Main Article Content
meta-design, National Recovery and Resilience Plan (NRRP), MD 77/2022, Community Health Center, Community Hospital, Local Operative Center, territorial healthcare
Background and aim. COVID-19 highlighted significant criticalities of the Italian National Healthcare System (NHS) and recently the Italian Government approved the National Recovery and Resilience Plan (NRRP) to relaunch its economy and at the same time to promote health, sustainability and digital innovation. Specifically, M6C1 (Mission 6 Component 1) wants to introduce Community Health Centers (CHCs), Community Hospitals (CHs) and Local Operative Centers (LOCs) to strength territorial healthcare services. Starting from the Italian Ministerial Decree n. 77 (2022), AGENAS (National Agency for Regional Healthcare System) and POLIMI (Politecnico di Milano) working group developed the meta-design guidelines for CHCs, CHs and LOCs facilities with the aim of supporting decision-makers to define spatial features and building performances in order to be responsive to functional issues.
Methods. The spatial strategies of these facilities have been elicited through three different steps: a) a survey about the current national and international scenario regarding the territorial healthcare; b) a review of all national and regional regulations; c) the development of the meta-design guidelines have been elaborated from the analysis of the a) and b) steps.
Results. The regulatory instructions and scientific indications collected through the literature have been translated into spatial and functional layouts. The services have been organized by homogeneous macro-areas and defined in a synoptic framework which shows the performance approach and their features. Each macro-area, sorted by type of functions, has been subdivided into a list of all its specific spatial units.
Conclusions. The study conducted aims at supporting the planning of these facilities in relation to the catchment area and their sizing. It will be necessary to define the location by evaluating the possibility of setting them up within existing hospitals, as well as to guarantee a sustainable approach in the realization of these infrastructures.
2. World Health Organization (WHO). Preamble to the constitution of the world health organization. New York, Official Rec-ords of the World Health Organization. 1946. n.2, p 100.
3. Capolongo S, Buffoli M, Oppio A, Petronio M. Sustainability and Hygiene of building: future perspectives. Epidemiol Prev. 2014;38(6): 46-50.
4. Signorelli C, Capolongo S, Buffoli M, et al. Italian Society of Hygiene (SItI) recommendations for a healthy, safe and sustaina-ble housing. Epidem Prev. 2016; 40(3–4):265–270. doi: 10.19191/EP16.3-4.P265.094.
5. Tripartite and UNEP support OHHLEP’s definition of ‘One Health’. World Health Organization; 2021 [Accessed 12 Feb-ruary 2023]. Available from: (https://www.who
6. Adams JM. The Value of Worker Well-Being. Public Health Rep. 2019;134(6):583-586. doi:10.1177/00333
7. World Health Organization. International joint estimates of the work-related burden of disease and injury, 2000-2016: global monitoring report: Geneva: World Health Organization and the International Labour Organization; 2021.
8. KPMG. The time has come. Survey of sustainability reporting; 2020 [(Accessed 09 February 2023] KPMG. Available from: https://home.kpmg/xx/en/home/insights/2020/11/the
9. Eizenberg E, Jabareen Y. Social Sustainability: A New Conceptual Framework. Sustainability. 2017; 9(1):68. doi: 10.3390/su9010068.
10. Proper KI, van Oostrom SH. The effectiveness of workplace health promotion interventions on physical and mental health outcomes - a systematic review of reviews. Scand J Work Environ Health. 2019; Nov 1;45(6):546-559. doi:10.5271/sjweh.3833.
11. Alonso-Nuez MJ, Cañete-Lairla MÁ, García-Madurga MÁ, et al. Corporate social responsibility and workplace health pro-motion: A systematic review. Front Psychol. 2022; 13;13:1011879. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1011879
12. Capolongo S, Buffoli M, Oppio A, Nachiero D, Barletta MG. Healthy indoor environments: how to assess health performanc-es of construction projects. Environ Eng Manag J 2013;12(S11): 209-212.
13. Capolongo S, Buffoli M, Oppio A, Rizzitiello S. Measuring hygiene and health perfomances of buildings: a multidimensional approach. Ann. Ig. 2013; 25(2):151-7. doi: 10.7416
14. Grawitch MJ, Gottschalk M, Munz DC. The path to a healthy workplace: A critical review linking healthy workplace practic-es, employee well-being, and organizational improvements. Consult Psychol J Pract Res 2006;58(3), 129–147. doi: 10.1037/1065-92188.8.131.52.
15. Al-Jubari I, Mosbah A, Salem S.F. Employee Well-Being During COVID-19 Pandemic: The Role of Adaptability, Work-Family Conflict, and Organizational Response. SAGE Open. 2022; 12(3) doi: 10.1177/21582440221096142.
16. Aldana SG. Financial impact of health promotion programs: a comprehensive review of the literature. Am J Health Promot. 2001;15(5):296-320. doi: 10.4278/0890-1171-15.5.296.
17. Di Fabio A. Positive Healthy Organizations: Promoting Well-Being, Meaningfulness, and Sustainability in Organizations. Front Psychol. 2017 Nov 14;8:1938. doi: 10.3389
18. Chowdhury EH, Backlund Rambaree B, Macassa G. CSR Reporting of Stakeholders’ Health: Proposal for a New Perspec-tive. Sustainability. 2021, 13, 1133. doi:10.3390
19. Evangelinos K, Fotiadis S, Skouloudis A, et al. Occupational health and safety disclosures in sustainability reports: An overview of trends among corporate leaders. Corp Soc Resp Env Ma. 2018; 25: 961– 970. doi:10.1002/csr.1512.
20. Dura C. Occupational health and safety integration in corporate social responsibility policies within B.R.D. - G.S.G. Ann Univ Petroşani Economics 2014; 14 (1): 59-70.
21. Koskela M. Occupational health and safety in corporate social responsibility reports. J Safety Res 2014; 68:294-308. doi: 10.1016/j.ssci.2014.04.011.
22. Pronk NP, Malan D, Christie G, Hajat C, & Yach, D. Health and well-being metrics in business: The value of integrated re-porting. J Occup Environ Med. 2018; 60(1), 19. doi:10.1097/JOM.0000000000001167.
23. Macassa G, McGrath C, Tomaselli G, Buttigieg SC. Corporate social responsibility and internal stakeholders’ health and well-being in Europe: a systematic descriptive review. Health Promot Int. 2021 Aug 24;36(3):866-883. doi: 10.1093/heapro/daaa071.
24. EFRAG (European Financial Reporting Advisory Group). Current non-financial reporting formats and practices. 2021; [Accessed 10 February 2023]. Available from: https://www.efrag.org/Assets/Download?assetUrl=%2Fsites%2Fwebpublishing%2FSiteAssets%2FEFRAG%2520PTF-NFRS_A6_FINAL.pdf.
25. Global Reporting Initiative (GRI). Foundation: 2016 GRI Standards; 2016 [Accessed 10 February 2023]. Available from: https://www.globalreporting.org/standards/media/1036
26. National Safety Council. Connecting Sustainability with workplace safety and health. Position Paper; 2022 [Accessed 06 February 2023]. Available from: https://www.nsc.org
27. Global Reporting Initiative, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Linking the GRI Standards and the Culture of Health for Business (COH4B) Framework. GRI – Standards; 2021 [Accessed 10 February 2023]. Available from: https://www
28. UN General Assembly. Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development; 2015 [Accessed 10 Febru-ary 2023] A/RES/70/1. Available from: https://www
29. KPMG. Big shifts, small steps. Survey of sustainability reporting. 2022 [Accessed 06 February 2023]. Available from: https://kpmg.com/xx/en/home/insights/2022/09
30. European Commission. Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2013/34/EU, Directive 2004/109/EC, Directive 2006/43/EC and Regulation (EU) No 537/2014, as regards corporate sustainability reporting. Official J Eur Union 2021;537):1–65.
31. International Organization for Standardization. Occupational health and safety management systems — Requirements with guidance for use. Geneva: ISO; 2018 [Accessed 10 February 2023]. Available from https://www
32. World Health Organization (WHO). Regional Office for Europe. Workplace Health in the Public Health Perspective; 2003 [Accessed 26 March 2023]. Available from: //apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/107463/E78318.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y.
33. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). Population and employment by main activities; 2021[Accessed 25 March 2023]. Available from: https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=SNA_TABLE3.
34. Peters SE, Dennerlein JT, Wagner GR, Sorensen G. Work and worker health in the post-pandemic world: a public health perspective. Lancet Public Health. 2022;7:e188-e194. doi:10.1016/S2468-2667(21)00259-0
35. Backhaus I, Sisenop F, Begotaraj E, et al. Resilience and Coping With COVID-19: The COPERS Study. Int J Public Health. 2021; 66:1604007. doi: 10.3389/ijph.2021.1604007
36. McKinsey&Company. Great Attrition or Great Attraction; 2023 [Accessed 27 March 2023]. Available from:
37. Macassa G, Rashid M, Rambaree BB, Chowdhury EH. Corporate Social Responsibility Reporting for Stakeholders’ Health and Wellbeing in the Food and Beverage Industry: A Case Study of a Multinational Company. Sustainability. 2022; 14(9):4879. doi: 10.3390/su14094879
38. Buffoli M, Capolongo S, di Noia M, Gherardi G, Gola M. Healthcare sustainability evaluation systems. In: Capolongo S, Bot-tero MC, Buffoli M, Lettieri E. (eds.) Improving Sustainability During Hospital Design and Operation: A Multidisciplinary Evaluation Tool. Cham, Switzerland: Springer Briefs in Applied Sciences and Technology; 2015. p.23-30. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-14036-0_3
39. Brambilla A, Morganti A, Lindahl G, Riva A, Capolongo S. Complex Projects Assessment. The Impact of Built Environment on Healthcare Staff Wellbeing. In: Gervasi O, Murgante B, Misra S, Garau C, Blečić I, Taniar D, et al. (eds.) Computational Science and Its Applications – -ICCSA 2020. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2020. p. 345–354. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-58814-4_24