Thank you for your question. I agree that there is lack of clarity around the language. I wonder how other members of the group are managing this lack of clarity?

As you have done in your question, I think that using the term ‘sustainable value’ and briefly defining this, including referring to the ‘triple bottom line’ of environmental, social and economic costs works well. This approach signals the broader approach and those who are interested will ask for more information. You could also add in ‘for now and for future generations, that builds on the longevity element of sustainability, expanding the definition rather than distancing from it. I also agree that ‘green sustainability’ misses the multifaceted approach of the SusQI method. Once you’ve been using the term ‘sustainable value’ and explaining it in a healthcare organisation eventually the understanding of the term and a common language should develop.

When we have been integrating SusQI into an existing QI programme we have chosen to use the term ‘embedding’ to signify keeping a project going in the longer term and grouped this with comments on potential to spread the project.

What are your thoughts on these suggestions?

What are your views on language and terminology around sustainability?

An alternative that I’ve come across is speaking about ‘resilience’ rather than sustainability, given the variety of different meanings of sustainability in healthcare, as Kate has pointed out.

It would be interesting to hear other people’s thoughts on this. Please do post and let us know what you think…