We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected]
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Due to their scale, the Olympic and Paralympic Games have the potential to place significant strain on local health services. The Sydney 2000, Athens 2004, Beijing 2008, Vancouver 2010, and London 2012 Olympic host cities shared their experiences by publishing reports describing health care arrangements.
Hypothesis
Olympic planning reports were compared to highlight best practices, to understand whether and which lessons are transferable, and to identify recurring health care planning issues for future hosts.
Methods
A structured, critical, qualitative analysis of all available Olympic health care reports was conducted. Recommendations and issues with implications for future Olympic host cities were extracted from each report.
Results
The six identified themes were: (1) the importance of early planning and relationship building: clarifying roles early to agree on responsibility and expectations, and engaging external and internal groups in the planning process from the start; (2) the development of appropriate medical provision: most health care needs are addressed inside Olympic venues rather than by hospitals which do not experience significant increases in attendance during the Games; (3) preparing for risks: gastrointestinal and food-borne illnesses are the most common communicable diseases experienced during the Games, but the incidence is still very low; (4) addressing the security risk: security arrangements are one of the most resource-demanding tasks; (5) managing administration and logistical issues: arranging staff permission to work at Games venues (“accreditation”) is the most complex administrative task that is likely to encounter delays and errors; and (6) planning and assessing health legacy programs: no previous Games were able to demonstrate that their health legacy initiatives were effective. Although each report identified similar health care planning issues, subsequent Olympic host cities did not appear to have drawn on the transferable experiences of previous host cities.
Conclusion
Repeated recommendations and lessons from host cities show that similar health care planning issues occur despite different health systems. To improve health care planning and delivery, host cities should pay heed to the specific planning issues that have been highlighted. It is also advisable to establish good communication with organizers from previous Games to learn first-hand about planning from previous hosts.
KononovasK, BlackG, TaylorJ, RaineR. Improving Olympic Health Services: What are the Common Health Care Planning Issues?Prehosp Disaster Med. 2014;29(6):1-6.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.