Mark Dooris, University of Central Lancashire

1
Healthy Universities The National
Picture
Mark Dooris, University of Central Lancashire
With funding support from
2

• Presentation Outline

• Background
• Theory and Practice
• National Research and Development Project
• Future Plans

3

• 1. Background

• Why Healthy Universities?
• Healthy Universities Timeline

4
Why Healthy Universities?

• Education is good for health
• however, HEIs can do much more, through

 

• protecting, maintaining and promoting health
  well-being of students staff
• promoting economic, social environmental
  well-being of wider community
• developing, synthesising, transferring applying
  knowledge/understanding
• maximising their potential as a generator of
  health sustainability in society CSR future
  shaping of decision-makers

Health is good for HEIs, helping them carry out
their core business and achieve their goals more
effectively
and, from a Health Sciences and Practice
perspective, healthy universities enables
consistency helping HEIs to practise what they
preach!
5
Healthy Universities Timeline

• 1986 Ottawa Charter for Health Promotion
• 1994 Initiative established at Lancaster
  University
• 1995 Initiative established at UCLan
• 1st International (WHO) HPUs Conference
• 1998 WHO book Health Promoting Universities
  published
• English Public Health Strategy Choosing Health
• to support the initiatives being taken locally
  by some colleges and universities to develop a
  strategy for health that integrates health into
  the organisations structure to create healthy
  working, learning and living environments,
  increase the profile of health in teaching and
  research, and develop healthy alliances in the
  community.
• 2006 English National Network of Healthy
  Universities established
• English Teaching Public Health Networks
  Initiative established with one of its aims
  being to create health promoting Universities
  and Colleges.
• UCLan secured funding for National Research and
  Development Project from Health Sciences and
  Practice Subject Centre Department of Health
• UCLan/MMU secured HEFCE funding for National
  Development/ Networking Project

6

• 2. Healthy Universities Theory and Practice

• Rationale for Healthy Settings
• Definitions
• Theory into Practice

7

Healthy Settings Rationale
Health is created lived by people within the
settings of their everyday life where they
learn, work, play love WHO (1986) Ottawa
Charter for Health Promotion
many risk factors are interrelated and can be
best tackled through comprehensive, integrated
programmes in appropriate settings where people
live, work and interact.
DHSSPS (2002) Investing for Health (15.1)
8
Healthy Settings Rationale
Illness
Leisure Recreation
Health Social Care
Criminal Justice
Ottawa Charter - strategies - - processes -
Community
Work/ Economy
Education
Health
Source adapted from Grossman and Scala, 1993
9
Healthy Settings Definitions
The place or social context in which people
engage in daily activities in which
environmental, organizational personal factors
interact to affect health wellbeingwhere
people actively use and shape the environment
thus create or solve problems relating to
health. Settings for Health WHO (1998) Health
Promotion Glossary
In the settings approach efforts are
concentrated on working to make the setting
itself a healthier place for people to live, work
and playThe settings approach means combining
healthy policies, in a healthy environment with
complementary education programmes and
initiatives. Health Promotion Strategy for
Ireland (DHC, 2000)
10
Healthy Universities Principles
and Aims/Action Areas

• Create healthy and sustainable working, learning
  and living environments for students, staff and
  visitors

Increase the profile of health and sustainable
development in teaching, research and knowledge
exchange.
Contribute to the health and sustainability of
the wider community
Evaluate their work, building evidence of
effectiveness and sharing learning.
UNDERPINNING PRINCIPLES diversity and equity
participation and empowerment internal and
external partnership working sustainability
holistic health and well-being practice informed
by evidence (and evidence informed by practice)
learning and knowledge exchange
11
Healthy Universities Theory into Practice
whole university approach

• Anticipating Responding to Public Health
  Challenges
• ?
• Helping to Deliver the Institutional Agenda

Leading Organisational and Cultural Change
? Generating High Visibility Innovative Action
Securing Senior Level Commitment and Corporate
Responsibility ? Enabling Wide-Ranging
Participation
Management and Co-ordination High Level Steering
Group Designated Co-ordination Role Clearly
Defined Stakeholder Roles
Methods e.g.Policy Development, Social Marketing,
Peer Education, Impact Assessment, Environmental
Improvement
Principles e.g. Diversity, Equity, Participation,
Empowerment, Partnership, Sustainability
12
Healthy Universities Theory into Practice
Mapping Connections
between components of the setting, groups of
people, issues
Systems thinking is a discipline for seeing
wholes. It is a framework for seeing
interrelationships rather than things, for seeing
patterns of change rather than static
snapshots Senge (1990)
13
Healthy Universities A System-Based Approach
14

• 3. National Research Development Project

• Overview
• Findings to date

15
National Healthy UniversitiesResearch
Development Project

• Funded by the Health Sciences and Practice
  Subject Centre (Higher Education Academy) and
  Department of Health
• Steering Group Margaret Sills (HEA HSP) Peter
  Chell (DH) Judy Orme (UWE/SW TPHN) Sue Powell
  (NW TPHN) Mala Rao (DH)
• Aim to scope and report on the potential for a
  national programme on Healthy Universities.

16
National Healthy UniversitiesResearch
Development Project

• FOUR STRANDS
• 1. Rapid Literature Review academic
  policy-related.
• 2. Auditing/Mapping Healthy Universities Activity
  Consultative Research
• ? 1st stage audit questionnaire (n117 64 55
  returned)
• ? 2nd stage mapping research
• - Questionnaire 1 in-depth case study data on
  HUs (n12 6 50 returned)
• - Questionnaire 2 overview data on HUs (n28
  15 54 returned)
• - Questionnaire 3 national development (n60
  18 30 returned)
• Consultative Research with and Engagement of
  National-Level Stakeholder Organisations
  individual/small group interviews
• AMOSSHE DH DIUS HEA HEFCE LFHE NUS RSPH
  UUK
• 4. Action Planning and Reporting stakeholder
  data validation workshop, report
  recommendations

17
1st Stage Audit Questionnaire Healthy
University Activity and Interpretations

• 28 (44) of respondents stated that they have an
  established Healthy University initiative but
  interpretation is variable, with aims including
• To be a healthy, ethical, environmentally-friend
  ly and sustainable community which values
  well-being
• To raise the profile of health, well-being and
  sustainability within the culture, structures and
  processes of the university
• To promote a healthy and safe lifestyle among
  students
• To promote health and wellbeing in the
  workplace
• To hold a health week each year to promote
  healthy lifestyles to students and staff

18
1st Stage Audit QuestionnaireWhere are
Initiatives Led From?

• In these 28 HEIs, the initiative was led by

19
1st Stage Audit Questionnaire Interest in
National Programme

• 96 of respondents would be interested in a
  National Programme on Healthy Universities
• This fits with our values we would be very
  interested in being involved.
• This would assist us in identifying key ways in
  which we could promote health matters within the
  University in a more structured way than at
  present.
• A national programme would help to pull
  together and lift the profile of the piecemeal
  activity currently going on.
• There is already much good work in progress
  which could be further supported and extended by
  participation in the National Healthy
  Universities programme.
• It would be good to consider standardisation.

20
2nd Stage Mapping and Stakeholder Interviews Key
Drivers and Motivations 1

• Staff
• Valuing, recruiting and retaining staff
• Enhancing staff experience
• Reducing costs associated with sickness and
  absenteeism
• Improving performance and increasing productivity
• Students
• Recruiting and retaining students
• Widening participation (linked to inequalities)
• Enhancing student experience and achievement
• Providing access to young people as a target group

21
2nd Stage Mapping and Stakeholder Interviews Key
Drivers and Motivations 2

• Positioning universities in a market-oriented
  context
• Adding to distinctiveness and enhancing quality
• Aligning with key agendas, e.g. sustainable
  development, corporate social responsibility,
  community engagement
• Using topical issues (e.g. alcohol, obesity) as
  entry points
• Contextual factors
• Increased focus on workplace health and
  well-being
• Increased recognition of impact of health on
  achievement
• NHS and other external targets

22
2nd Stage Mapping and Stakeholder Interviews
Perceived Benefits of National Programme 1

• In addition to the benefits that are also
  drivers
• Universities
• Encourage joined-up thinking, networking and
  sharing of good practice/case study support
• Provide common base line something to aim for
  that is recognised and measurable with agreed
  standards
• Increase health-related work in universities,
  encourage more universities to be involved ?
  long-term health benefits

23
2nd Stage Mapping and Stakeholder Interviews
Perceived Benefits of National Programme 2

• In addition to the benefits that are also
  drivers
• Stakeholder Organisations
• Secure visible commitment to health develop
  critical mass move from margins to mainstream
• Provide coherent and systematic framework to
  harness and connect disparate initiatives
• Ensure consistency and appropriate progression
  from pre-school, through Healthy Schools, Healthy
  FE to Healthy Universities
• Contribute to societal and economic productivity
• Develop distinctiveness and reputation of UK HE
  sector

24
2nd Stage Mapping and Stakeholder Interviews
Barriers and Challenges at Different Levels

• Challenges faced by Healthy University
  Initiatives
• Applying settings approach to large institutions
• Embedding work in academic areas
• Securing and sustaining buy-in with adequate
  resources
• Ensuring clarity of role as hub for health
• Avoiding perception of overlap with other
  services
• Balancing competing agendas and avoiding
  initiative overload
• Lack of national guidance, leadership and support
  for work
• Challenges to Securing National-Level Leadership
• Independence and autonomy of universities
• Perception of universities as élite and
  privileged
• Negotiating competing agendas and connecting to
  core business

25
2nd Stage Mapping and Stakeholder Interviews
Potential Shape of National Programme
Option 1 Standardised achievement criteria,
through an accreditation or kitemarking scheme
that incorporates external assessment.

• Must be evidence based benchmarks created, and
  with a recognised accreditation system, like
  Investors in People.
• I like the idea of a healthy university
  standard that you can achieve... I think this
  would need to be assessed in some way and time
  limited so that we have to show commitment to
  maintaining our work and building on.
• I think that theres a role for a some form of
  national kitemarking by a national body for those
  institutions that meet the requirements, the
  standards, the criteria or whatever we call them
  so that they get a badge of honour that is
  reviewed maybe once every three years.

26
2nd Stage Mapping and Stakeholder Interviews
Potential Shape of National Programme
Option 2 Flexible and responsive framework that
embraces different emphases and capacities, is
consciously light-touch, focuses on
change-related inputs and processes, and utilises
self-assessment.

• It would be difficult to set up an 'achievement'
  programme which has to be policed but good
  practice guidelines, examples of good practice, a
  communication strategy
• It has to be about facilitating change and
  responding to demands and requests for changeIf
  it was very prescriptive, I think it would
  probably backfire, but if it was encouraging
  institutions to look within themselves and
  consult with staff and students about what would
  be appropriate for their institution, that would
  be good I dont think a top-down initiative
  would work.
• You might need to have different layers of
  models that universities could buy intoIf youre
  going to have coverage of the higher education
  sector, we have to come up with models that can
  be applied in the various types of institutional
  contexts.

27
2nd Stage Mapping Benefits of the National
Network
Key role of national developments should be to
build upon and strengthen the National Network
28
2nd Stage Mapping and Stakeholder Interviews
Potential Leadership and/or Championing of
National Programme

• Majority view that leadership must come from
  within sector with clear endorsement by and
  championing/involvement of a range of key
  stakeholder organisations.
• No clear consensus on which organisation would be
  most appropriate to lead.
• Recognition that leadership would influence and
  be influenced by shape of programme i.e.
  whether it is based on regulation, externally or
  self-assessed standards, or the development and
  spread of good practice.
• Debate about whether the appropriate level of
  co-ordination is national and/or regional.

29

• 4. Future Plans

• Recommendations
• Next Steps

30
Recommendations
Theres a massive opportunity at the moment
which we mustnt miss. Everythings in the right
place if we dont do it now, things will move
on and well lose that impetus. Peter Chell, DH

• High level endorsement should be sought for a
  sector-led National Healthy Higher Education
  Programme that builds on the experience of the
  National Network and draws on learning from FE
  and other sectors and is supported and
  championed by consortium of stakeholder bodies.
• This should provide a comprehensive whole system
  Healthy University Framework supported by
  networking opportunities and guidance tools.
• This framework should be largely process-focused,
  supported by self assessment mechanisms to enable
  benchmarking and progression.

31
Next Steps
Theres a massive opportunity at the moment
which we mustnt miss. Everythings in the right
place if we dont do it now, things will move
on and well lose that impetus. Peter Chell, DH

• Report and recommendations submitted to HEA HSP
  and DH published at http//www.health.heacademy.
  ac.uk/publications/miniproject/2009mdooris.pdf
• Will be important to draw on the
  experience/learning of the Healthy FE programme
  (DIUS/DH) Mark Dooris sits on Steering Group.
• HEFCE LGM funding secured for two-year project,
  to strengthen National Network (and explore links
  to regional structures) and develop guidance
  tools and case studies.

32
Healthy Universities The National
Picture
Mark Dooris, University of Central Lancashire
With funding support from