Healthcare planning for the Olympics in London: A qualitative evaluation

8Citations
Citations of this article
57Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Background: Mass gatherings, such as the Olympic and Paralympic Games, represent an enormous logistical challenge for the host city. Health service planners must deliver routine and emergency services and, in recent Games, health legacy initiatives, for the local and visiting population. However there is little evidence to support their planning decisions. We therefore evaluated the strategic health planning programme for the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games to identify generalisable information for future Games. Methods: We thematically analysed data from stakeholder interviews and documents. The data were prospectively collected in three phases, before, during and after the Games. Findings: We identified five key themes: (1) Systemic Improvement for example in communications, (2) Effective relationships led to efficiencies and permanent gains, such as new relationships with the private sector (3) Difficult relationships led to inefficiencies, for instance, duplication in testing and exercising emergency scenarios, (4) Tendency to over-estimate demand for care, particularly emergency medicine, and (5) Difficulties establishing a health legacy due to its deprioritisation and lack of vision by the programme team. Interpretation: Enduring improvements which are sustained after the Games are possible, such as the establishment of new and productive partnerships. Relationships must be established early on to avoid duplication, delay and unnecessary expense. There should be greater critical evaluation of the likely demand for health services to reduce the wasting of resources. Finally, if a health legacy is planned, then clear definitions and commitment to its measurement is essential. © 2014 Black et al.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Black, G., Kononovas, K., Taylor, J., & Raine, R. (2014). Healthcare planning for the Olympics in London: A qualitative evaluation. PLoS ONE, 9(3). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0092338

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free