational background includes a BSN from Texas A&M University, an MSN and PhD in Nursing from the University of Phoenix and the University of Texas at Tyler, respectively. Her professional certifications encompass Pediatric Advanced Life Support, Trauma Nurse Core Certification, Emergency Preparedness Training, and various life support certifications, along with a Licensed Emergency Medical Technician-Paramedic and Substance Abuse Prevention Specialist Training Certification. Her research interests focus on patient-centered care, peer recovery support, the intersection of substance use and intimate partner violence, rural community engagement, healthcare design, and problematic substance use. She is also engaged in health professions education, emphasizing nursing, interprofessional education, teamwork, communication, and equity and diversity. Her teaching areas include adult health and critical care nursing, the scholarship of nursing, and the transition to professional practice. Dr. Gary has received numerous awards and recognitions for her teaching, leadership, and service, including nominations for the College-Level Teaching Award, the Wells Fargo Honors Faculty Mentor, and the Daisy Faculty Award. She is actively involved in professional organizations such as Sigma Theta Tau International, the Society of Critical Care Medicine, and the American Nurses Association. Her scholarly contributions include numerous peer-reviewed publications and presentations, with a focus on critical care, nursing education, and health disparities.

Research topics

• Sociology
• Medicine
• Psychology
• Environmental health
• Developmental psychology
• Psychiatry
• Nursing
• Psychotherapist
• Gender studies
• Medical emergency
• Clinical psychology
• Social psychology
• Family medicine

Selected publications

• Impacts and Outcomes of Intensive Care Unit Design

  Critical Care Nursing Clinics of North America · 2026-03-11

  article1st authorCorresponding
  PublisherDOI

• Society of Critical Care Medicine 2024 Guidelines on Adult ICU Design

  Critical Care Medicine · 2025-02-21 · 18 citations

  article

  RATIONALE: Advances in technology, infection control challenges-as with the COVID-19 pandemic-and evolutions in patient- and family-centered care highlight ideal aspects of ICU design and opportunities for enhancement. OBJECTIVES: To provide evidence-based recommendations for clinicians, administrators, and healthcare architects to optimize design strategies in new or renovation projects. PANEL DESIGN: A guidelines panel of 27 members with experience in ICU design met virtually from the panel's inception in 2019 to 2024. The panel represented clinical professionals, architects, engineers, and clinician methodologists with expertise in developing evidence-based clinical practice guidelines. A formal conflict of interest policy was followed throughout the guidelines-development process. METHODS: Embase, Medline, CINAHL, Central, and Proquest were searched from database inception to September 2023. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach was used to determine certainty in the evidence and to formulate recommendations, suggestions, and practice statements for each Population, Intervention, Control, and Outcomes (PICO) question based on quality of evidence and panel consensus. Recommendations were provided when evidence was actionable; suggestions, when evidence was equivocal; and practice statements when the benefits of the intervention appeared to outweigh the risks, but direct evidence to support the intervention did not exist. RESULTS: The ICU Guidelines panel issued 17 recommendations based on 15 PICO questions relating to ICU architecture and design. The panel strongly recommends high-visibility ICU layouts, windows and natural lighting in all patient rooms to enhance sleep and recovery. The panel suggests integrated staff break/respite spaces, advanced infection prevention features, and flexible surge capacity. Because of insufficient evidence, the panel could not make a recommendation around in-room supplies, decentralized charting, and advanced heating, ventilation, and air conditioning systems. CONCLUSIONS: This ICU design guidelines is intended to provide expert guidance for clinicians, administrators, and healthcare architects considering erecting a new ICU or revising an existing structure.

  PublisherDOI

• Society of Critical Care Medicine 2024 Guidelines on Adult ICU Design: Executive Summary

  Critical Care Medicine · 2025-02-21 · 4 citations

  article

  Advances in technology, challenges in infection control—such as the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 pandemic, and evolutions in patient- and family-centered care highlight ideal aspects of ICU design present opportunities for enhancement (1,2). For example, prior Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM) ICU design guidelines (1995–2012) did not envision remote manipulation of ventilator settings or infusion pumps (3,4) or the unique aspects of pandemic care. Design elements spanning square footage, air handling, airborne isolation, linkage to electronic and digital local or remote systems, as well as ICU organization and layout may be addressed during new construction, revision of existing critical care spaces, or conversion of previously noncritical care space to render ICU care. Ensuring proximity to key destinations helps enable safe, quality care for all ICU subspecialties. ICU design may influence safety and security for patients, visitors, and staff (5). Due to substantial shifts in healthcare and intervening research, SCCM sought to update the 2012 ICU design guidelines to provide expert guidance for clinicians, administrators, and healthcare architects considering constructing a new ICU or renovating one. ICU DESIGN POPULATION, INTERVENTION, COMPARISON, AND OUTCOMES QUESTIONS A summary of Good Practice Statements (GPSs) and Strong Recommendations for selected Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcomes (PICO) questions are presented in Table 1 along with panel generated design themes. PICO questions in “bold italics” represent the most impactful areas determined by the panel and are presented herein. Figure 1 provides a Visual Summary of the certainty of evidence and strength of recommendations for each PICO question. Evidence summaries and recommendation justifications for all 15 questions are located within the supporting materials. Overall, the panel articulated 17 recommendations (PICO questions 2.1. and 5.2. each yielded two recommendations), including five GPS. TABLE 1. - Complete Summary of ICU Design Themes and Related Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcomes Questionsa Theme Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcomes Question 1. ICU layout 1.1. Should high-visibility layouts vs. low-visibility layouts be used in ICUs? 1.2. Should centralized charting areas vs. decentralized charting areas be used in intensive care? 1.3. Should single-bed rooms vs. open bay layouts be used in ICUs? 1.4. Should designs with close proximity to key destinations vs. without close proximity to key destinations be used for ICUs? 2. Room design 2.1. Should rooms with environmental features to enhance sleep and recovery vs. standard rooms be used in ICUs 2.2. Should in-room supplies vs. centralized supply rooms be used in ICUs? 3. Infection control 3.1. Should advanced HVAC designs vs. standard HVAC designs be used in ICUs? 3.2. Should advanced infection prevention features vs. no advanced infection prevention features be used in ICUs? 4. Infrastructure 4.1. Should outside-room monitoring and control of devices vs. inside-room only monitoring and control of devices be used in ICUs? 4.2. Should advanced remote monitoring (e.g., telemedicine) vs. usual care be used in ICUs? 4.3. Should flexible surge capacity vs. no specific design for surge capacity be used in ICUs? 4.4. Should nonwall-based life support utility access vs. wall-based life support utility access be used in ICUs? 5. Staff space 5.1. Should ergonomic features vs. usual designs be used for ICUs? 5.2. Should integrated break/respite space vs. nonintegrated break/respite spaces be used in ICUs? 5.3. Should mobile workstations, or combination workstations vs. fixed workstations, be used in ICUs? HVAC = heating, ventilation, and air conditioning.aItems in “bold italics” represent the one Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcomes question in each theme that have been selected for presentation within the Executive Summary; all others are fully reviewed in the complete article (6). Figure 1.: Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM) ICU design guidelines, all Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcomes—visual summary. GRADE = Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation, HVAC = heating, ventilation, and air conditioning.High Level Summary of PICO Questions With Strong Recommendations and GPS Theme 1: ICU Layout 1.1. Should high-visibility vs. low-visibility layouts be used in ICUs? One primary determinant of patient visibility is ICU layout. Visibility of patients at risk of deterioration is a high priority and complements existing monitoring devices, as the sickest patients benefit from early problem detection (7–10). Caring for patients in more visible areas may allow staff to more rapidly intervene and to recognize when colleagues require assistance. The panel noted that “visibility” specifically refers to the patient including their face, monitors, and bedside alarms—as opposed to the room entryway or nonpatient-care design elements. A Strong Recommendation was made in favor of high visibility, despite a low certainty of evidence that evaluated patient safety during critical illness. Although the certainty of evidence is low, this is a fundamental aspect of ICU care. The undesirable effects of high-visibility rooms (e.g., reduced privacy) are believed to be minimal by comparison to the anticipated benefits and may be easily mitigated (11). ICU design for optimum patient visibility from staff workstations is a priority. Theme 2. Room Design 2.1. Should rooms with environmental features that enhance sleep and recovery (light and noise mitigation, natural lighting) vs. standard rooms be used in ICUs? These aspects are priorities as ICU environments commonly disrupt natural sleep cycles, promote delirium, and impede recovery. Incorporation of natural lighting, dynamic lighting, and noise mitigation could reduce sleep disruption. While early studies of windows suggested an impact upon mortality and delirium, effects remain unclear. Due to confounding risks in observational studies, as well as effect estimate imprecision, the panel assigned a low certainty of evidence for window and natural lighting effects on mortality, delirium, as well as ventilator or ICU length of stay. Windows are inherently desirable as they humanize the critical care setting, reflect current patient, family, and staff expectations and are encoded in existing ICU standards. A strong recommendation was made supporting windows in patient rooms. Studies of specific design-related features to address ICU noise mitigation were not identified. Noise canceling ceiling tiles may enhance patient rest and staff communication (12). Common ICU noise sources include staff activity and conversation, furniture movement, other patients, visitors, and device alarms. Because alarms often exceed the World Health Organization decibel standards, they are associated with impaired sleep hygiene (13–16). The panel agreed that the effect of ICU design noise mitigation strategies warranted a very low certainty of evidence assessment due to limited study data. Theme 3. Infection Control 3.2. Should advanced infection prevention features vs. no advanced infection prevention features be used in ICUs? Nosocomial infection is a challenging source of morbidity and mortality in the ICUs and localized outbreaks are well described (17). There is no strong evidence supporting the efficacy of any single infection prevention/control measure to address nosocomial infection. Many measures may reduce microbe prevalence on surfaces, in air, and in water. It is less clear that these measures result in reduced colonization and subsequent infection, but they offer interventions designed to reduce the likelihood of nosocomial pathogen acquisition and subsequent infection, especially in those with immune compromise. Studied interventions included: 1) reducing or clearing pathogen bioburden (18–20); 2) improving hand hygiene compliance (21–25); 3) concerns regarding sink location, splash guard use, and water filter emplacement (26–33); 4) appropriate space for personal protective equipment storage and use (34); 5) pathogen-reducing or surface-cleaning enabling surface materials (35–46); and 6) the impact of push-plate door handles (47). Most interventions demonstrate face validity and appear to reduce microbe counts on surfaces as well as patient colonization by antimicrobial-resistant or multidrug-resistant organism pathogens. While it is unclear which single advanced infection prevention and control feature is most effective, the cumulative effect of multiple simultaneous interventions to mitigate nosocomial colonization, infection, and localized outbreaks is anticipated to be large. A GPS recommendation to incorporate design features to prevent airborne, water-borne, and surface transmission. Theme 4. Infrastructure 4.3. Should flexible surge capacity vs. no specific design for surge capacity be used in ICUs? The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the unpredictability of critical care needs and the importance of being able to rapidly augment bed capacity to address patient volume surges. Surge capacity includes equipment, staff, and the ICU physical infrastructure (i.e., beds or care locations). While comparison studies of surge capacity were not identified, strategies to rapidly increase capacity included: 1) cohorting multiple patients within a single room (48,49); 2) using novel spaces for patient care (50,51); 3) leveraging resources across health systems such as load balancing across sites (52); 4) deploying infant monitors to increase observation capability (50,53); and 5) emplacing portable high-efficiency particulate air filters to improve airborne isolation room complement (50). Designs that accommodate large patient volume surges may support continued access to routine as well as emergency care despite system stress. Additionally, staff augmentation may occur using a tiered-staffing structure where ICU clinicians guide teams of non-ICU clinicians to provide critical care during surges (54). Theme 5. Staff Space 5.2. Should integrated break/respite space vs. nonintegrated break/respite spaces be used in ICUs? Staff satisfaction, burnout, and clinical performance may be influenced by the design, usability, and impact provided by nonworkspaces such as break rooms and respite areas. Break rooms are often multifunctional, providing space for nourishment, team education, as well as team bonding and mentoring. Such spaces may promote staff well-being. Since critical care environments are often high-stress environments, individual spaces devoted to recovery and well-being complement breakroom functionality. The panel made two recommendations. First, including dedicated staff break rooms that provided storage lockers, washrooms with showers, and nutrition areas was embraced as a GPS. An additional consideration is to locate the break room within the ICU, in a space with windows for natural light. Second, a conditional recommendation was crafted for less essential “wellness rooms” or “respite spaces” as promising complements to break rooms, noting that there is limited evidence to support this as a routine practice (55,56). CONCLUSIONS This executive summary and associated article are SCCM evidence-based guidelines, including 15 PICO questions that update SCCMs 2012 guidelines. The guidelines panel considered five themes—layout of ICU rooms, room design, infrastructure, infection control and prevention, and space for staff—as domains related to ICU design. This summary presents five of the 17 recommendations that if implemented will result in ICU designs that are patient, family, and clinician centered. Strong Recommendations were made for: 1) high patient visibility and 2) room environmental features that enhance sleep and recovery. Other recommendations were conditional along with GPSs including: 1) integrated staff break/respite spaces, 2) advanced infection prevention features, and 3) flexible surge capacity design. While the underpinning evidence was of low certainty, these guidelines provides a unique and comprehensive summary of evidence-based design data informed by practice-based expertise.

  PublisherDOI

• Building a Virtual Community of Practice for Novice and Advanced Forensics Nurses

  Journal of the Academy of Forensic Nursing · 2025-04-16

  articleOpen access1st authorCorresponding

  This article addresses the contemporary issue of establishing a virtual Community of Practice (CoP) for novice and advanced forensic nurses, emphasizing knowledge exchange and professional growth. The central issue identified is the need for a structured and supportive environment for forensic nurses to continuously develop their skills and share expertise. Historical factors, such as the evolution of the CoP concept from social learning research in the 1980s, demonstrate the longstanding value of collaborative professional development. Social factors highlight the unique and diverse skill set required in forensic nursing and the challenges of professional isolation. Political factors include legislative changes and policy fragmentation that impact the availability of resources and support for forensic nursing practices. Economic factors underscore the inadequate funding allocations that limit forensic nurses’ ability to provide essential services and pursue continuous professional development. The potential impacts of CoPs on individual nurses, forensic nursing organizations, and society are explored. Recommendations for developing a robust virtual CoP are provided, emphasizing mentorship, continuous learning, inclusivity, and regular evaluation, incorporating insights from stakeholders to ensure effectiveness and sustainability.

  PublisherOA PDFDOI

• Lessons from a research project

  Nursing · 2023-09-21

  articleSenior author

  At Texas A&M University's School of Nursing, Jodie Gary is an assistant professor and Megan Hollas is a nursing student. The authors have disclosed no financial relationships related to this article.

  PublisherDOI

• Addiction in Rural America

  2023-01-01

  book-chapterOpen access1st authorCorresponding

  Continued investigation, and interventions that emphasize environments which better conditions underpinning increased risk, are critical. In general, rural Americans are at-risk and understudied in relation to the opioid epidemic. This chapter highlights drug use in rural America, as the opioid epidemic is certainly on the forefront of addiction concerns. The need is great for stronger partnerships among the medical community, increased access to substance use treatments, and collaborative public health organizations to better support rural communities.

  PublisherDOI

• Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner Education Needs in Texas

  Journal of Forensic Nursing · 2023-03-30 · 6 citations

  article1st authorCorresponding

  ABSTRACT: Background: As with many areas of the nation, Texas lacks a robust sexual assault nurse examiner (SANE) workforce. A program in Texas offers courses to educate and expand SANE skills to better provide trauma-informed care to vulnerable populations. Methods: A survey to stakeholders of a SANE educational program, as part of a planned program evaluation, elicited not only barriers to providing care but also specific program needs to better expand access to sexual assault and domestic violence medical forensic examinations in Texas. Results: In January 2022, a total of 40 stakeholders, all registered nurses in the state of Texas, provided vital information on their current program. Analysis of written survey responses provided themes regarding barriers to providing SANE care and suggestions for expanded education. Discussion: The survey provided valuable feedback and comments on the perceptions of the current SANE program. Written responses offered direction for additional learning desires of SANEs associated with the program as well as areas for the program to expand to meet the needs of the learners. This stakeholder guidance has implications beyond this one SANE education program to enhance and expand other programs based on learner needs.

  PublisherDOI

• The Impact of Parental Opioid Use Disorder on Children in Rural Texas

  Substance Use & Misuse · 2022

  1st authorCorresponding
  • Sociology
  • Psychology
  • Medicine

  INTRODUCTION: The impact of parental OUD and SUD was a concern for participants. Findings have implications for strategies to prevent and mitigate adverse outcomes for children and families in rural areas.

  PublisherDOI

• Emergency Department Utilization by Adolescents Experiencing Homelessness in Massachusetts

  Medical Care · 2021-03-11 · 8 citations

  article

  BACKGROUND: Adolescents who experience homelessness rely heavily on emergency departments (EDs) for their health care. OBJECTIVES: This study estimates the relationship between homelessness and ED use and identifies the sociodemographic, clinical, visit-level, and contextual factors associated with multiple ED visits among adolescents experiencing homelessness in Massachusetts. RESEARCH DESIGN: We used the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project State Emergency Department Databases on all outpatient ED visits in Massachusetts from 2011 to 2016. We included all adolescents who were 11-21 years old. We estimated the association between homelessness and ED utilization and investigated predictors of multiple ED visits among adolescents who experience homelessness using multivariate logistic and negative binomial regressions. RESULTS: Our study included 1,196,036 adolescents, of whom about 0.8% experienced homelessness and this subset of adolescents accounted for 2.2% of all ED visits. Compared with those with stable housing, adolescents who were homeless were mostly covered through Medicaid (P<0.001), diagnosed with 1 or more comorbidities (P<0.001), and visited the ED at least once for reasons related to mental health; substance and alcohol use; pregnancy; respiratory distress; urinary and sexually transmitted infections; and skin and subcutaneous tissue diseases (P<0.001). Homeless experience was associated with multiple ED visits (incidence rate ratio=1.18; 95% confidence intervals, 1.16-1.19) and frequent ED use (4 or more ED visits) (adjusted odds ratio=2.21; 95% confidence interval, 2.06-2.37). Factors related to clinical complexity and Medicaid compared with lack of coverage were also significant predictors of elevated ED utilization within the cohort experiencing homelessness. CONCLUSIONS: Adolescents who experience homelessness exhibit higher ED use compared with those with stable housing, particularly those with aggravated comorbidities and chronic conditions. Health policy interventions to integrate health care, housing, and social services are essential to transition adolescents experiencing homelessness to more appropriate community-based care.

  PublisherDOI

• Review for "Actionable processes of care important to patients and family who experienced a prolonged intensive care unit stay: Qualitative interview study"

  2021-10-01

  peer-reviewOpen access1st authorCorresponding
  PublisherDOI

Frequent coauthors

• Kevin Gosselin

  The University of Texas at Tyler

  29 shared

• Abigail Mulcahy

  Portland State University

  25 shared

• Debra Wise Matthews

  Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board

  25 shared

• Cindy E. Hudson

  Langston University

  16 shared

• Theodoros V. Giannouchos

  University of Alabama at Birmingham

  13 shared

• Sharon L. Dormire

  Bryan College

  10 shared

• Hye‐Chung Kum

  9 shared

• Robert L. Ohsfeldt

  7 shared

Labs

• Jodie C. Gary LaboratoryPI

Education

• Ph.D., Nursing

  Texas A&M University

  2000

• M.S., Nursing

  Texas A&M University

  1995

• B.S., Nursing

  Texas A&M University

  1992

Awards & honors

• Association of Former Students College -Level Teaching Award…
• Texas A&M University Wells Fargo Honors Faculty Mentor Nomin…
• The Daisy Faculty Award Nominee, 2013, 2019, 2020, 2023
• Texas A&M College of Nursing Dean's Faculty Best Paper, 2022
• University of Texas at Tyler Honor a Nurse Project Recipient…