Specialist healthcare services for concussion/mild traumatic brain injury in England: a consensus statement using modified Delphi methodology.

OBJECTIVE: To establish a consensus on the structure and process of healthcare services for patients with concussion in England to facilitate better healthcare quality and patient outcome. DESIGN: This consensus study followed the modified Delphi methodology with five phases: participant identification, item development, two rounds of voting and a meeting to finalise the consensus statements. The predefined threshold for agreement was set at ≥70%. SETTING: Specialist outpatient services. PARTICIPANTS: Members of the UK Head Injury Network were invited to participate. The network consists of clinical specialists in head injury practising in emergency medicine, neurology, neuropsychology, neurosurgery, paediatric medicine, rehabilitation medicine and sports and exercise medicine in England. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE: A consensus statement on the structure and process of specialist outpatient care for patients with concussion in England. RESULTS: 55 items were voted on in the first round. 29 items were removed following the first voting round and 3 items were removed following the second voting round. Items were modified where appropriate. A final 18 statements reached consensus covering 3 main topics in specialist healthcare services for concussion; care pathway to structured follow-up, prognosis and measures of recovery, and provision of outpatient clinics. CONCLUSIONS: This work presents statements on how the healthcare services for patients with concussion in England could be redesigned to meet their health needs. Future work will seek to implement these into the clinical pathway.

Healthy universities: an example of a whole-system health-promoting setting.

The health-promoting settings approach is well established in health promotion, with organisational settings being understood as complex systems able to support human wellbeing and flourishing. Despite the reach and evident importance of higher education as a sector, 'healthy universities' has not received high-level international leadership comparable to many other settings programmes. This study explores how the concept of a healthy university is operationalised in two case study universities. Data collection methods included documentary analysis, observation field notes and semi-structured interviews with staff and students. Staff and students understood the characteristics of a healthy university to pertain to management processes relating to communication and to a respectful organisational ethos. Enhancers of health and wellbeing were feeling valued, being listened to, having skilled and supportive line managers and having a positive physical environment. Inhibitors of health and wellbeing were having a sense of powerlessness and a lack of care and concern. The concept of the healthy university has been slow to be adopted in contrast to initiatives such as healthy schools. In addition to challenges relating to lack of theorisation, paucity of evidence and difficulties in capturing the added value of whole-system working, this study suggests that this may be due to both their complex organisational structure and the diverse goals of higher education, which do not automatically privilege health and wellbeing. It also points to the need for a whole-university approach that pays attention to the complex interactions and interconnections between component parts and highlights how the organisation can function effectively as a social system.

Theorizing healthy settings: a critical discussion with reference to Healthy Universities.

UNLABELLED: The settings approach appreciates that health determinants operate in settings of everyday life. Whilst subject to conceptual development, we argue that the approach lacks a clear and coherent theoretical framework to steer policy, practice and research. AIMS: To identify what theories and conceptual models have been used in relation to the implementation and evaluation of Healthy Universities. METHODS: A scoping literature review was undertaken between 2010 and 2013, identifying 26 papers that met inclusion criteria. FINDINGS: Seven theoretical perspectives or conceptual frameworks were identified: the Ottawa Charter; a socio-ecological approach (which implicitly drew on sociological theories concerning structure and agency); salutogenesis; systems thinking; whole system change; organizational development; and a framework proposed by Dooris. These were used to address interrelated questions on the nature of a setting, how health is created in a setting, why the settings approach is a useful means of promoting health, and how health promotion can be introduced into and embedded within a setting. CONCLUSIONS: Although distinctive, the example of healthy universities drew on common theoretical perspectives that have infused the settings discourse more generally this engagement with theory was at times well-developed and at other times a passing reference the paper concludes by pointing to other theories that offer value to healthy settings practice and research and by arguing that theorization has a key role to play in understanding the complexity of settings and guiding the planning, implementation and evaluation of programmes.