The purpose of this Consensus Statement is to provide a global, collaborative, representative and inclusive vision for educating an interprofessional healthcare workforce that can deliver sustainable healthcare and promote planetary health. It is intended to inform national and global accreditation standards, planning and action at the institutional level as well as highlight the role of individuals in transforming health professions education. Many countries have agreed to ‘rapid, far-reaching and unprecedented changes’ to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 45% within 10 years and achieve carbon neutrality by 2050, including in healthcare. Currently, however, health professions graduates are not prepared for their roles in achieving these changes. Thus, to reduce emissions and meet the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), health professions education must equip undergraduates, and those already qualified, with the knowledge, skills, values, competence and confidence they need to sustainably promote the health, human rights and well-being of current and future generations, while protecting the health of the planet. The current imperative for action on environmental issues such as climate change requires health professionals to mobilize politically as they have before, becoming strong advocates for major environmental, social and economic change. A truly ethical relationship with people and the planet that we inhabit so precariously, and to guarantee a future for the generations which follow, demands nothing less of all health professionals. This Consensus Statement outlines the changes required in health professions education, approaches to achieve these changes and a timeline for action linked to the internationally agreed SDGs. It represents the collective vision of health professionals, educators and students from various health professions, geographic locations and cultures. ‘Consensus’ implies broad agreement amongst all individuals engaged in discussion on a specific issue, which in this instance, is agreement by all signatories of this Statement developed under the auspices of the Association for Medical Education in Europe (AMEE). To ensure a shared understanding and to accurately convey information, we outline key terms in a glossary which accompanies this Consensus Statement (Supplementary Appendix 1). We acknowledge, however, that terms evolve and that different terms resonate variably depending on factors such as setting and audience. We define education for sustainable healthcare as the process of equipping current and future health professionals with the knowledge, values, confidence and capacity to provide environmentally sustainable services through health professions education. We define a health professional as a person who has gained a professional qualification for work in the health system, whether in healthcare delivery, public health or a management or supporting role and education as ‘the system comprising structures, curricula, faculty and activities contributing to a learning process’. This Statement is relevant to the full continuum of training – from undergraduate to postgraduate and continuing professional development.

Education is a social tipping intervention necessary for stabilising the earth's climate by 2050. Integrating sustainable healthcare into healthcare professions curricula is a key action to raise awareness. This study aimed to: i) investigate nursing students' attitudes towards and awareness of climate change and sustainability issues and its inclusion in nurse education, ii) explore differences across a range of countries, and iii) compare attitudes in 2019 with those of a similar sample in 2014. A cross-sectional multicentre study. Data were collected through the Sustainability Attitudes in Nursing Survey (SANS_2) questionnaire. Seven different universities and schools of nursing in five countries (UK, Spain, Germany, Sweden, and Australia). A convenience sample of first-year undergraduate nursing students. The SANS_2 questionnaire was self-administered by nursing students at the seven participating universities at the start of their undergraduate degree, between September 2019 and February 2020. Participants from all seven universities (N = 846) consistently showed awareness and held positive attitudes towards the inclusion of climate change and sustainability issues in the nursing curriculum (M = 5.472; SD: 1.05; min-max 1-6). The relevance of climate change and sustainability to nursing were the highest scored items. Esslingen-Tübingen students scored the highest in the 'inclusion of climate change and sustainability in the nursing curricula'. Students at all universities applied the principles of sustainability to a significant extent at home. Nursing students' attitudes towards climate change and sustainability showed significantly higher values in 2019 (Universities of Plymouth, Brighton, Esslingen-Tübingen, Jaen, Murcia, Dalarna, and Queensland) than in 2014 (universities of Plymouth, Jaen, Esslingen, and Switzerland). Nursing students have increasingly positive attitudes towards the inclusion of sustainability and climate change in their nursing curriculum. They also recognise the importance of education regarding sustainability and the impact of climate change on health, supporting formal preparation for environmental literacy. It is time to act on this positive trend in nursing students' attitudes by integrating these competencies into nursing curricula.

Aim: To identify instruments measuring the quality of the physical healthcare environment, describe their psychometric properties.Background: The physical healthcare environment is regarded as a quality factor for health care. To facilitate evidence‐based design there is a need for valid and usable instruments that can evaluate the design of the healthcare environment.Design: Systematic psychometric review.Data sources: A systematic literature search in Medline, CINAHL, Psychinfo, Avery index and reference lists of eligible papers (1990–2016).Review method: Consensus based standards for selection of health measurement instruments guidelines were used to evaluate psychometric data reported.Results: Twenty‐three instruments were included. Most of the instruments are intended for healthcare environments related to the care of older people. Many of the instruments were old, lacked strong, contemporary theoretical foundations, varied in the extent to which they had been used in empirical studies and in the degree to which their validity and reliability had been evaluated.Conclusions: Although we found many instruments for measuring the quality of the physical healthcare environment, none met all of our criteria for robustness. Of the instruments, The Multiphasic environmental assessment procedure, The Professional environment assessment protocol and The therapeutic environment screening have been used and tested most frequently. The Perceived hospital quality indicators are user centred and combine aspects of the physical and social environment. The Sheffield care environment assessment matrix has potential as it is comprehensive developed using a theoretical framework that has the needs of older people at the centre. However, further psychometric and user‐evaluation of the instrument is required.

Successful implementation of new methods and models of healthcare to achieve better patient outcomes and safe, person-centered care is dependent on the physical environment of the healthcare architecture in which the healthcare is provided. Thus, decisions concerning healthcare architecture are critical because it affects people and work processes for many years and requires a long-term financial commitment from society. In this paper, we describe and suggest several strategies (critical factors) to promote shared-decision making when planning and designing new healthcare environments. This paper discusses challenges and hindrances observed in the literature and from the authors extensive experiences in the field of planning and designing healthcare environments. An overview is presented of the challenges and new approaches for a process that involves the mutual exchange of knowledge among various stakeholders. Additionally, design approaches that balance the influence of specific and local requirements with general knowledge and evidence that should be encouraged are discussed. We suggest a shared-decision making and collaborative planning and design process between representatives from healthcare, construction sector and architecture based on evidence and end-users’ perspectives. If carefully and systematically applied, this approach will support and develop a framework for creating high quality healthcare environments.

Several studies have found that fatigue is one of the most commonly reported symptoms after stroke and the most difficult to cope with. The present study aimed to investigate the presence and severity of self-reported fatigue six years after stroke onset and associated factors. The cohort “Life After Stroke Phase I” (n = 349 persons) was invited at six years to report fatigue (Fatigue Severity Scale 7-item version), perceived impact of stroke and global recovery after stroke (Stroke Impact Scale), anxiety and depression (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale), life satisfaction (Life Satisfaction Checklist) and participation in everyday social activities (Frenchay Activities Index). At six years 37% of the 102 participants in this cross-sectional study reported fatigue. The results showed that in nearly all SIS domains the odds for post-stroke fatigue were higher in persons with a higher perceived impact. Furthermore, the odds for post-stroke fatigue were higher in those who had experienced a moderate/severe stroke and had signs of depression and anxiety. Fatigue is still present in one-third of persons as long as six years after stroke onset and is perceived to hinder many aspects of functioning in everyday life. There is an urgent need to develop and evaluate interventions to reduce fatigue.

There is a trend towards value-based health service, striving to cut costs while generating value for the patient. The overall objective comprises higher-quality health services and improved patient safety and cost efficiency. The approach could align with patient-centred care, as it entails a focus on the patient’s experience of her or his entire cycle of care, including the use of well-defined outcome measurements. Challenges arise when the approach is applied to health services for people living with long-term complex conditions that require support from various healthcare services. The aim of this work is to critically discuss the value-based approach and its implications for patients with long-term complex conditions. Two cases from clinical practice and research form the foundation for our reasoning, illustrating several challenges regarding value-based health services for people living with long-term complex conditions. Achieving value-based health services that provide the health outcomes that matter to patients and providing greater patient-centredness will place increased demands on the healthcare system. Patients and their informal caregivers must be included in the development and establishment of outcome measures. The outcome measures must be standardized to allow evaluation of specific conditions at an aggregated level, but they must also be sensitive enough to capture each patient’s individual needs and goals. Healthcare systems that strive to establish value-based services must collaborate beyond the organizational boundaries to create clear patient trajectories in order to avoid fragmentation. The shift towards value-based health services has the potential to align healthcare-service delivery with patient-centred care if serious efforts to take the patient’s perspective into account are made. This is especially challenging in fragmented healthcare systems and for patients with long-term- and multi-setting-care needs.