Design for Health

Design for Health
Design for Health
Summit for Massachusetts Health Care Decision Makers
Report Copyright Rocky Mountain Institute, 2005
For further information, see www.noharm.org/designforhealth or contact Alexis Karolides, alexis@rmi.org or
Bill Ravanesi, ravanesi@comcast.net.
Rocky Mountain Institute Health Care Without Harm
Design for Health
Working closely with our strategic partners (most
notably, Gail Vittori of the Center for Maximum
Potential Building Systems, Robin Guenther of
Guenther 5 Architects, and Barbra Batshalom of the
Green Roundtable), Rocky Mountain Institute and
Health Care Without Harm organized and facilitated
Design for Health: Summit for Massachusetts
Healthcare Decision Makers, which took place at
Massachusetts Medical Society, Waltham Woods
Conference Center, 860 Winter Street, Waltham, MA
on 28–29 September 2004. This report documents the
recommendations of the Summit.
Rocky Mountain Institute (RMI) is a marketoriented resource policy center. Its mission is to
foster the efficient and restorative development of
natural, human, and other capital to make the
world secure, just, prosperous, and life sustaining.
Founded in 1982 by resource analysts Hunter and
Amory Lovins, RMI was noted initially for its
pathfinding work on energy efficiency and its
relationship to environment, development, and
security. RMI’s energy research rapidly expanded
into related efforts to adapt its information and
implementation techniques to wider social needs.
Today, RMI’s roughly 50-person staff is engaged
in projects that use market implementation to
solve environmental and community problems.
Program areas include: climate protection,
community services, energy, greening of
commercial and institutional buildings and
developments, commercial industrial services,
and water efficiency.
Health Care Without Harm (HCWH) is an
international coalition of hospitals and health
care systems, medical professionals,
community groups, health-affected
constituencies, labor unions, environmental
and environmental health organizations and
religious groups. Its mission is to transform
the health care industry worldwide, without
compromising patient safety or care, so that it
is ecologically sustainable and no longer a
source of harm to public health and the
environment.
Health Care Without Harm
1901 North Moore Street
Suite 509
Arlington, VA 22209
703-243-0056
703-243-4008 fax
PRESS CONTACT:
Stacy Malkan
Communications Director
1958 University Ave.
Berkeley, CA 94704
510-848-5343, ext 105
smalkan@hcwh.org
This report was written and compiled by
Alexis Karolides (RMI), with input from
Tomakin Archambault (RMI), Bill
Ravanesi (HCWH). Robin Guenther
(Guenther 5 Architects), Gail Vittori
(CMPBS) and Barbra Batshalom (The
Green Roundtable).
Rocky Mountain Institute
1739 Snowmass Creek Road
Snowmass, CO 81654
970-927-3851
970-927-4510 fax
www.rmi.org
RMI’s super efficient headquarters
building located in Snowmass,
Colorado.
Printed on recycled paper (100% post-consumer waste, process chlorine free)
2
Rocky Mountain Institute Health Care Without Harm
Design for Health
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements..............................................................................................................................................................4
Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................................................5
Summit Background and Description .............................................................................................................................7
Introduction: Toward Healthier Hospitals .....................................................................................................................9
Nationwide Progress Toward Healthier Hospitals .........................................................................................................9
Massachusetts’ Sustainability Efforts ...........................................................................................................................13
The Case for “Designing for Health” .............................................................................................................................15
The Case for Environmental Stewardship ....................................................................................................................15
The Case for Higher Performance Hospitals................................................................................................................17
The Business Case..........................................................................................................................................................20
Challenges.......................................................................................................................................................................25
Summit Recommendations: Initiatives..........................................................................................................................26
Collaborative Boston Community/Regional Initiatives...............................................................................................26
Individual Hospital Policy Initiatives ...........................................................................................................................28
Architecture/Design Initiatives......................................................................................................................................33
Engineered Systems Initiatives .....................................................................................................................................36
Conclusions and Next Steps.............................................................................................................................................42
Follow-up from the Summit ..........................................................................................................................................42
Appendix A: Additional Breakout Session Material ...................................................................................................44
A-1: The Business Case – A Breakout Session Discussion ........................................................................................44
A-2: Strategies for super-efficient HVAC design ........................................................................................................46
Appendix B: Summit Participants..................................................................................................................................50
Appendix C: Agenda.........................................................................................................................................................59
Appendix D: Summaries of Relevant Studies...............................................................................................................63
D-1: Selected Studies Documenting the Health Benefits of Contact with Nature.....................................................63
D-2: The role of hospital design in the recruitment, retention and performance of NHS nurses in England (CABE
Study) ..............................................................................................................................................................................66
D-3: The Business Case for Better Buildings (Fable Study).......................................................................................67
D-4: The Role of the Physical Environment in the Hospital of the 21st Century: A Once-in-a-Lifetime
Opportunity.....................................................................................................................................................................68
Appendix E: Presentations ..............................................................................................................................................69
3
Rocky Mountain Institute Health Care Without Harm
Design for Health
Acknowledgements
Rocky Mountain Institute and Health Care Without Harm are deeply grateful for the generous support of
our donors and collaborators, without whom this Summit would not have been possible.
We would especially like to thank the following financial contributors:
Merck Family Fund,
An anonymous foundation,
Massachusetts Health & Educational Facilities Authority,
Julia Reid Summers,
Massachusetts Technology Collaborative,
Mineral Acquisition Partners,
Ferdinand “Moose” Colloredo-Mansfeld,
Dr. Bradford Cannon,
Henry F. Dup Harrison,
Sarah and Cornelia “Lia” Cannon Holden, and
Stephen E. Binder and Kris R. Estes
Margaret Hubbard
Polly B. Drinkwater
Susan and William A. Bartovics
Susan Morser Klem
Anna Ruthe Tyson
Doris and M.W. Bouwensch
Dr. and Mrs. Robert H. Potts, Jr.
Mary Crowe
Asa de Roode
Charles and Hannah Keevil
Peter J. and Fannie C. Watkinson
Emily and Thomas Haslett
We are indebted to the following individuals and organizations for their significant help planning,
preparing, and facilitating the Summit and for their contributions to this report:
Robin Guenther, Guenther 5 Architects,
Gail Vittori, the Center for Maximum Potential Building Systems,
Barbra Batshalom, the Green Roundtable, Massachusetts Hospital Association, and
Alex Chase.
Finally, we extend a sincere thank you to all of our Summit presenters, facilitators, experts and scribes for
dedicating their time and expertise to this effort and to the Summit participants, who came both to learn
and to contribute, and made the Summit a tremendous success.
4
Rocky Mountain Institute Health Care Without Harm
Design for Health
Executive Summary
The primary goal of Design for Health: Summit for Massachusetts Healthcare Decision Makers was to
bring together leading healthcare facility decision makers, discuss the arguments for and evidence
supporting “healthy design,” and brainstorm initiatives and implementation strategies to achieve healthier
hospitals—healthier for patients, healthier for staff, healthier for the environment and community, and
healthier for hospital financial security.
Featured Summit speakers presented multiple arguments in favor of greening hospitals. These included
environmental stewardship to avoid harming public health while healing individuals, higher performance to
enhance patient outcomes and staff performance, and better business practices to provide long-term
resource/operational savings, better capital infusion, and better systems reliability and quality.
Summit participants collaboratively came up with recommended hospital initiatives that fell into four
categories: Collaborative Boston Community/Regional Initiatives, Individual Hospital Policy Initiatives,
Architecture/Design Initiatives and Engineered Systems Initiatives. Highlights of these initiatives included:
Collective next steps
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Establish a Massachusetts “Green Hospital Champions Council” to facilitate collaboration
and information exchange.
Work with local/state government, utilities, Massachusetts Technology Collaborative or
others to promote tax, rate, and other incentives (and to remove barriers) for green building
and, in particular, for combined cooling heat and power (CCHP) initiatives.
Work with standard setting organizations to improve state regulations and remove
roadblocks to implementation of sustainable building strategies.
Purchase collaboratively to leverage market transformation toward more sustainable building
materials, products, and medical equipment.
Endorse the Green Guide for Health Care (GGHC).
Hold an integrated design workshop bringing “green” engineering and design professionals
together with healthcare engineers to develop optimal mechanical systems for healthcare
settings. Focus particularly on ventilation strategies and their relationship to infection control.
Provide or support public education on environmental health factors and healthy building
design.
Establish an information exchange forum and case-studies database:
• Further the business case for green hospital design by collecting usable cost/benefit
data.
• Support evidence-based studies comparing outcomes associated with highperformance vs. standard design.
• Continually record, collect, and circulate green hospital case studies.
Individual hospital next steps
o
o
o
Engaging top hospital decision-makers, adopt an operational policy framework that
addresses the relationship between human and environmental health, and embraces
environmental stewardship, the “precautionary principle,” and the maxim “first do no harm.”
Provide education for hospital staff and for the public regarding healthy building operations
and lifestyle practices.
Assess your facility for resource usage and environmental impacts; then implement a
program to save water, energy, and other resources, reduce construction and operational
waste, and reduce the hospital’s environmental footprint. For specific recommendations
about strategies to save energy and other resources, see the following report sections:
5
Rocky Mountain Institute Health Care Without Harm
Design for Health
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Individual Hospital Policy Initiatives, Architecture/Design Initiatives and Engineered Systems
Initiatives.
Establish purchasing policies that promote environmental and human health.
Incorporate life-cycle costing in construction policies.
Commit to integrated holistic green design for new capital projects, including a broader
range of stakeholders and experts in upfront planning: adopt the Green Guide for Health
Care (GGHC) and register a pilot project.
In cooperation with the distribution utility, develop a combined cooling, heating, and power
(CCHP) system to provide efficient energy supply and premium reliability.
Establish building design practices that incorporate healthy indoor environmental quality
(including optimal lighting/daylighting, acoustics, ventilation, exposure to nature, healthy
building materials, etc.), effective and sufficient maintenance, continuous commissioning of
mechanical systems, and effective and flexible design (see Architecture/Design and
Engineered Systems sections for specific recommendations for patient rooms, nursing
stations, operating rooms, etc.).
Engineer ventilation strategies (particularly in labs and other critical areas) to improve indoor
air quality and reduce hazards while maximizing energy efficiency; evaluate and consider
using displacement ventilation (see Engineered Systems section for specific
recommendations).
Generate and circulate case study information: inventory the status quo, implement green
programs and construction practices, monitor and evaluate results of sustainability
improvements.
Join Hospitals for a Healthy Environment (H2E).
Assign dedicated staff members to these efforts and green the design team: create an
internal “green” team with cross-departmental representation and assure that outside
contractors are experienced with and motivated to follow green design practices.
6
Rocky Mountain Institute Health Care Without Harm
Design for Health
Summit Background and Description
Design for Health: Summit for Massachusetts Healthcare Decision Makers
Health Care Without Harm and Rocky Mountain Institute joined forces to lead the two-day Design for
Health Summit (also noted in this report as “the Summit”) to address the opportunities and challenges in
implementing sustainable design principles in the Massachusetts healthcare construction marketplace.
The Summit was held at the Massachusetts Medical Society’s Waltham Woods Conference Center during
September 28–29, 2004.
We sought participants who are either actively engaged in the early development of a “green” capital
project, or are considering such a project in the near future. To maximize participation, we limited Summit
attendance to 115 people, 85 of whom were key decision makers from healthcare institutions across the
Commonwealth, including CEOs, CFOs, directors of capital planning and facilities, vice presidents of
support services, operations, and real estate, and directors of energy, engineering, and facilities.
Additionally, the Summit registered a dozen leading healthcare architecture and engineering firms that are
actively engaged with the represented facilities.
The primary goal of the Summit was to bring together this community of leading healthcare facility
decision-makers, discuss the arguments and evidence supporting “healthy design” and brainstorm
initiatives and implementation strategies to achieve healthier hospitals—healthier for patients, for staff, for
the environment and community and for hospital financial security.
Projected favorable outcomes from “green” design included:
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Reduced operating costs,
Better clinical outcomes for patients,
Reduced risk and potential liability,
Meeting potential future regulatory requirements,
Improved market performance in key health areas,
Enhanced staff satisfaction, recruiting, and retention,
Enhanced community relationship,
Demonstration of corporate responsibility and environmental leadership, and
Healthier environmental impact.
Summit participants pursued candid and constructive dialogue on the critical issues surrounding green
design for the healthcare sector: determining the market and business case for it, the obstacles against it,
and the policies and strategies that would implement it.
The Summit offered 15 breakout sessions facilitated by professionals with expertise in healthcare design,
high-performance green design, and environmental health. These roundtable working sessions focused
on specific topics relevant to hospital design and operations, including environmental health, indoor air
quality, energy, water, business case, community, products and waste streams, and healing
environments. Each breakout group produced performance and policy recommendations associated with
the topic area. The Design for Health Summit also included a green building healthcare poster session
that highlighted a dozen high performance healthcare capital projects from North America.
In addition to the breakout sessions the Summit’s featured speakers included:
• Dr. Samuel Wilson, Deputy Director, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. Dr
Wilson’s opening remarks addressed “Environmental Health: A Response Based on Partnership,
Planning, and Environmental Stewardship.”
• Amory Lovins, CEO, Rocky Mountain Institute. His presentation addressed, “The Triple Bottom
Line for Hospitals: Healthy People, Healthier Environments, Healthier Financials.”
This
7
Rocky Mountain Institute Health Care Without Harm
Design for Health
•
•
•
•
presentation focused on how energy-efficient, high-performance buildings with clean, reliable
power can meet all three goals.
Dr. Sandra Steingraber, biologist and author of Living Downstream: An Ecologist Looks at Cancer
and the Environment. Dr. Steingraber addressed the life cycle toxicity of Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC)
as a discredited building material.
Charlotte Brody, RN, co-executive director of Health Care Without Harm, whose role it was to
“connect the dots” from the preceding day’s activities.
Douglas Foy, Secretary of Commonwealth Development, Office of Community Development,
Commonwealth of Massachusetts. He spoke about what Massachusetts is doing on
sustainability/energy performance and how his office is knitting together a number of state
agencies (housing, transportation, energy, etc.) so they can be more strategic about
development.
Boston Mayor Thomas Menino. He presented the City of Boston’s “Green Building Policy
Perspective,” focusing on the importance of the healthcare sector adopting high performance
“green” building standards.
The Summit staff made a concerted effort to record the proceedings and capture the essence of the twoday gathering. The summit proceedings, including breakout sessions outcomes, recommendations matrix,
power point presentations, agenda, list of participants, etc. can be accessed at:
http://www.noharm.org/designforhealth.
8
Rocky Mountain Institute Health Care Without Harm
Design for Health
Introduction: Toward Healthier Hospitals
In many ways, hospitals are particularly well suited to be green, high-performance buildings.1 Hospital
operators typically own their buildings and thus bear the life cycle implications of their construction
choices. Normal hospital operation consumes large amounts of resources and energy, and thus presents
a great opportunity for savings from efficiency measures. Finally, the very mission of healthcare
institutions implies that they should be leaders in healthy construction and operational transformations,
from the elimination of mercury to adherence to Infection Control Risk Assessment (ICRA) protocols to
rigorous, sustainable construction practices that could inform the wider construction industry.
Hospitals are also particularly complex and provide unique building challenges.2 Critical around-the-clock
building operation and the need for heat and power makes hospitals ideal candidates for clean, reliable
on-site combined heat and power generation. Healthcare facilities are most often multiple-building
campuses of varying ages, conditions, and systems, and construction frequently occurs adjacent to
occupied buildings. The design and operation of healthcare buildings is highly regulated with intense
economic and life-safety oversight.
Described as “the most vibrant and powerful force(s) to impact the building design and construction field
in more than a decade” by Building Design & Construction magazine, the otherwise successful green
building movement has been relatively slow to infiltrate the hospital market. With over $16 billion spent on
the healthcare construction sector annually (expected to increase to $20 billion per year by 2010) 3
considerable opportunity exists to design the next generation of healthcare facilities. In a report released
by Robert Wood Johnson’s Designing for the 21st Century Hospital Project, Sara Marberry offers evidence
to show that many of the best design practices for offices, factories, and schools are often applicable to
the hospital industry.4 Adapting green building design to the healthcare facilities market will help ensure
that future healthcare buildings are healthier, more effective, cost less to operate, and are more enjoyable
places in which to work and heal.
Nationwide Progress Toward Healthier Hospitals
•
As depicted in the three charts below, the built environment is, in general, both consumptive and
polluting 5 and hospitals are one of the most energy- and resource-intensive building types.
Undoubtedly, there is room for improvement.
1
Guenther, Robin and Gail Vittori, presentation, Design for Health: Summit for Massachusetts Health Care
Decision Makers, 28 September 2004.
2
Ibid.
3
Ulrich, Roger et al, “The Role of the Physical Environment in the Hospital of the 21st Century: A Once-in-aLifetime Opportunity,” 2004.
4
Marberry, Sara, “Designing Better Buildings: What can be learned from offices, factories, and schools,” 2004.
5
Guenther, Robin and Gail Vittori, presentation, Design for Health: Summit for Massachusetts Health Care
Decision Makers, 28 September 2004.
9
Rocky Mountain Institute Health Care Without Harm
Design for Health
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
gy
er
n
E
e
us
l
e
ts
e
ic
e
riaon
st
er
us
en
Us
e
a
h
u
r
i
t
l
s
d
p
t
e
f
a
W
n
ef
os on
at
m p
id
La
m issi
W
w sum
ol
er
t
a
t
S
A m
a
R on
E
c
W
Building Construction, Operation, and Demolition as a Percentage of Overall Environmental Impact6
Source: U.S. Department of Energy.7
6
Guenther, Robin and Gail Vittori, presentation, Design for Health: Summit for Massachusetts Health Care
Decision Makers, 28 September 2004.
7
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/efficiency/cbecstrends/cbecs_tables_list.htm#Commercial%20Buildings%20Primary
%20Energy
10
Rocky Mountain Institute Health Care Without Harm
Design for Health
Source: U.S. Department of Energy 8
•
•
•
•
•
•
In 1996 the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) identified dioxin as the most potent
human carcinogen ever measured and named medical waste incineration as a major contributor
to worldwide airborne dioxin levels. In 1996 there were 5,600 medical waste incinerators in
operation in North America; today only 111 remain.9
In 1998 the American Hospital Association signed a voluntary memorandum of understanding
with the EPA pledging reductions in solid waste and virtual elimination of mercury by 2005.
An international health advocacy group with more than 20,000 members, Physicians for Social
Responsibility (PSR) has brought a powerful and scientifically respected message to policy
makers and the public. The group targets toxics and health, children’s environmental health, air
pollution and health, climate change, energy and health, chronic disease and the environment,
safe drinking water, land use and public health, and vulnerable populations.
In 2001, the American Society for Healthcare Engineering (ASHE), a division of the American
Hospital Association (AHA), issued a construction guidance statement that called for:
o Protecting the immediate health of building occupants,
o Protecting the health of the surrounding community, and
o Protecting the health of the global community and natural resources.
In its first decade (1995-2005), the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) has grown
exponentially to 5,500 members, and its Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED)
building rating system (a voluntary consensus-based national standard for developing highperformance sustainable buildings) has grown exponentially as well. According to the USGBC’s
website, since the first-version release of LEED in 1999, 1771 projects have been registered.
In the opinion of Summit presenters Gail Vittori and Robin Guenther, as green building is linked
with high performance, human health, safety and security, regulation and policy will support
continued development of the industry; conversely, buildings perceived as weak, unsafe, or
contaminated will fall under eventual public scrutiny and potentially incur future financial liabilities.
8
Ibid.
Guenther, Robin and Gail Vittori, presentation, Design for Health: Summit for Massachusetts Health Care
Decision Makers, 28 September 2004.
9
11
Rocky Mountain Institute Health Care Without Harm
Design for Health
A Key Step toward Healthier Hospitals: The Green Guide for Health Care (GGHC).
The GGHC was launched in 2003 with the goal of transforming the healthcare sector’s
building portfolio into healthy, high performance healing environments. Recognizing and
reinforcing organizations that strive to engage in environmental stewardship, the GGHC
addresses construction, usage and regulatory challenges, emphasizes environmental
health, and considers operations and maintenance along with building design.
The GGHC was convened by the Center for Maximum Potential Building Systems and is
sponsored by the Merck Family Fund, New York State Energy, Research and
Development Authority (NYSERDA), and Hospitals for a Healthy Environment (H2E), a
partnership of the American Hospital Association, the U.S. EPA, the American Nurses
Association, and Health Care Without Harm. The Green Guide’s ongoing development
process relies on the work of its 18-member Steering Committee, a professionally and
geographically diverse group of experts representing a broad spectrum of technical,
operational, business and policy perspectives. This range of expertise assures
consideration of the diverse issues relevant to the GGHC.
Based on a framework structured with permission after the U.S. Green Building Council’s
LEED®, the Green Guide for Health Care is a self-certifying metric tool, currently available
in its 2.0 Pilot version. To fully embrace the broad view of healthcare facilities’ planning,
design, construction, and operations and to facilitate ease of use, the GGHC 2.0 pilot is
divided into two sections, Construction and Operations, and emphasizes adoption of
integrated processes and principles as imperative to achieving desired outcomes. The
Construction section addresses integrated design, sustainable sites, water efficiency,
energy & atmosphere, materials & resources, and innovation; the Operations section
addresses integrated operations, energy conservation, water conservation, chemical
management, waste management, environmental services, and environmental
purchasing.
Underpinning each GGHC credit is a fundamental recognition of and links to an
environmental health perspective—that is, the recognition that building-related decisions
have profound impacts on human health and environmental quality through the life cycle.
Moreover, the Green Guide is based on the values of prevention and precaution, as these
values are intrinsic to healthcare itself. This explicit recognition of the direct and indirect
human health consequences associated with the built environment distinguishes the
Green Guide from other green-building rating tools, and presents an opportunity for the
Green Guide to serve as a point of reference for other green-building rating tools as they
evolve. Indeed, this expanded view of “health” within the context of the built environment
holds resonance for every building sector seeking to enhance its performance.
Since its initial release for public comment in December 2003, the GGHC has commanded
national and international attention, with over 5000 website registrants and 35 pilot
projects in the United States, Canada, Europe and Asia, representing about 7,300,000
square feet. These engaged architects, engineers, healthcare providers, facility
managers, medical professionals and policymakers in the public, private, and non-profit
sectors represent the broad stakeholder interest that has voiced support for and interest in
adopting the best practice strategies put forward in the Green Guide.
12
Rocky Mountain Institute Health Care Without Harm
Design for Health
Massachusetts’ Sustainability Efforts10
Sustainable design is spreading rapidly throughout the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Both the public
sector and private sector are seeing a flourishing of green building that is motivated both by policy and
market trends. There is a growing list of over 80 individual projects of varying shades of green in the
greater Boston area, in both new construction and renovation, spanning the institutional, educational,
commercial, and residential categories. The majority is market rate construction with notable exceptions
that were intentionally aggressive either with aesthetics, alternative technologies or “statement buildings.”
The following list gives more detail of ongoing activities within the different sectors.
Commonwealth of Massachusetts: Governor Romney restructured state departments to create the
Office for Commonwealth Development (OCD), which combined the previously separate departments of
transportation, environment, energy, and housing. He appointed Doug Foy to head OCD, the former
executive director of Conservation Law Foundation, a nonprofit advocating for sustainable development.
OCD focuses on sustainable development on a statewide scale and advocates for smart growth. In 2003,
OCD outlined its agenda in a set of ten sustainable development principles.
The State Sustainability Initiative (SSI) is a program run by the Executive Office of Environmental
Affairs, in collaboration with other state departments, under Executive Order 438. The SSI has a
Roundtable made up of more than 50 stakeholders from public and private sectors who are in the midst of
a one-year process to formulate recommendations and strategies that will make all state–funded
construction projects green.
The Division of Capital Asset Management (DCAM) is the entity responsible for all public
construction. DCAM has been internalizing green building standards, processes and practices for more
than three years. It has written green design requirements into its request for proposals and rewritten
standard specifications and other guidelines that inform projects. DCAM has already built projects and
has many more underway.
For years, the Department of Education has been running a green schools program in
collaboration with the Massachusetts Technology Collaborative/Renewable Energy Trust (MTC/RET),
which uses the Massachusetts Collaborative for High Performance Schools (CHPS) as the green
standard for compliance. MTC has been providing competitive grants for the green schools program that
have been an effective catalyst to engage private sector design teams as well as communities to pursue
green design.
MTC has been a catalyst for market transformation outside of the public schools realm as well.
MTC’s competitive grants have been obtained for 70 projects across the Commonwealth including
universities, corporations, residential projects, biotech companies, and others. MTC is in the process of
launching an in-depth case study compendium showcasing in detail each of these projects, their
strategies, and various aspects of cost and performance data.
The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection organized and facilitated a
public/private sector effort to create and implement a solid waste master plan to grow capacity and market
for recycling construction and demolition waste. This multi-year effort has resulted in reduced costs for
diverting material from landfills and an accelerated trend in the private sector to comply with new waste
bans.
The Massachusetts Port Authority (Massport) has completed its first LEED registered terminal for
Delta Airlines, which is its flagship green building. Massport’s significant sustainable development efforts
are even more deeply rooted in the south and east Boston neighborhoods that it has authority over, and it
has been requiring green building in the development of the residential and mixed-use parcels
surrounding the airport.
10
Batshalom, Barbra, presentation and follow-up information, Design for Health: Summit for Massachusetts Health
Care Decision Makers, 28 September 2004.
13
Rocky Mountain Institute Health Care Without Harm
Design for Health
Local Government Initiatives: Cities and municipalities across the Commonwealth have been
instituting various types of green building initiatives. Cambridge, Somerville, Brookline, Arlington, Belmont,
Watertown, and Boston are all examples of local governments that have addressed green building from
zoning, planning, and individual project angles. Boston’s Mayor Menino launched the most
comprehensive initiative to date with the completion of the Mayor’s Green Building Task Force. The Task
Force released recommendations to make Boston a leader in green building that are now being
implemented. This comprehensive initiative requires and incentivizes green building in both the public and
private sectors, and involves every city department in its implementation. More than 50 percent of
Boston’s land is owned or held by nonprofits, such as academic and religious institutions, which are
emerging as leaders in green building developments.
Institutional Initiatives: Colleges and universities such as Harvard, MIT, and Smith were early
adopters of green building policies. All have completed projects and have incorporated sustainable
development into their long term planning initiatives. Harvard has developed a revolving internal loan fund
to incentivize projects and encourage aggressive green strategies, which has proven to be a financial
success. There are more than four different healthcare institutions that have already incorporated green
design strategies into current projects and have been using the Green Guide for Healthcare. The three
major Boston museums—the Boston Children’s Museum, The Museum of Science, and the Institute for
Contemporary Art—all have significant green projects underway. More than five different private schools
also have green building projects in the works process.
Statewide Green Building Programs: There are three green building programs underway that are
being run by nonprofit organizations. The Green Community Development Corporation (CDC) Initiative is
working with CDCs across the state to green their projects. The Massachusetts Municipal Outreach
Program works with cities and municipalities across the State to incorporate green building initiatives into
their policies and projects and the residential green building program, Green Homes Northeast (GHNE),
which is a new program focused on market transformation in the residential sector.
Private Sector Transformations: The transformations in
the private sector design professions and
trade associations are accelerating on a daily basis. The number of LEED Accredited Professionals
continues to grow exponentially and all LEED trainings in Massachusetts are filled to capacity.
Development associations such as National Association of Industrial and Office Properties (NAIOP),
Urban Land Institute (ULI), and Building Owners and Managers Association (BOMA) have ongoing green
building programs for their constituents; contractors and unions have also begun to run training and
education programs internally to build capacity in their trades. Financial institutions have launched a small
number of green products for the residential market. Most requests for proposals (RFPs) that are issued
in the private sector have some requirement for green design, which has triggered the most vigorous
response in the design professions, and the trend continues to grow.
14
Rocky Mountain Institute Health Care Without Harm
Design for Health
The Case for “Designing for Health”
The Case for Environmental Stewardship
There is no question that “environment” affects human health and well-being. The environment, however,
is not simply limited to the natural realm; it is also comprised of social factors and human-built structures.
As illustrated below, the natural, social, and built environments, and their complex interrelationships,
impact human health and together comprise what we term “environmental health.” 11
Social
Environment
Behavior
Genetic
Health
Disease
Susceptibility
Biology
Natural Environment
Built Environment
“In its broadest sense, environmental health is the study of the direct pathological effects
on health of chemical, physical and biological agents…and of the effects of the broad
physical and social environment on human health.”
–World Health Organization, 1997
11
Wilson, Samuel, presentation, Design for Health: Summit for Massachusetts Health Care Decision Makers, 28
September 2004.
15
Rocky Mountain Institute Health Care Without Harm
Design for Health
When Rachel Carson wrote Silent Spring, Americans were awakened to the potential health impacts of
human activity’s toxic byproducts, alarmingly persistent in our environment. At the Design for Health
Summit, Charlotte Brody soberly noted that dozens of bio-accumulative toxins are commonly found in
mother’s milk, and Sandra Steingraber described the potentially hazardous effects of common building
materials. “Sick Building Syndrome,” referring to the negative health effects of poor indoor air quality, has
become a familiar term in the United States. The number of worker respiratory claims in healthcare
environments more than doubled between 1985 and 1990, and it has continued at the same rate since
measurements were taken.12
In addition, two health epidemics have been at least partially attributed to the design of the modern built
environment:
Obesity has become increasing rapid since the 70s and is now implicated in more than 300,000
premature deaths per year, second only to tobacco-related deaths. It is attributed to inactivity and
poor eating habits, which may be partly caused by environmental factors—automobile
dependence of sprawl-based community development, community design that discourages
walking and biking, and workplace design and location that contributes to a sedentary lifestyle.
The asthma epidemic (prevalence of asthma has increased 22 percent in males and 97 percent
in females during 1982–1996) may be partly caused by environmental factors—increased
exposure to indoor allergens and poor indoor air quality combined with more time spent indoors
(90 percent on average), and decreased physical activity.13
These linkages between environment and health highlight the importance of environmental stewardship
as part of the core mission of a healthcare institution. If, as stated by Dr. David Lawrence, Chairman &
CEO of Kaiser Foundation Health Plan & Hospitals, healthcare is about “improving the health of the
communities we serve,” 14 then healthcare institutions must commit to safeguard the environment, and to
improve its design as relevant to health. The fact that hospitals (while adhering to status-quo, codeapproved building practices) could negatively impact public health in the process of healing the sick is
disturbingly ironic.
“There is a direct link between healing the individual and healing this planet. We
will not have healthy individuals, healthy families, and healthy communities if we
do not have clean air, clean water and healthy soil.”
“It is our core business to minimally impact the environment and to provide an
optimum health[y] and safe environment for our workers and our patients.”
–Lloyd Dean, President and CEO of Catholic Healthcare West1
How can health centers enhance environmental health? The challenge is to develop a holistic approach
to environmental stewardship, to partner and collaborate with academic centers, government research
labs, and private and public leaders, and to address the impacts of healthcare’s own buildings by
adopting environmentally conscious design and planning. Kaiser Permanente, for instance, has
committed to limiting the adverse environmental impacts of its building siting, design, construction and
operation. It is also pursuing two bold initiatives: its chemical policy will avoid the use of carcinogens,
12
Guenther, Robin and Gail Vittori, presentation, Design for Health: Summit for Massachusetts Health Care
Decision Makers, 28 September 2004.
13
Wilson, Samuel, presentation, Design for Health: Summit for Massachusetts Health Care Decision Makers, 28
September 2004.
14
Excerpted from the proceedings of Setting Healthcare’s Environmental Agenda, 16 Oct 2000.
16
Rocky Mountain Institute Health Care Without Harm
Design for Health
mutagens, reproductive toxins, and persistent bioaccumulative toxins. Its food policy will support
ecologically sound, economically viable, and socially responsible food practices, including issues of
ecosystem health, antibiotic use, pesticide use, and food security as well as nutrition and reduction of
obesity.15
Other executives in health care administration have expressed similar support for a multidisciplinary and
integrated approach to changing the industry and creating better healing environments, as the following
comments indicate:
“Just as we have responsibility for providing quality patient care, just as we have responsibility for keeping
our facilities and technology up to date, we have a responsibility for providing leadership in the area of the
environment. The stakes are extraordinarily high. We have to keep folding these questions and these
considerations back into our leadership. We have to incorporate them into our incentives, into what it is
we’re held accountable to do, how we measure our impact. We all know the old saw “no margin, no
mission.” But as a colleague said, without the mission, I don’t want to get up in the morning. Competing
effectively is a need that we all have, but it isn’t what healthcare is about. It’s about improving the health
of the communities we serve.”—David Lawrence, MD, Chairman & CEO of Kaiser Foundation Health Plan
& Hospitals. Excerpted from the proceedings of Setting Healthcare’s Environmental Agenda, 16 Oct 2000
“The question is whether healthcare professionals can begin to recognize the environmental
consequences of our operations and set our own house in order. This is no trivial question.”—Michael
Lerner, PhD, founder of the Health and Environmental Research Institute, Excerpted from the
proceedings of Setting Healthcare’s Environmental Agenda, 16 Oct 2000.
“The built environment has a profound impact on health, productivity and our natural environment.
Healthcare facilities shall be designed within a framework that recognizes the primary mission of
healthcare (including “first do no harm”) and considers the larger context of enhanced patient
environment, employee effectiveness, and resource stewardship—proposed draft text, AIA Guidelines for
Construction of Hospitals and Health Care Facilities, 2006 edition, Chapter 2 Environment of Care.
The Case for Higher Performance Hospitals
The United States is currently spending more than $16 billion per year building hospitals, a number that is
expected to increase to over $20 billion per year by 2010.16 These buildings will remain in service for
decades. If poorly designed, they will deplete natural resources, consuming more water and energy and
producing more waste than necessary. If well designed, they will minimize resource depletion and waste
production while improving the “indoor” environment for human health.17 Improving the indoor
environment has profound implications—it can affect staff performance, satisfaction and retention, as well
as patient outcomes.
Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE) study on nurses’
working environment:18 The CABE evidence-based study on nurses and their working environment
15
Kaiser Permanente, 2002-2004.
Ulrich, Roger et al, “The Role of the Physical Environment in the Hospital of the 21st Century: A Once-in-aLifetime Opportunity,” 2004. Full report: http://www.healthdesign.org/research/reports/physical_environ.php
17
Wilson, Samuel, Design for Health: Summit for Massachusetts Health Care Decision Makers, 28 September
2004.
18
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, et al, “The role of hospital design in the recruitment, retention and performance of
NHS nurses in England,” commissioned by the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE),
July 2004. Full report: http://www.healthyhospitals.org.uk/diagnosis/HH_Full_report_Appendices.pdf
16
17
Rocky Mountain Institute Health Care Without Harm
Design for Health
concluded that a healthcare facility’s exterior appearance and integration into the community (including
transportation issues) impacts nurse recruitment, while its interior environment and functionality strongly
affects nurse performance. This is especially critical, as hospital-based nurses are becoming scarcer and
as their population ages. Registered nurses have an average turnover of 20 percent per year; they
currently average 43 years old, and will likely average 50 by 2010. According to Joint Commission on
Accreditation of Health Care Organizations data, low nursing-staff levels contributed to 24 percent of
1,609 patient deaths and injuries studied as of March 2002.19
Fable Study on high performance hospital design:20
The Center for Health Design’s “Fable
Hospital” study combined the following hospital design changes:
• Additional family/social spaces on each patient floor,
• Health information resources center for patients and visitors meditation rooms on each floor,
• Staff gym,
• More art for public spaces and patient rooms,
• Interior and exterior healing gardens,
• Larger private patient rooms,
• Acuity-adaptable rooms,
• Larger windows,
• Larger patient bathrooms with double-door access,
• Hand-hygiene facilities, and
• Decentralized nursing substations.
Results included:
• Reduced patient falls (reduced by 80 percent),
• Reduced patient transfers,
• Reduced nosocomial infections,
• Reduced medication costs,
• Reduced nursing turnover,
• Increased hospital market share, and
• Increased philanthropic giving.
The total payback period was estimated to be just over a year.
High performance hospitals—impacts on infection control:
Perhaps most dramatic is the
opportunity for better hospital design to improve infection control:
• The Institute of Medicine (2000, 2001) found that medical errors and hospital-acquired infections
are among the leading causes of death in the United States, each killing more Americans than
AIDS, breast cancer, or automobile accidents.
• Three-fourths of Toronto SARS cases were hospital-acquired.
• Current societal risks of pandemics and bioterrorism make it ever more vital to design hospitals
for enhanced containment, negative pressure options, etc.21
• Hospital air is often less clean than is normal in industrial cleanrooms, suggesting the need for
better technology transfer.22
• Hospital-acquired infections decrease with single rooms and very high air quality: design affects
both airborne and contact transmission routes.23
19
Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations, Health Care at the Crossroads: Strategies for
Addressing the Evolving Nursing Crisis, www.jcaho.org.
20
Berry, Leonard, et al, “The Business Case for Better Buildings,” Frontiers of Health Services Management, 21(1)
pp 4-24. Full report: http://www.healthdesign.org/aboutus/press/releases/frontiers_0904.pdf.
21
Lovins, Amory, presentation, Design for Health: Summit for Massachusetts Health Care Decision Makers, 28
September 2004.
22
Ibid.
18
Rocky Mountain Institute Health Care Without Harm
Design for Health
•
Immunocompromised patients have fewer infections when staying in HEPA-filtered isolation
rooms (for example, bone-marrow-transplant patients have ten times fewer Aspergillus
infections).24
High performance hospitals--other clinical outcomes: In an important 2004 compendium, “The
Role of the Physical Environment in the Hospital of the 21st Century: A Once-in-a-Lifetime Opportunity,”
by primary researchers Roger Ulrich and Craig Zimring, Texas A&M University and Georgia Tech
research teams reviewed thousands of scientific articles and identified over 600 studies, mainly in top
peer-reviewed journals, that establish how hospital design can impact clinical outcomes. Two key
examples from this compendium are the impacts of acoustics and lighting on patients and staff:
Hospital acoustics
• Most hospitals are excessively noisy due to hard surfaces and gratuitous noise sources (paging
systems, alarms, bedrail raise/lower, phones, staff voices, ice machines, trolleys, roommates,
etc.).
• Noise stresses both neonates and adults—higher blood pressure and heart rate, lower neonatal
oxygen saturation levels—and, critically, spoils sleep, causing effects such as more rehospitalization in cardiac patients.
• Single rooms increase patients’ acoustic satisfaction by 11 percent (2.1 million patients in 1,462
facilities during 2003).
• Environmental changes—such as reducing noise sources (e.g., using noiseless pagers) and
providing better sound absorption (e.g., using high-performance acoustic ceiling tile)—prove
effective at quieting the hospital environment, and are more successful than behavioral changes.
• Over months, the same group of coronary care nurses, when given quieter surroundings,
experienced lower perceived work demands, increased workplace social support, improved
quality of patient care, and better speech intelligibility.
Hospital daylighting
• Sunlight influences mood, sleep-wake patterns, and length of hospital stay. For example, bipolar
patients randomly assigned to eastern rooms with bright morning light had a mean 3.67-days
shorter stay than those in west-facing rooms.
• Morning light is twice as effective as evening light in reducing Seasonal Affective Disorder
(photobiologically linked winter depression) and can reduce agitation from senile dementia.
• Elective spinal surgical patients exposed to stronger sunlight experienced less perceived stress
and pain, took 22 percent less opioid analgesia per hour, and had 20 percent lower analgesic
costs.
• There is evidence that brighter light can reduce medication errors.
23
Ulrich, Roger et al, “The Role of the Physical Environment in the Hospital of the 21st Century: A Once-in-aLifetime Opportunity,” 2004. Refer to appendix E for full report.
24
Ibid.
19
Rocky Mountain Institute Health Care Without Harm
Design for Health
Healing Environments
1
As suggested by Robin Guenther at the Boston Design for Health Summit, a better
building is one that facilitates physical, mental, and social well-being, and productive
behavior in its occupants. Three goals of “healing environments” are:
• Reduce stress of building occupants (provide connection to nature, individual
choice and control, social support, positive distractions, elimination of
environmental stressors),
• Improve safety (provide better air quality, lighting quality, and standardized interior
layout, and
• Contribute to ecological health (provide healthier materials and reduce energy,
water and resource use).
The Business Case
While few “green” hospitals have been built to date, evidence supporting the business case for high
performance, healthy hospitals is highly encouraging. Reduction of operating costs, reduced risk and
liability and improved performance in key health areas are all potential benefits that may come with
designing hospitals under this new paradigm. Green building also demonstrates corporate responsibility
in a social climate that increasingly demands it, and may make a facility more attractive to philanthropy,
partnerships and public grants.
There is strong evidence that green buildings in general require little or no extra capital cost , yet they
have the potential for better capital infusion and have excellent life cycle economics associated with
systems reliability and energy and resource savings. Evidence also strongly suggests that green
buildings in general enhance occupant performance, and that green health-care buildings are no
exception, providing “human” benefits, to patients and staff members, while also benefiting the larger
community. Despite the lack of current green hospital case studies, green designs and technologies from
other building types are clearly transferable to hospitals. Best practices in building system design are
directly applicable to mechanical and electrical systems in hospitals, as are material selection procedures.
All of this evidence provides an ample inductive case for green hospitals, suggesting that we should
manage risks, learn quickly, and spread the learning effectively throughout the industry.25
Little or no extra capital cost:
According to a 2003 comparative study of California LEED-certified
and non-certified buildings, cost premiums for green buildings typically range from zero to two percent.
Life cycle savings, however, are typically 20 percent of total construction costs, representing a higherthan-tenfold return on the initial investment. The chart below shows the cost premiums of the buildings
studied.26
25
Summarized from presentations by Amory Lovins and Robert Moroz, Design for Health: Summit for
Massachusetts Health Care Decision Makers, 28 September 2004.
26
Kats, Greg, et al, “The Costs and Financial Benefits of Green Buildings: A Report to California’s Sustainable
Building Task Force,” October 2003.
20
Rocky Mountain Institute Health Care Without Harm
Design for Health
Green Bldg Cost Premiums
8.00%
First Cost Premium
7.00%
6.00%
5.00%
4.00%
Series1
3.00%
2.00%
1.00%
0.00%
LEED Ratings
Another study, “Costing Green: A Comprehensive Cost Database and Budgeting Methodology” by Lisa
Fay Matthiessen and Peter Morris of Davis Langdon Adamson, concluded:
“ . . . [T]here is no ‘one size fits all’ answer to the question of the cost of green. A majority of the
buildings we studied were able to achieve their goals for LEED certification without any additional funding.
Others required additional funding, but only for specific sustainable features, such as the installation of a
photovoltaic system. Additionally, our analysis suggested that the cost per square foot for buildings
seeking LEED certification falls into the existing range of costs for buildings of similar program type.27
27
Matthiessen, Lisa Fay and Peter Morris, “Costing Green: A Comprehensive Cost Database and Budgeting
Methodology,” 2004.
21
Rocky Mountain Institute Health Care Without Harm
Design for Health
Cost/GSF of All Buildings
$0/SF
$100/SF
$200/SF
$300/SF
$400/SF
$500/SF
$600/SF
$700/SF
(a)
Wet Laboratories - Cost / SF
$0/SF
$100/SF
$200/SF
$300/SF
$400/SF
$500/SF
$600/SF
$700/SF
(b)
The graphs above, respectively, compare the cost per square foot for (a) all buildings in the study and (b)
for wet labs only, from lowest to highest. Blue lines show non-LEED buildings; green lines indicate
buildings attempting LEED Certified; silver lines indicate those seeking LEED Silver; and gold lines
indicate those buildings seeking to achieve either LEED Gold or Platinum. Reprinted with permission from
Davis Langdon Adamson.
22
Rocky Mountain Institute Health Care Without Harm
Design for Health
Capital infusion
•
Philanthropy—with 2,057 foundations listing “concern for the environment” as an area of interest
and 48 of these listing “energy and the environment” as an area of focus, there is an indication
that energy-efficient environmentally-responsible hospitals would have a fundraising advantage.
Kresge Green Building Initiative
In order to foster environmental sustainability, Kresge Foundation, known for its
challenge grants for capital projects, provides incentive planning and bonus grants to
encourage nonprofit leaders to consider the environmental impact of their facilities.
•
•
Federal, state and city government grants—potential sources of funding for energy efficient,
environmentally responsible hospitals include the U.S. Department of Energy, the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Department of Defense, state governors’ offices and
city rebate and incentive programs.
Public utility partnerships—utilities have at least two major reasons to partner with hospitals.
o Reducing the demand for power (also called “demand-side management”) costs less
than providing additional power supply (by constructing new conventional power plants
and infrastructure) because hospitals are big energy and water users they offer a good
opportunity for demand-side management.
o Hospitals fall within the “best user” profile for combined cooling heating and power
(CCHP) because they have large, coincident electrical and thermal loads and 24/7 year
round operation. Because CCHP can be about 85 percent efficient at converting primary
fuel to useful energy compared to utilities’ traditional (29 percent fuel conversion
efficiency) power service model,1 utilities may be interested in building, at their own
expense, high efficiency CCHP plants for hospital clients, in lieu of providing traditional
power services. Likewise, hospitals use large amounts of water, making them an
incredible burden on the water and sewer infrastructure.
Better systems reliability and quality
•
•
CCHP energy systems provide on-site power generation, which is not only more efficient, but also
more reliable—it can be backed up by the grid, but is not dependent on the grid in the event of a
grid failure due to natural or terrorist causes; moreover, both the CCHP and the grid can provide
100 percent of a hospital’s needs (total connected load), allowing for full backup, not just lifesafety systems backup.
Local power generation can also provide better quality power—that is, power with fewer sags and
surges, which is optimal for sensitive digital equipment.
Energy and Resource Savings:
Hospitals can save significant amounts of energy by employing
high-performance, integrated systems, including:
• Heat recovery;
• CO2 concentration-driven ventilation control;
• High-performance building envelope (including shading, climate- and orientation-appropriate
glazing, insulation, and heat reflection);
• Daylighting (integrated with lighting controls);
23
Rocky Mountain Institute Health Care Without Harm
Design for Health
•
•
•
Integrated access floors and displacement ventilation;
Automated measurement and control systems; and
Efficient medical electronics:28
o Existing models are seldom designed for efficiency, or turned off;
o Offices have solved this problem with their data equipment; labs and even chip
fabrication plants (“chip fabs”) are starting to; why not medical facilities?
o In a chip-fab cleanroom, a saved electric watt can easily be worth $10 in present value
(due mainly to the space-conditioning load created); what’s that number in a hospital?
o If the hospital’s purchasing department doesn’t demand the most efficient equipment
possible, the equipment manufacturers probably won’t design to that value.
Case Study: Dell Children’s Medical Center of Central Texas (CMCCT) 1
Because reducing power demand (“demand-side management”) costs less than
constructing new conventional power plants, and because hospitals (with their large,
coincident electrical and thermal loads and 24/7 operation) have the best user profile for
combined heat and power (CHP), the Austin, TX utility, Austin Energy, constructed, at its
own expense, a high efficiency CHP plant for the Dell CMCCT. This win-win partnership
supported capital reinvestment in a green building that will reap major benefits:
• Gross capital Savings of $6.8M resulted from not building a central plant.
• CMCCT reinvested $2M of these savings into building energy conservation
measures (which will have a 4.9 year payback).
• CMCCT reinvested $3.8M in other green initiatives that may benefit clinical
outcomes, staff recruitment, retention and productivity, environmental
responsibility and community relations.
• CMCCT reaped net savings of $1.0M .
The costs associated with evidence-based “human” benefits:
Evidence-based research
suggests that high-performance “green” hospitals can enhance clinical outcomes, improve staff
recruitment and retention, reduce absenteeism, improve safety, promote a cleaner environment, and
improve community relationships and public image. These evidence-based benefits have significant
financial implications. First, a better-performing hospital with a better public image should be able to
increase its competitive market share. Second, reduced staff turnover and absenteeism and fewer
accidents reduce operational costs. Finally, better clinical outcomes reduce liability and societal costs—
for instance, consider the costs of nosocomial infections:29
o Surgical infections cost $15,300 and add 7.2 days to length of stay (LOS).
o Bone marrow transplant infections cost $22,000 and add 9.5 days to LOS.
o A new tuberculosis patient costs $100,000.
Given these statistics, what is the value of design measures (air handling systems, single occupancy
rooms, etc.) that have significant potential to reduce these infections?
Perceptions about the costs of green building: There is a definite perception that the traditional
way of building a hospital (“brown building”) costs less than “green building,” and therefore “green”
29
Spengler, John D. and John F. McCarthy, Design for Health: Summit for Massachusetts Health Care Decision
Makers, 28 September 2004.
24
Rocky Mountain Institute Health Care Without Harm
Design for Health
buildings have to prove that they are worth the extra cost—yet current building practices are not based on
definitive research showing that they are either the most effective or the most inexpensive methods. If a
conventional building develops air quality problems, it is likely to ultimately incur repair and maintenance
costs not foreseen in the initial design, defeating the economy-of-lower-first costs argument. Moreover, as
described earlier, first costs may actually not be higher for high performance green buildings 30—again,
this needs further study.
Challenges
Undoubtedly hospitals face challenges to adopting new design standards. In addition to real or perceived
financial challenges for higher upfront costs, there is a learning curve for the design team and it is critical
to have or create upper management support. For high performance, healthy design to be as successful
and cost-effective as possible, it must be integrated into the design at the outset. Budgeted upfront costs
that are critical to the integrated whole system, cannot be “value-engineered” out (each component of the
whole-system design is inherently linked to each other component; therefore, changing one component
will disrupt the entire system).
Retrofits and renovations comprise the bulk of hospital construction projects, but because of the physical
constraints of the existing building, certain green architectural features (such as deep daylighting or
provision of views) are harder to achieve than they are in new projects. However, greening an existing
facility can focus on systems, finishes, and operational improvements. For instance, recent technologies
and materials and systems make improved indoor air quality more easily achievable.
Quite possibly the biggest challenge to hospital administrators and designers alike is an institutional
aversion to change. Especially in an industry where life is at stake, veering from standard practice implies
risk, even if “standard practice” is less effective, less efficient, and more costly than other possible design
strategies. Given the risks associated with change, few hospitals want to be “test cases” and so there are
few examples for other hospitals to follow.
One of the goals of this Design for Health Summit was to address these challenges and propose solutions
to overcoming them.
30
Matthiessen, Lisa Fay and Peter Morris, “Costing Green: A Comprehensive Cost Database and Budgeting
Methodology,” 2004.
25
Rocky Mountain Institute Health Care Without Harm
Design for Health
Summit Recommendations: Initiatives
Summit participants developed the following recommendations collaboratively during breakout and
plenary sessions.
Collaborative Boston Community/Regional Initiatives
Boston area hospitals, working collaboratively, can leverage greater sustainability than any individual
hospital acting alone. This collaborative effort can also provide tremendous leadership nationwide.
Summit recommendations included:
1. Form a “Green Hospital Champions Council” with representatives from interested Boston and
other Massachusetts hospitals. Start with Summit participants, who showed interest in a Council,
following the Summit. The governor’s and Boston mayor’s offices may be helpful collaborators.
a. Work to collectively understand how institutional planners think and how institutions align
priorities. Toward this goal, include on the Council, members from various hospital fields.
b. Establish Group Purchasing Organizations (GPOs) to transform markets by significantly
increasing demand for non-polluting healthy construction materials and hospital operational
products as well as efficient medical equipment. Use collaborative buying power to get
manufacturers to produce more efficient medical equipment.
c. Work toward enhancing efficiency in a significant number of regional hospitals. This will not
only benefit the hospitals, but will benefit the broader community by reducing regional power
generation and its associated pollution, and infrastructure upgrades (new power plants). As
shown in the diagram below, saving one unit of energy at one hospital can save 10 units of
fuel at the power plant, thus even the easiest achievable energy savings at several hospitals
will have a large multiplicative effect at the power plant.
d. Engage in public/private partnerships.
26
Rocky Mountain Institute Health Care Without Harm
Design for Health
e. Work with the Boston Mayor’s Office, Massachusetts Governor’s Office, Massachusetts
Technology Collaborative, and Massachusetts utility companies to establish and act on green
building incentives, tax/rate credits, and methods to capitalize cost savings (for example,
work collectively to make cogeneration feasible for Boston hospitals).
f. Collaborate to assist Champions’ Council-member hospitals in adopting the Green Guidelines
for Health Care.
g. Develop a regional collaborative that can create consensus opinions and can provide critical
feedback, work with standard setting organizations such as the Joint Commission on
Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (JCAHO), to enhance the effectiveness of current
regulations, generate better regulations, and help facilitate the adoption of green guidelines.
Regulations and practices should be informed by research and retrospective analysis.
h. Work with the Medical Academic and Scientific Community Organization, Inc. (MASCO) to
spread sustainability initiatives to a broader network of facilities.
i. Spread the wealth of knowledge here in Massachusetts to elsewhere in the country—serve
by example.
Implementation strategy: with buy-in from their hospital leadership, several “green champions”
from Boston area hospitals could organize and co-facilitate this initiative with the support from
HCWH and possibly other groups.
2. Establish a web-based, searchable Information Exchange and Case Studies Database. This could
be an interactive website for posting and commenting on evidence based research, cost data, green
technologies, products, materials and systems. It could also provide case studies of green hospital
projects and references for architects and engineers with expertise in high-performance green
hospital design. It could be a discussion forum for green hospital design and engineering expertise.
a. Model green hospitals are needed to set the standard for others. Data on the financial case,
improved performance, etc., must be widely communicated.
b. Get reliable, hard data and empirical evidence as soon as possible for the benefits of green
healthcare design by identifying and prioritizing data needs and initiating follow-up studies.
c. Identify outdated and unscientific industry standards.
d. Facilitate research to evaluate the safety and performance of “green” versus status quo
standards.
Implementation strategy: A non-profit organization could be funded to set up and manage this
database. (For instance, RMI/HCWH could begin constructing it on the existing Summit weblink.)
3. Provide public education about precaution, prevention, and environmental factors for health, healthy
building design, and operations. This program could serve to educate the public about personal
actions and lifestyle choices and to create increased demand for the healthy hospital initiatives at
Massachusetts hospitals, thereby encouraging their success.
Implementation strategy: This initiative could be accomplished by a collaborative effort of Boston
area hospitals or by individual hospital outreach programs (see Hospital Policy Initiatives section,
below) or by a public health nonprofit that is funded for this project.
4. Organize an intensive design workshop (or workshops) specifically for engineers and architects
who are currently on hospital design teams. An outcome of this workshop could be a “how-to” manual
(a report describing performance standards and design methodologies for achieving them) for
designing high-performance green healthcare facilities, with particular focus on ventilation and indoor
air quality. By involving engineering and design experts experienced in optimal-efficiency design, this
workshop could help alleviate the problem of engineers unnecessarily upsizing equipment as
insurance against potential user complaints. The report could also serve as an updated guideline for
architects and engineers of future hospital projects.
27
Rocky Mountain Institute Health Care Without Harm
Design for Health
Implementation strategy: Several hospitals with upcoming construction projects could jointly fund
this workshop, and the team that facilitated the Boston Hospital Summit could facilitate it.
Individual Hospital Policy Initiatives
These initiatives are for hospital administrators and departmental staff to carry out in each individual
hospital. The initiatives represent an overall Summit recommendation for hospitals to commit to a cultural
change toward expecting and demanding environmental health, sustainability, safety, and ongoing
improvement. As outlined by Summit speakers Greg Doyle (Director of Buildings and Operations,
Massachusetts General Hospital) and George Player, (Director of Engineering, Brigham & Women’s
Hospital), the ambitions of this approach include reducing a hospital’s energy use, waste and cost,
enhancing occupant health and productivity, improving the patient experience and gaining public
approval.31
Progress toward these goals is already being made: since the Boston Design for Health Summit, several
hospitals have committed to adopting the GGHC for their new hospital building projects; these include
Beverly Hospital, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Children’s Hospital Boston, Dana Farber Cancer
Institute, and Spaulding Rehabilitation Hospital.
“You must have commitments simultaneously at all levels of an organization. This is
something that cannot be achieved by a top-down process. It must be a bottom-up process,
and a middle process, and the top must support these initiatives. We also must have the
commitments of our sponsors and of our boards.”
– Lloyd Dean, MA, President and CEO of Catholic Healthcare West, from the proceedings of
Setting Healthcare’s Environmental Agenda, October 16, 2000
As discussed during the Summit, gaining institutional commitment involves:
• Investment rather than enforcement,
• Facilitating rewards rather than fighting a burden,
• Promoting health rather than meeting compliance goals, and
• Conscience rather than compliance.
This level of commitment will be necessary to successfully achieve the following policy initiatives.
1. General mission statement/policy framework: Establish a hospital-wide mission statement and
policy framework connecting human health (for patients, staff, and the larger community) and the
environment. The ensuing policies should embody the precautionary principle 32 and commit to green
building practices—including adopting the Green Guideline for Heath Care (GGHC) for future
projects. These policies must be consistent with, and incorporated into, the institution’s overall vision
and policies and should be developed through consensus-building within the organization.
31
Doyle, Greg and George Player, Design for Health: Summit for Massachusetts Health Care Decision Makers, 28
September 2004.
32
As defined at Wingspread: “When an activity raises threats of harm to human health and health of the
environment, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully
established scientifically.” Precautionary action is anticipatory, preventive. It increases options, protects and
promotes health and whole-system resilience and integrity—Ted Schettler, presentation, Design for Health: Summit
for Massachusetts Health Care Decision Makers, 28 September 2004.
28
Rocky Mountain Institute Health Care Without Harm
Design for Health
a. Engage and involve major hospital decision makers (CFOs, department heads, board
members—particularly the finance committee, trustees, and other leaders) as advocates for a
leadership structure that promotes sustainability, integrating diverse stakeholders within the
institution in the decision process.
b. Each hospital needs to adopt an implementation strategy that will be effective for its own
senior management.
c. Start with internal strategic planning sessions with department heads to determine scope and
timeline of the effort, and to establish benchmarks of progress.
d. Hospitals need to create and “own” their definition of an optimum healing environment, then
integrate all the relevant departments and issues in a framework that works for the particular
hospital (by forming a committee of departmental representatives, for example).
e. Each hospital should adopt an institutional chemical policy statement for product and material
procurement that fits with the hospital’s mission (e.g., a cancer institute may adopt a nocarcinogen purchase policy).
f. Develop procurement strategies that embody the precautionary principle and green building
practices (see #4, below). Work with vendors who share the goals of the organization.
g. Update standards at hospital facilities to reflect environmentally preferable operational
processes.
h. Include green design and sustainability issues in planning discussions that deal with market
share, economics, accessibility to different types of care (acute, ambulatory), size and
placement of facilities, etc. Include in these discussions appropriate stakeholders, such as the
financial community.
i. Incorporate sustainability/green building issues in the long-term business plan of the
hospital’s real estate portfolio.
j. Incorporate sustainability as an institutional performance metric for:
i.
Facility design and construction,
ii.
Internal operations (including procurement, energy use, etc.), and
iii.
Impact on the community and surrounding environment (including noise, traffic,
emissions, waste and effluent, toxicity of materials used, etc.).
k. Develop “green teams” to influence specific projects, including future high performance
buildings and renovations. In addition to advocating green construction, this team should
facilitate communication and collaboration between the design team and operations staff.
l. Consider a voluntary International Organization for Standardization (ISO) review using the
GGHC.
m. Join Hospitals for a Healthy Environment (H2E).
Implementation strategy: One possible implementation strategy is to create an “advocacy group,”
an internal team (with at least one full-time person) with expertise in green building and healthcare
operations, who would have the authority from senior leadership to guide and oversee implementation
of programs across the facility. Implementing the precautionary principle, as outlined by Ted Schettler
of the Science and Environmental Health Network, involves:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Establishing a general duty to act with precaution,
Setting goals,
Using science wisely (choosing the right disciplines and working across disciplines),
Enhancing information flows,
Creating early warning systems,
Locating responsibility in the system,
Choosing the least harmful alternative,
Engaging in democratic decision-making processes, and
Explicitly incorporating values.
29
Rocky Mountain Institute Health Care Without Harm
Design for Health
2. Education policies: Focusing on sustainability and best environmental practices, provide education
and outreach to hospital management and staff, trustees, and board members, using existing
communications tools such as meetings, newsletters and internal websites.
a. Internal education
i.
Bring in appropriate experts to provide departmental education. Consider holding
an “Energy Awareness Day” with guest speakers from the EPA, the local utility,
vendors, etc.
ii.
Hold worker training on environmental safety and green design to increase health
and safety, while also reducing energy use. Continue training on a monthly or
quarterly basis for staff; running the engineering control room can ensure proper
operation of new equipment, technologies, and operating strategies.
iii.
Hold employee training sessions to explain proper protocols for how to operate
systems for optimal individual comfort and to avoid staff making makeshift local
“fixes” to address comfort problems, which can sidetrack indoor air quality and
system effectiveness.
iv.
Establish mandatory GGHC training for department leadership.
v.
Study the connections between infection control and worker habits and improve
with education, training, and an improved work environment.
b. Public education:
i.
Create public education and outreach programs, and marketing strategies, based
on best environmental practices and sustainability.
ii.
Facilitate physician-to-patient-level discussion about healthy choices for lifestyle
and environmental health.
Implementation strategy: Make the coordination of sustainability education part of the job of an
individual or team (it could be part of the human resources department’s work).
3. Energy, water, and other resource efficiency policies: 33
a. Create incentives and empower employees and stakeholders to take ownership of energy
efficiency and conservation strategies and to develop new ones. Have heads of staff make
rounds to ask employees for their suggestions of how to make the facility safer and more
effective.
b. Provide incentives to employees for water efficiency; work with the utilities to pursue incentive
programs for efficiency efforts. If water is reused for irrigation and cooling towers, rather than
being sent to the sewage treatment system, get the appropriate fee abatement from the
utility.
c. Some conservation measures, such as turning off lab fume-hoods when not in use, may be
worth assigning as a staff person’s job task. (A typical fume-hood, left on 24 hours a day, 7
days a week, consumes 3.5 times the energy of an average house, or $3,800 annually in
heating, cooling and fan energy.) 34
d. Employ departmental energy and water sub-metering for accountability.
e. Plan hospital programming to eliminate unnecessary energy usage and costs such as one
room’s energy needs driving a whole wing’s requirements (for example, avoid locating a
physician sleep room on a wing that is otherwise unused all night long).
f. For medical office buildings (MOBs) where the tenant doctors are charged for utilities, the
associated hospital or medical group to which the doctors belong could provide a manual of
energy- and resource-saving strategies and materials.
33
For specific energy-saving measures, see the following section: Engineered Systems Initiatives.
Woolliams, Jessica and John D. Spengler, presentation, Design for Health: Summit for Massachusetts Health
Care Decision Makers, 28 September 2004.
34
30
Rocky Mountain Institute Health Care Without Harm
Design for Health
Implementation strategy: Make this part of the job of the operations/engineering staff; note the
costs (added staff time) and savings associated with this operational commitment.
4. Purchasing policies: Develop, promote, and execute an extensive environmental-and-humanhealth-preferable purchasing program for all departments, including clinical, facilities operation,
housekeeping, construction, research, and contracted departments. Note that products can
compromise indoor air quality due to all of the following factors: carcinogens, mutagens and
teratogens; toxins; sensitizers and allergens; infectious aerosols; irritants; and odors.
a. Assess building material selection with regard to indoor air quality, especially for chemically
sensitive hospital patients or staff. Use GGHC, LEED and/or ASHE material standards.
b. Provide
green
material
education
to
project
managers,
contractors,
and
maintenance/operations workers to assure the healthfulness of materials that may not go
through purchasing departments.
c. Use the Construction Specification Institute (CSI) format, develop a standardized purchasing
specification for green products and update it continually; include this information in project
manuals (See the GreenSpec directory for green product listings by CSI designation).
d. Evaluate material safety data sheets (MSDSs) for products and chemicals.
e. Shift the burden of toxicity disclosure to manufacturers.
f. Adopt the Green Seal labeling criteria for purchasing cleaning materials.
g. Conduct materials management reviews and health and safety reviews.
h. Reduce solid waste and its toxicity:35
i.
Replace single use disposables (SUDs) with reusable products,
ii.
Replace toxic products, such as those containing mercury and polyvinyl chloride
(PVC) with safer alternatives,
iii.
Sort medical waste to minimize incineration, autoclaving and landfilling PVC items,
iv.
Increase recycling,
v.
Minimize construction waste,
vi.
Avoid the purchase of mercury-containing equipment and replace existing mercurycontaining equipment,
vii.
Provide training on mercury pollution prevention,
viii.
Distribute only non-mercury thermometers to patients and sponsoring mercury
thermometer exchange within the community, and
ix.
Establish fluorescent bulb and battery recycling programs.
Implementation strategy: If this is not part of the core competency of the current Purchasing
Department staff, work with advocacy groups such as HCWH or with private consultants (or bring a
qualified person on staff) who can address the toxicity issues described above.
5. Construction policies: Use life cycle cost accounting (rather than first-costs alone) for all future
construction, renovation, and purchasing projects. As depicted in the graph below, even if high
performance “green” buildings, products, and systems cost more up front, they typically reap ongoing
operational savings—the longer they are in service, the more money they save.
35
Guenther, Robin, presentation, Design for Health: Summit for Massachusetts Health Care Decision Makers, 28
September 2004.
31
TOTAL BUILDING COSTS
Rocky Mountain Institute Health Care Without Harm
Design for Health
LIFE-CYCLE
SAVINGS
UILDING
GREEN B
G
DIN
UIL
B
N
OW
BR
BREAK EVEN
PAYBACK
TIME
Green Building Costs & Investment Returns
According to a recent study of California LEED-certified buildings, cost premiums for green
buildings typically range from 0 to 2 percent, while life cycle savings are typically 20 percent of
total construction costs, representing a higher-than-tenfold return on the initial investment
—Greg Kats, et al., The Costs and Benefits of Green Building: A Report to California’s
Sustainable Building Task Force, October 2003
a. Life cycle metrics for building finish materials should include longevity/durability of the
material, maintenance requirements, replacement costs, etc.
b. Consider operational cost implications of products (note payback periods of higher
performance products); include considerations of future resource costs (e.g., energy, water,
time, etc.).
c. Link capital and operations budgets (or earmark operational savings) so that operational
savings can pay for increased capital costs of higher-performance, healthier products and
systems.
d. Green purchasing teams may need to identify and quantify the benefits of green products and
systems and “sell” their merits within the institution to help shift the mindset of management
from first costing to life cycle costing.
e. For medical office buildings that are leased rather than owned, develop a lease arrangement
based on life cycle costing, including the operational savings from green design. (For
example, prior to building completion, a consortium of future tenants could help finance the
additional costs of high performance systems in exchange for a lower lease rate.)
Performance-based fees
In addition to the regular fee structure for project design teams, provide incentive fees for high
performance buildings. If the actual performance of the completed building exceeds a set,
agreed-upon standard, the design team reaps a percentage of the savings, whereas if building
performance falls short, the team must pay a certain rebate to the owner.
32
Rocky Mountain Institute Health Care Without Harm
Design for Health
Implementation strategy: For construction projects, the hospital could require the contracted design
team to base design and specification decisions on life cycle costing, more than on first costs. The
hospital could also incentivize high-performance by making part of the design team’s fee contingent on
the performance of the building, a fee-structure known as performance-based fees.
The operational and purchasing policy changes would need to become part of the role of the hospital
staff.
6. Hospital policies for collecting evidence, data, and case study information: Develop and
implement a rigorous, effective evaluation and accounting process for sustainability improvements.
a. Considering whole building systems (not just individual components), evaluate and document
cost/benefit data for high performance ”green” (vs. conventional) hospitals. Include
incremental first costs, operating costs (energy and water), maintenance costs, end-of-life
disposal costs and replacement costs (for equipment, systems, finishes, and other
products).36 Establish a plan for evaluating human impacts and associated costs: staff
productivity/retention, patient results, medical error, and nosocomial infection rates, other
risks and liabilities.37 Record and publicize this evidence as it relates to the business case for
greening healthcare construction.
b. For example, establish practices for quantifying “good” air quality and measure corresponding
productivity at different levels of air quality. Assess changes in air quality and productivity
when green retrofits are done.
c. The following approach was recommended: inventory the current conditions in healthcare
buildings to establish a starting baseline before sustainability improvements are begun,
assess the inventory, set priorities, develop effective strategies, implement those strategies,
measure results (use assessment tools to institute a continuous measurement and
verification process for all systems and equipment), and finally, create feedback loops to
make sure the data gathered is used in decision-making. Make results accessible as case
study data for other hospitals.
d. Require post-occupancy evaluations as an integral component of measuring and verifying
green building performance and to develop data for future decision-making and systems
design.
Implementation strategy: Implementing a rigorous plan to measure, evaluate, and document
the results of sustainability improvements, for both new construction/renovation and operations,
will require strong commitment from upper leadership, staff members who are assigned and
dedicated to the tasks, and possibly outside funding. The National Institute of Health (NIH) may
be a potential funder of endeavors to assess the costs and benefits of “greening” hospitals.
Architecture/Design Initiatives
The following initiatives provide specific recommendations, targeted at hospital design teams (both
internal staff and contractors) and hospital decision-makers, for improving the health, safety,
effectiveness, and resource/energy efficiency of hospital buildings.
Implementation strategy: With the mandate from senior leadership, hospital facility architects or project
managers, and their construction/renovation consultants, should pursue implementation of the following
recommendations:
36
One Summit participant recommended documenting cost/savings data by LEED point.
Dr. Samuel Wilson, Deputy Director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, suggested that
the National Institute of Health (NIH) might be a potential funding source for this evaluation.
37
33
Rocky Mountain Institute Health Care Without Harm
Design for Health
1. Use an upfront, integrated, holistic design process for new construction and major renovation
projects:
a. Include all institutional stakeholders early in the process (owner, architects, engineers, users,
etc.); this is critical for proper programming and for opportunity identification during
conceptual design.
b. Broaden the integrated planning approach to include city and state leaders, city planners,
community perspectives, public approval authorities, etc., especially for masterplanning
efforts affecting the public (for example, consider public transportation options relevant to
facility location).
c. Senior management must support the integrated green approach for it to work.
2. “Green” the design team:
a. Implement a performance-based fee structure (see text box, above).
b. Screen design professionals for green credentials.
c. Identify and recognize green design champions within the organization and include them on
design project teams.
3. Design hospital spaces for flexibility and modularity to accommodate the rapid changes in
treatment, information technology, expansion or renovation:
a. Allow for integration of departments, diagnostics, research, etc.
b. Provide abundant electrical outlets to allow for future changes in equipment and layout.
c. Use portable units for specialized equipment (such as maternity Jacuzzis) so as not to limit
the flexibility of the room.
Biologically inspired design:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
References diversity and connects to life outdoors,
Supports social interaction and human condition,
Introduces natural light and fresh air; pure water and less waste,
Uses organic forms and fluid lines to ease flow; reduce stress,
Creates textured palette; material depth, visual and tactile environment,
Combines green materials to reflect outdoor space, diversity, and range, and
Provides human scale w/ multi-sensory immersion of elements.
4. Promote a healthy indoor environment for staff and patients. Evidence suggests that a “healthy”
environment will reduce stress (promoting productivity and healing for patients and staff) and improve
safety, while also contributing to ecological and community health. Attributes of a “healthy
environment,” as suggested by evidence-based research and productivity studies, include color
choices, daylight and glare-free electric lighting, views of and access to nature, soft design forms,
operable windows and other means for personal environmental control, social support, natural and
non-toxic materials, good acoustics, good ergonomics, and good air quality.
a. Provide individual environmental controls for a more comfortable and ergonomically sensitive
environment for staff and patients.
i.
Provide operable windows in patient rooms, combined with “smart” computerized
controls to shut-off mechanical systems when windows are opened and to address
containment of pollutants, terrorism threats and energy use.
ii.
Provide adjustable ergonomics to reduce fatigue and stress and to enhance safety.
iii.
Provide more effective lighting with adjustable controls for changing user needs,
especially to accommodate use of new lab equipment.
34
Rocky Mountain Institute Health Care Without Harm
Design for Health
b. Assess building material selection and installation processes for impacts on indoor air quality
(set high standards of indoor air quality to accommodate hospital patients and staff who may
be chemically sensitized individuals), then write specifications to accommodate best products
and practices. Pay particular attention to potential sources of indoor air quality problems that
would impact chemically sensitized individuals.
c. Use green materials that provide the same or higher degree of performance while reducing
toxicity and waste (find alternates to disposable and toxic products and materials), and
enhancing durability, ergonomics, acoustics, and maintenance.
5. Reduce construction/demolition waste: Reuse materials removed during renovations to reduce the
waste stream and the resultant environmental toxicity.38
6. Lighting design: In addition to high performance lighting design (putting light where it is needed,
lighting for safety, visual acuity, glare reduction, etc.), consider the implications of lighting for both
patient health and health care workers’ alertness. The internal circadian clock, which is set externally
by visible light, controls hormone production and human bodily functions—exposure to light produces
serotonin, dopamine and GABA, and exposure to darkness produces melatonin, norepinephrin and
acetylcholine. Evidence suggests that the higher rate of breast cancer in shift workers (and, in
general, for women in industrialized countries) could be related to reduced melatonin production
associated with exposure to light during both day and night. Therefore important design
considerations include minimizing light trespass in patient room windows keeping patient-area nightlighting to a minimum and to red spectrum light, while using blue spectrum light in work areas to
promote staff alertness. During the daytime, provide glare-free daylight and views to natural
landscape; provide electric light dimming linked to daylight levels, light surfaces rather than volumes
of space and use light-colored finishes to bounce light. Benefits of this approach: In addition to the
evidence-based health benefits, performance benefits of eye-strain reduction and better visual acuity
for optimal task performance, electric lighting energy use can be reduced by 25–50 percent with
advanced light sources, design strategies and controls, and by 75 percent with the addition of
daylighting.39
7. Design
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
lighting strategies in the right order to optimize effectiveness and efficiency:
Improve the visual quality of the task,
Improve geometry of the space, cavity reflectance,
Improve lighting quality (cut veiling reflections and discomfort glare),
Optimize lighting quantity,
Harvest and distribute daylight,
Optimize luminaries, and
Use controls, maintenance and training.
8. Inpatient room/department design: 40
a. The following benefits have been associated with the provision of single occupancy patient
rooms:
i.
Infection control,
ii.
Patient comfort and privacy, and
iii.
Improved hospital image and marketing.
b. Acuity-adaptable patient room (adaptable to varying levels of progressive and acute care)
provide the following benefits:
38
Refer to WasteSpec, Triangle J Council of Governments; download: www.tjcog.dst.nc.us/cdwaste.htm#wastespec.
Clanton, Nancy, presentation, Design for Health: Summit for Massachusetts Health Care Decision Makers, 28
September 2004.
40
Mombourquette, Arthur, presentation, Design for Health: Summit for Massachusetts Health Care Decision
Makers, 28 September 2004.
39
35
Rocky Mountain Institute Health Care Without Harm
Design for Health
c.
i.
Adaptability,
ii.
Flexibility in patient management,
iii.
Reduction in patient transport from room to room, and
iv.
Ability to anticipate changing technology and care patterns.
Other important inpatient department design considerations include:
i.
Sound levels in patient rooms and communal areas, especially at night,
ii.
Nursing staff workflow and communications,
iii.
Access to natural day light/views for patients and staff,
iv.
Visual supervision: central nursing staff station vs. proximate location,
v.
Effects of shift work: risks, ergonomics, etc.,
vi.
Equipment in patient rooms: use, impact, space limits, and
vii.
Improved ventilation systems.
9. Nursing station design considerations: 41
a. Visibility of patient rooms,
b. Walking distance for staff,
c. Proximity of supplies, equipment and technology,
d. Adequate storage space,
e. Adaptability,
f. Layout and signage that is easy to navigate, and
g. Convenient access to hand wash sinks.
Engineered Systems Initiatives
The following recommendations, specific to the design and operations of energy and mechanical systems
for hospitals, can dramatically reduce energy consumption, make heating, ventilation and air conditioning
(HVAC) operations more healthful and effective, and significantly reduce hospital operational costs (and
in some cases first costs).
Implementation strategy: These recommendations are targeted to individual hospitals. With the
mandate from senior leadership, hospital facility engineers and their construction/renovation consultants
should pursue implementation of the following recommendations.
1. Provide adequate operations & maintenance (O&M) resources to hire and train personnel. Avoid
reducing maintenance positions to trim operational budgets, which usually backfires because
inadequately maintained systems are less efficient and increase energy costs. Provide training
manuals for mechanical systems operators and education and incentives for staff to achieve better
performing systems with greater energy efficiency.
2. In cooperation with the distribution utility, develop a combined cooling, heating, and power (CCHP)
system to provide efficient energy supply and premium reliability. Start with a CCHP feasibility study
to analyze the costs, benefits and barriers. Utility cooperation is necessary to arrange the grid
interconnection in a way that supports the use of CCHP to enhance customer reliability. Utility
connection requirements for CCHP vary widely and tend to be complex and costly. The most costeffective CCHP system will harness both the reliability benefits of standby operation and the energy
savings of parallel operation. However, this requires CCHP sources to operate in an island mode (i.e.,
separated from the grid, to serve loads during a grid outage, yet present utility practice typically
discourages any sort of islanding).
41
Ibid.
36
Rocky Mountain Institute Health Care Without Harm
Design for Health
3. Initiate a continuous commissioning program (upfront commissioning followed by periodic
commissioning throughout the life of the building) to optimize energy equipment performance, system
performance, and overall energy efficiency. Include an operator education component and continuous
measurement and feedback to inform decision-making.
4. Employ smart energy methodology in the right order:
a. Reduce loads first
i. Optimize building envelope,
ii. Provide efficient lighting systems, appliances, equipment, and
iii. Commission (and re-commission) the building.
b. Use integrated design
i. Integrate heating, ventilation and air conditioning and daylighting systems,
ii. Utilize waste heat,
iii. Improve mechanical system efficiency, and
iv. Design systems to modulate with varying loads.
c. Finally, consider supply side improvements such as on-site renewable energy.
5. Design space cooling strategies in the right order to optimize effectiveness and efficiency:
a. Cool the people, not the building.
b. Expand the comfort envelope with behavioral changes (dress, proper operation of cooling
equipment, etc.)
c. Minimize unwanted heat gains.
d. Differentiate summer versus winter loads (use more refined air/water chilling systems).
e. Facilitate passive cooling (i.e., ventilative, radiative, ground-coupled, or water-coupled).
f. Utilize active non-refrigerative cooling (i.e., evaporative, desiccant, absorption, hybrids).
g. Provide super-efficient refrigerative cooling.
h. Utilize thermal storage and controls to manage loads and avoid on-peak demand.
i. Achieve resultant cumulative energy saving of up to 90 percent, along with better comfort,
lower capital cost, and better reliability.
6. Pumping loop design: Use big, short straight pipes rather than skinny, long, crooked pipes (lay out
the pipes first, then the equipment). This could reduce pumping energy by 90 percent!42
7. Waste heat: Install heat exchangers to capture heat from wastewater and use elsewhere—this is
especially applicable to the waste steam from process water (sterilizers, autoclaves, etc.).
8. Ventilation strategies for indoor air quality and energy efficiency:
a. Use monitoring controls (such as spore traps and carbon dioxide sensors) to inform air flow
rates and thereby enhance indoor air quality, infection control, and energy efficiency for both
existing and new buildings. Provide particle sampling in spaces adjacent to construction
zones. Periodically verify the performance of the monitoring controls.
b. Explore ways to provide 100 percent outside air for infection control, while still improving
energy efficiency. Design more efficient HVAC systems that adapt to the 100 percent outside
air demand (e.g., compartmentalize the hospital and only provide certain areas with 100
percent outside air during off hours). Make full use of heat recovery, efficient dehumidification
and ventilation flow controls.
c. Identify good target areas for natural ventilation and explore alternative strategies, such as
supply air windows, trickle vent, etc.
42
Benefits achieved in an exemplary industrial plant included 92 percent less pumping energy, lower capital cost, 70
kW lower heat loss from the pipes, less space, weight, noise and easier maintenance. Saving one unit of friction in
the pipe saves 10 units of fuel at the power plant, due to power generation and transmission losses—Amory Lovins,
presentation, Design for Health: Summit for Massachusetts Health Care Decision Makers, 28 September 2004.
37
Rocky Mountain Institute Health Care Without Harm
Design for Health
9. Displacement ventilation: 43 Study whether displacement ventilation, which can enhance both health
and energy efficiency, is appropriate for each hospital department application. Advantages include:
a. By displacing stale air with fresh air, rather than the conventional process of diluting stale air
by mixing it with ducted fresh air from above, displacement ventilation can enhance air
quality, while reducing energy use.
b. Once thought to increase capital cost (if built like specialized raised-floor computer centers),
displacement ventilation is now known to have comparable or lower total capital cost in
offices—so why not in hospitals?
c. It can reduce or eliminate ducts, which can save floor-to-floor space.
d. By removing ducts, it avoids their pressure drop, resulting in smaller fans, less fan heat for
the chiller to remove, and therefore smaller chillers.
e. Displacement ventilation reduces chiller lift and improves efficiency because supply air is
65°F not 55°F.
f. Displacement ventilation can eliminate air-handling noise.
g. It is not necessary to drizzle air up through floor; fresh air can be supplied at baseboard level,
avoiding issues of spills and sanitation problems.
h. Displacement ventilation should permit major reductions in air changes/hour.
10. Air handling in laboratories (and other contaminant areas):44 Laboratory design standards are
currently based on air changes per hour (ACH) and at least six organizations have different
recommended design standards,45 but, as pointed out by the American National Standards Institute
(ANSI) and the American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA), “air changes per hour is not the
appropriate concept for designing contaminant control systems. Contaminants should be controlled at
the source.” Or as stated in “Industrial Ventilation” by the American Conference of Governmental
Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) p.7–5: “’Air changes per hour’ or ‘air changes per minute’ is a poor
basis for ventilation criteria where environmental control of hazards, heat, and/or odors is required.
The required ventilation depends on the problem, not the size of the room in which it occurs.”
a. Design for energy efficiency and reduced lab hazards. An important case study at
Harvard School of Public Health (SPH), “Challenging Lab Standards SPH2—2nd Floor,” could
set new standards for reducing lab hazards and environmental pollutants, while dramatically
improving energy savings, using the following design strategies:46
i. Solicit an environmental health and safety industrial hygienist to conduct a hazard
assessment for each laboratory based on chemical inventories and laboratory
standard operating protocols (SOPs) provided by end-users.
43
Lovins, Amory, presentation, Design for Health: Summit for Massachusetts Health Care Decision Makers, 28
September 2004.
44
For more information, see Labs 21 Environmental Performance Criteria,
http://www.labs21century.gov/toolkit/epc.htm; also see “High-Efficiency Laboratory Ventilation: Benefits and
Opportunities,” by Tom Lunneberg, E-Source Tech Update, March 1998.
45
Organizations with recommendations for air changes per hour (ACH) include:
o ASHRAE Applications Handbook, p. 13.8 (6-10 ACH).
o NFPA 45, National Fire Protection Association, p. 45-26 (4-8 ACH).
o OSHA 29 CFR-1910, Occupational Safety & Health Administration, US Dept of Labor, p. 484 (4-12
ACH).
o Prudent Practices, National Research Council, p. 192 (6-12 ACH).
o NIH Design Policy & Guidelines section D.7.10, National Institute of Health, p. 17 (6 ACH).
o Industrial Ventilation, American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists.
o ANSI / AIHA Z9.5-2003, American National Standards Institute, American Industrial Hygiene Assn.
--Woolliams, Jessica and John D. Spengler, presentation, Design for Health: Summit for Massachusetts
Health Care Decision Makers, 28 September 2004.
46
Woolliams, Jessica and John D. Spengler, presentation, Design for Health: Summit for Massachusetts Health
Care Decision Makers, 28 September 2004.
38
Rocky Mountain Institute Health Care Without Harm
Design for Health
ii. Size heating ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) ductwork and equipment for six
air changes per hour (ACH).
iii. Balance HVAC system to two ACH.
iv. In each laboratory, install volatile organic compound (VOC) sensors, with
Proportional Integral Derivative (PID) control, and connect them to the Building
Automated Control (BAC) system.
v. Program the VOC sensors for local and remote alarm notification (audible & visual).
vi. Program HVAC Variable Air Volume (VAV) dampers to increase ACH to maximum
design (six ACH) if VOC sensor(s) are in alarm mode.
b. Variable air volume: In a feasibility study using the Labs 21 design standard for a Harvard
35-year-old, 68,000-square-foot, 52 percent lab building (with 26 fume hoods), it was
estimated that upgrading to a variable air volume HVAC system with heat recovery would
save $48,000/year (10 percent of utility costs), with a 4.25 year payback.47
c. Laminar air flow: 48 New clean room and lab air-handling designs can probably overcome
perceived capital- and energy-cost penalties in applying laminar airflow to medical facility
design as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Healthcare Infection
Control Practices Advisory Committee (HICPAC) recommend.
d. 100 percent outside air: As in the new UC/Davis Medical Center hospital, 100 percent
outside air may actually reduce capital cost by simplifying the design, while providing better
air quality, although this might be more difficult in more humid climates.
11. Labs—special considerations: Lab facilities have commonly become obsolete when their physical
environment cannot service revolutionary new clinical testing procedures. Labs today need robust
mechanical and electrical systems, provisions for automation, local exhaust, temperature and
humidity control, and provisions for spill containment. One option is to put UV lamps and carbon filters
in air-handling units, although care must be taken with the potential for ducts and filters to become
growth media for fungi, etc.
12. Fume hoods: Save significant energy by using high performance variable air volume (VAV) fume
hoods or low-flow constant-volume fume hoods, reducing their operating time (turning them off when
not in use), using auxiliary air hoods, and using heat recovery systems. The quantity of air exhausted
can be reduced by limiting the face opening, reducing face velocity, using variable air volume
controls, and by using special local exhaust hoods and ductless hoods.49
13. Operating rooms: As with labs, operating room requirements have evolved. Standard temperatures
have changed from 68–72°F to 55–65°F and room size has grown from 400 square feet to more than
600 square feet with ceiling heights going from 12.5 to 16 feet. Air filtration requirements have
become increasingly stringent and supplementary disinfection (UV lights in ductwork and mechanical
47
The full list of options included:
o Constant Volume with Heat Recovery: $20,000/ yr savings, 4.8-year payback.
o Constant Volume with Usage Based Control: $18,500 /yr, 2.9-yr payback.
o Constant Volume with Usage Based Control and Heat Recovery: $32,000 /yr, 4.7-yr payback.
o Variable Air Volume: $33,500/yr, 3.3-yr payback.
o Variable Air Volume with Heat Recovery: $48,000/yr, 4.25-yr payback.
o Constant Volume with Low Flow Fume Hoods: $28,072, 7.85-yr payback.
--Woolliams, Jessica and John D. Spengler, presentation, Design for Health: Summit for Massachusetts Health
Care Decision Makers, 28 September 2004.
48
Definition of laminar air flow: a flow of air uniformly parallel from ceiling to floor, or wall to wall in a room or
workstation, moving with uniform velocity and a minimum of turbulence—Chemistry dictionary,
www.chemicool.com/definition/laminar_air_flow.html.
49
DiBerardinis, Louis, presentation, Design for Health: Summit for Massachusetts Health Care Decision Makers,
28 September 2004.
39
Rocky Mountain Institute Health Care Without Harm
Design for Health
equipment) has become common. Considering these design constraints, the following
recommendations address efficiency and effectiveness:
a. Energy efficiency and high performance could result from performing thermodynamic
modeling to assess standards for air change rate per hour. Consider cooling the patient
locally, rather than designing the mechanical system to over-cool the entire room.
b. Design for infection control performance and provide the most effective and efficient locations
for exhaust vents.
c. Use a diversity factor when calculating load demands for surgical suites. Most mechanical
systems are over-designed to handle all potential loads even though all the loads are never
simultaneously on.
d. Utilize redundancy by sharing air-handling units for multiple operating rooms. Shift air
handling between spaces (this is analogous to using variable-frequency drives).
14. Specify the most energy efficient hospital equipment (and demand higher performance equipment
from suppliers if not readily available). Consider that most emergency department equipment
operates on different frequencies than building management systems (BMS).
15. Use high-end isolation valves to isolate areas that need mechanical servicing, without shutting
down an entire floor.
16. Think “ahead” of regulations (and utility/disposal service fees). For instance, use mercury-free
lamps and HCFC- and CFC-free HVAC systems; recover discharge water for reuse.
17. Water efficiency methodology: 50 Water efficiency can produce a 40 percent return on investment
(ROI) or (by using an outside contractor) it can reduce operating expenses without a capital
investment. Identify all water sources and institute efficient water use and wastewater reduction:
a. Reduce flow/frequency (for new construction, use most-efficient fixtures, harvest rainwater for
use, rather than sending it elsewhere for treatment). Treat the hospital as its own watershed.
b. Reuse/Recycle (collect condensate, gray water, and rainwater to use for cooling tower and
irrigation and/or for non-potable domestic use (toilet flushing),
c. Replace (e.g., replace inefficient/leaky fixtures and equipment, sealed/closed-system cooling,
etc.).
18. Specific water efficiency opportunities: Hospital water use is typically 25 percent “domestic”
(sinks, showers and toilets/urinals) and 75 percent “process,” including non-potable uses
(boilers/chillers, cooling towers, condenser water, irrigation, steam system, etc.), equipment requiring
potable water (food services, refrigeration equipment, medical air/vacuum systems, operating room
equipment, ambulatory surgery, autoclaves, film processing for radiology, radiation oncology, bio
reactors, analytical lab equipment, instrument washers, cage/cart washers, laundry, etc.), and water
purification systems (reverse osmosis/stills). Efficiency opportunities include:
a. Domestic
i. Replace 3.5-gallons-per-flush (gpf) toilets with 1.6 gpf toilets,
ii. Reduce high-flow faucets and showerheads (replace 2.5-gallons-per-minute (gpm)
faucets with 1.5-gpm variety),
iii. Repair leaky fixtures (leaky toilets and showerheads can waste 350 and 1000 gallons
each week!),
iv. Install waterless urinals, and
v. Install motion-activated sinks for hand washing.
b. Process equipment
vi. Replace water cooled equipment,
50
Loranger, Robert, presentation, Design for Health: Summit for Massachusetts Health Care Decision Makers, 28
September 2004.
40
Rocky Mountain Institute Health Care Without Harm
Design for Health
vii.
viii.
ix.
x.
c.
Use alternate source of water for cooling,
Recover waste water and reuse,
Improve efficiency of water-using equipment,
Run full loads in sanitizers, dishwashers, sterilizers and autoclaves, and laundry
washing machines (consistent with health code),
xi. Install automatic valves on film process, autoclave, and sterilizing equipment to stop
water flow when not in use—use temperature control valves.
Plant operations
xii. Install non-potable well,
xiii. Reuse cooling tower/boiler blowdown,
xiv. Install xeriscape (zero- or low-water-use, well-adapted landscaping),
xv. Recover condensate and reuse, and
xvi. Eliminate water-cooled equipment.
Implementation strategy for water efficiency: Implementing water efficiency requires a dedication of
staff time to (a) benchmark existing conditions, (b) set water use reduction goals, and (c) develop and
implement a water conservation management plan. If facility managers are too busy to implement these
measures, and if capital is scarce while operating budgets are also being cut, then hire an outside
contractor who will install water efficiency measures and be paid through the operational savings
(performance-based contracts). Alternatively, use creative funding approaches, such as a utility expense
reduction program, which is treated as an operating expense requiring no capital budget.51
51
Ibid.
41
Rocky Mountain Institute Health Care Without Harm
Design for Health
Conclusions and Next Steps
The Summit discussions and post-Summit participant feedback pointed to some critical issues and needs
associated with greening healthcare facilities. These include a need for collaboration and cooperation
within the healthcare community—especially between hospitals, but also including governmental- and
non-governmental organizations, and community members. Also needed are: the creation and circulation
of successful case studies, more data supporting the business case for green hospital construction, more
evidence-based research, and information regarding engineering and design advancements for
healthcare construction. Hospital staff, architects, and engineers need ongoing education and
technical/design guidance, and, as some participants suggested, they need additional forums (such as
additional summits) to glean information and to network with their peers. Finally, as pointed out in most
every Summit work session, one of the most essential steps for hospitals to green their facilities is for
them to establish senior leadership commitment and hospital culture change.
Follow-up from the Summit
Further Research and Workshops: As noted above, the Summit identified many critical issues that
need further awareness and research. There are several efforts already underway to address these
needs. The cost-estimating firm Davis Langdon is following up its “Costing Green” study (which compared
the costs of green versus standard buildings) with a study specifically targeting healthcare buildings. As
noted during the Summit, NIH may also be interested in funding further research into the costs and
benefits of “greening” hospitals (although such a study has not yet been proposed). The AIA College of
Fellows recently awarded the 2005/2006 Latrobe Fellowship to fund research to further examine the link
between healthcare facility design and faster healing rates in patients. Finally, outcomes of the Design for
Health Summit informed the planning and design of an upcoming workshop: Green Healthcare
Institutions: Health, Environment, and Economics, which is being sponsored by the National Academies’
Institute of Medicine and will be held in Washington DC, 10–11 January, 2006.52
Collaborative Initiatives:
After the Summit, there was considerable interest in the Boston Hospital
Champions Council idea, but due to constraints on the time of key hospital decision-makers, it became
difficult for hospitals to make the commitment to participate. This underscores the reality that unless
hospitals allocate personnel specifically to greening efforts, there will be conflicting priorities.
What has evolved, however, is a burgeoning “Lunch and Learn” program for the architectural design
community, facilitated by Health Care without Harm, in which hospital designers can learn about green
design strategies and products, and can exchange ideas with each other. Design firms are also
encouraged to invite their hospital clients. These sessions are held once per month, either at architectural
firms during lunchtime or at 5:30 p.m. at the Boston Society of Architects. The lunch sessions have
attracted an average of 35–40 participants and the evening sessions, about 12–14. Presenters have
included Barbra Batshalom, Bill Ravanesi, Robin Guenther, and Paul Lipske, Sustainable Step of New
England. Topics have included strategic questioning, sustainability 101, the GGHC, the business case for
high performance hospital design, and case studies of early adopters of high performance hospital
design. Regularly attending firms have included: Steffian Bradley Associates, Boston Properties, Perkins
and Will, and Payette Associates.
Individual Hospital Initiatives: Following the Summit, several individual hospitals committed to
adopting the GGHC for their new construction projects. These include: Beverly Hospital, Brigham and
Women’s Hospital, Children’s Hospital Boston, Dana Farber Cancer Institute, and Spaulding
52
The workshop will be held in the National Academies’ building, Keck 100, 500 5th Street NW, Washington DC,
Registration is free (see www.iom.edu/ehsrt for more information).
42
Rocky Mountain Institute Health Care Without Harm
Design for Health
Rehabilitation Hospital. Representing senior leadership commitment at these major hospitals, and
forecasting a better-educated architectural design community, this could be a big step toward healthier
hospital construction in Boston. Moreover, given the nationally respected status of Boston hospitals, this
ripple of change could have ongoing impact in ever-widening circles.
43
Rocky Mountain Institute Health Care Without Harm
Design for Health
Appendix A: Additional Breakout Session Material
A-1: The Business Case – A Breakout Session Discussion
The most prevalent notion in the market today is that green buildings cost more. First, the question “cost
more than what?” must be carefully answered. Do green buildings cost more than the exact same building
without the green features, more than the capital budget, or more than comparable buildings of the same
size and complexity? Bob Moroz, in his Summit presentation on The Dell Children’s Hospital of Texas,
(Seton Health Systems, Austin, Texas) demonstrated how offloading the cost of a central heating and
chiller plant ($6 million of a $150 million capital project) through a contract with Austin Energy allowed for
a series of incremental capital cost increases to improve building performance (and achieve a LEED®
Platinum rating) with little to no perceived difference in the total construction cost. In this example, a green
building costs no more than the capital budget.
In the absence of green buildings to study, early financial models have predicted that sustainable
buildings would carry cost premiums that related to their “level” of sustainability. More recent studies,
based upon completed buildings, have shown that the anticipated cost premiums have been largely
overstated. In its 2003 White Paper on Sustainability, Building Design & Construction magazine
concluded that many “green” buildings cost no more than their “brown” equivalents.53 Gregory H. Kats
reviewed more than 100 completed LEED® certified office and school buildings and concluded that the
average first cost premium is slightly less than two percent.54 More important, these studies point to a
consistent set of key factors that affect building costs:
• The earlier the green features are incorporated in design, the lower the cost.
• Costs decline with increasing experience, and as market transformation occurs.
• Green buildings provide financial benefits that brown buildings do not.
Kats outlined the benefits of green buildings as follows: “the financial benefits are in lower operating
costs, lower environmental costs, and increased productivity and health. Over 20 years, the benefits are
over 10 times the additional costs.”
The 2004 Davis Langdon study concluded: “Sustainability is a program issue rather than an added
requirement; perhaps the most important thing to remember is that …(it) is not a below-the-line item.” 55
This study, which compared completed green and brown laboratory buildings, found no correlation
between construction cost and level of sustainable design features. Instead, it concluded:
• There is a very large variation in costs of buildings, even within the same building
program type, and
• There are low cost and high cost green buildings; there are low cost and high cost nongreen buildings.
In summary, there is no conclusive data that, in the aggregate, green buildings cost more than their brown
equivalents. Participants agreed that if green strategies are isolated that cost more than their brown
equivalents but deliver operational savings, then the operational savings must be included in the equation.
53
“White Paper on Sustainability,” Building Design & Construction Magazine, November 2003.
Kats, Gregory H., “The Costs and Financial Benefits of Green Buildings: A Report to California’s Sustainable
Building Task Force,” October, 2003; for full report, see www.cap-e.com.
55
Matthiessen, Lisa Fay and Peter Morris, “Costing Green: A Comprehensive Cost Database and Budgeting
Methodology,” October 2004, for full report, see www.greenerbuildings.com.
54
44
Rocky Mountain Institute Health Care Without Harm
Design for Health
Operational savings include energy and water efficiency savings, or material selections that reduce
maintenance costs.
It is in the relationship between buildings and health that the intersection with the business case for
“evidence-based design” is most evident. Participants reviewed “The Business Case for Better Buildings,”
a study published by the Center for Health Design, that used a series of Pebble Project research findings
to project financial payback related to constructing buildings that reduce stress, and improve safety.56 The
study extrapolated research findings to create the Fable Hospital, a building that projected additional first
costs to achieve a safer, less stressful, healthier environment, which in turn achieved a series of financial
benefits.
Summit participants agreed that the Fable Hospital study provides important initial data to use in
quantification of benefits. Reduced staff illness and absenteeism, improved staff performance (reduced
medical error), reduced hospital acquired infections, and improved staff recruitment and retention are all
benefits that can be quantified through continued research and measurement. The benefits from
sustainable design strategies need to be defined, quantified, and communicated through industry, much
the way the Fable Hospital project has accomplished quantification of evidence-based design strategies.
Until there are enough “green” healthcare buildings to study and the business case is proven, sustainable
healthcare construction will be accomplished by a select group of industry leaders. Summit participants
agreed that the Boston area includes a number of institutions that strive to be market leaders, and the
time was ripe for leaders to move forward with sustainable building. Participants were encouraged to
heed Amory Lovins’s Summit warning: “If you wait until the data is in and the business case is proven,
you will forfeit leadership.”
56
Berry, Leonard, et al, “The Business Case for Better Buildings,” Frontiers of Health Services Management, 21(1)
pp 4-24. Full report: http://www.healthdesign.org/aboutus/press/releases/frontiers_0904.pdf.
45
Rocky Mountain Institute Health Care Without Harm
Design for Health
A-2: Strategies for super-efficient HVAC design57
Efficient laboratory HVAC design can produce tremendous energy savings while creating a healthier
hospital environment. The secret is simply designing the system in the right order and focusing on whole
system design—optimizing the whole system for multiple benefits, not isolated components for single
benefits.
Step one: design out toxicity in the first place through material selection.
Step two: use a low face-velocity design with big pipes and small pumps. This will reduce the
frictional losses and allow the mechanical equipment to be downsized.
Step three: avoid the gross over-sizing that comes from rule-of-thumb designs. This is where the
cost savings come from—smaller equipment is cheaper to buy, creates smaller parasitic heat
loads, and requires less maintenance.
Step one is discussed throughout this report and in the GGHC sections on Materials & Resources and
Environmental Quality. Step three is self-explanatory yet influenced by step two, which is discussed more
thoroughly below.
Air handling fundamentals: Step two, which consequently leads to equipment downsizing,
increased efficiency, and deferred capital costs, is grounded in the fundamental thermodynamics equation
shown below. This equation identifies the key strategies that are addressed in efficient HVAC design: (1)
reduce flow rate, (2) reduce pressure drop, and (3) increase equipment efficiency:
•
Q(CFM) P(inches)
Fan motor power (hp) =
,
6,345 fan drive motor
when:
•
Q = volumetric flow rate in the system;
P = pressure drop in the system;
fan = fan efficiency;
drive = drive efficiency; and
motor = motor efficiency.
(1) Reduce flow rate: Hospital HVAC design typically relies on recommended air changes per hour (note:
there are currently six different organizations with different design recommendations). However, by using
demand-controlled filtration,58 air could be supplied only when needed—based on a real-time measure of
contamination, not thermal loads. This strategy would maintain the required clean conditions while
reducing flow rate. Furthermore, using displacement ventilation, as used in raised-floor computer centers,
will maintain laminar flow and push the contaminants out of the rooms rather than diluting them in place.
This concept is illustrated in the figure below.
57
Lovins, Amory, presentation, Design for Health: Summit for Massachusetts Health Care Decision Makers, 28
September 2004.
58
Demand-controlled filtration manages ventilation rates in response to real-time particle-count measurements. For
more information, see http://hightech.lbl.gov/dc-filtration.html.
46
Rocky Mountain Institute Health Care Without Harm
Design for Health
Further rethinking of several mechanical design conventions based on engineering fundamentals can
contribute to vastly more efficient design. For example, replacing the traditional high-velocity, low facearea coil layout with a low-face velocity design can reduce the pressure drop by up to 95 percent,
increase dehumidification by 29 percent, provide better comfort, and require a smaller chiller and fan. See
illustration below.
47
Rocky Mountain Institute Health Care Without Harm
Design for Health
(2) Reduce pressure drop: Just like the coil configuration example illustrated above, many HVAC systems
are designed with little regard for pressure drop (how hard the pumps will have to work to move the fluid).
The piping and ductwork is undersized and follows a bending, circuitous route, which means large pumps
and motors are needed to accommodate the extra pressure head (the resistance or force that the pumps
have to overcome to move a fluid). Efficient HVAC design includes ducts and pipes that have large crosssectional areas and short, straight layouts (minimal length and bends reduce unnecessary friction). While
transporting a fluid, pressure drop is proportional to duct length and inversely to the fifth power of duct
diameter (see equation below). Therefore, less power is required to push air through short, fat pipes than
through long, skinny pipes. The result is a system that is more efficient, introduces smaller parasitic heat
loads from oversized pumps, and is cheaper to install (smaller equipment).
Pressure drop L
,
5
When:
L = duct length and
= duct diameter.
(3) Install efficient fans, pumps and motors: The money that is saved by downsizing the mechanical
systems can then be invested in efficient pumps, motors, and direct-drive fans to further save operational
energy. The result is a system that is more efficient to run, cheaper to install, and quieter.
Whole system cooling design (an example):
The Atlantic lobster has large, obvious chunks of
meat in the tail and claws, but it contains a roughly equivalent amount of meat hidden in the crevices. This
is a good lesson for HVAC system efficiency. Although most efficiency efforts focus on the large energy
consuming components (i.e., the chillers), there are equal amounts of savings to be found in the other
system components. The following example illustrates that although chiller efficiencies alone can save a
substantial amount of energy (~0.27 kW/t), optimizing the additional components of the system results in
savings three times as much (~0.89 kW/t). The result of applying whole system design to a standard
cooling system is energy savings of over 65 percent and reduced first-costs, achieved with state-of-theshelf technologies:
48
Rocky Mountain Institute Health Care Without Harm
Design for Health
System Component
Standard
Efficiency
(kW/t)
Available
Efficiency
(kW/t)
Supply fan
0.6
.061
Chilled water pump
0.16
.018
Chiller
0.75
0.481
0.14
0.018
Cooling tower
0.1
0.012
TOTAL (COP)
1.75 (2.01)
0.590 (5.78)
Condenser
pump
water
How?
Select high-efficiency, vaneaxial
fans with variable speed drive
Use low pressure piping and an
efficient
variable-primary-flow
(VPF) pump to eliminate secondary
pumping
Use
a
1–2°
F
approach
temperature and optimized impeller
speed
Use low pressure piping and an
efficient pump
Specify a big fill area for a big slow
fan with variable-speed drive
65% more efficient system, better
comfort, increased uptime, and
less capital cost
49
Appendix B: Summit Participants
Tomakin
Rocky Mountain
Archambault Institute
Dan
Arons AIA
Cynthia
Atwoood
Rebecca
Barnes
Barbra
Batshalom
Anna
Bauer Smith
Daniel
Bazinet
Cam
Bienvenue
Paul
Bogart
Charlotte Brody
Christian Brown
Janet
Sarah
Dennis
Brown
CannonHolden
Chalke
Architerra
Guenther 5
Architects
Boston
Redevelopment
Authority
Green Round Table
(GRT)
Sojourn
Communications
(RWJF)
Beth Israel
Deaconess Medical
Center
Wing Memorial
Hospital
Healthy Building
Network
Health Care
Without Harm
Brockton Hospital
Hospitals for a
Healthy
Environment (H2E)
Funder
Baystate Medical
Center
Research Associate,
Green Development
Services
Principal Senior
Architect
1739 Snowmass Creek
Road
Snowmas
CO
81654
Boston
MA
02110
Exhibit Coordinator
68 Long Wharf
3 West 18th Street,
7th Floor
tarchambault@rmi.org
darons@architerrainc.com
970-927-3851
New York
NY
10011
ca@g5arch.com
212-941-9911
Chief Planner
One City Hall Sq
Boston
MA
Mark.Maloney.BRA@ci.bo
O2201 ston.ma.us
617-918-4328
Executive Director
1 Broadway Suite 600
Cambridge MA
617-778-2470
02142
bb@greenroundtable.org 617-374-3740
VA
22182
asmith@sojourncommuni
cations.com
703-556-6800
MA
O2215
MA
O1069
MA
02130
pfbogart@aol.com
617-983-3509
CO-Executive Director
VP Managed Care
41 Oakview Terrace
1755 S St NW Unit
6B
680 Centre St
Palmer
Jamaica
Plain
Washingto
n
Brockton
DC
MA
20009 cbrody@hcwh.org
O2302
202-234-0091
Region 1 Partner
Coordinator
3 West 18th St 7th
floor
NYC
NY
10011
PO Box 6347
Lincoln
MA
O1773
759 Chestnut St
Springfield MA
O1199
8618 Westwood Center
Account Supervisor
Dr 2nd Fl
Vienna
Director, Facilities Office
of Technology
Management
171 Pilgram Rd MT 2 Boston
VP Support Services
Boston Campaign
Director
VP Finance, Healthcare
Operations
40 Wright St
janet.brown@earthlink.n
et
212-941-2486
Alex
Chase
Rocky Mountain
Institute
Jim
Christo
Mass Technology
Collaborative
Nancy
Clanton
Gary
Cohen
Ferdinand Colloredo“Moose” Mansfeld
Kevin
Connors
John
Dalzell, RA
Marit
Davies
David
DelPorto
Steve
Dempsey
Dennis
Desmarais
Victoria
Diamond
Peter
Diamond
Louis
DiBerardinis
In- Residence
Manager, Commercial,
Industrial &Institutional
Green Building
Clanton Engineering
Health Care
Without Harm
CO-Executive Director
Cabot Properties
Harvard Medical
School
Boston
Redevelopment
Authority
Winchester
Hospital
EcologicalEngineering Group
Brigham &
Women’s Hospital
Baystate Medical
Center
U Mass Memorial
Medical Center
Environmental
Health Fund
Massachusetts
Institute of
Technology
1739 Snowmass Creek
Road
Snowmas
81654
achase@rmi.org
970-927-3851
Mass Technology
Collaborative
4699 Nautilus Ct S
#102
Westboro
ugh
MA
CO
O1581 christo@masstech.org
508-870-0312
nancy@clantonassociate
80301 s.com
303-530-7229
41 Oakview Terrace
MA
02130
MA
O2133 moose@cabotprop.com 617-723-2137
Kevin_Connors@hms.har
vard.edu
O2115
617-432-1704
Boulder
Jamaica
Plain
Partner
1 Beacon St
Boston
77 Ave Louis Pasteur
(Engineering/Constructi
Project Manager Engineer on)
Boston
Senior Architect
Director, Materials
Management
CO
One City Hall Sq
41 Highland Ave.
MA
Boston
MA
Wincheste
r
MA
Gcohen@igc.org
617-524-6018
John.Dalzell.BRA@ci.bos
O2201 ton.ma.us
617-918-4334
O1890
delporto@ecologicalengineering.com
Principal
448 Ward St
Director of Real Estate &
Facilities
75 Francis St
Newton
MA
02458
Boston
MA
O2115
Director BHS Engineering 759 Chestnut St
Springfield MA
O1199
VP Operations
16 Shaffner St
O1605
Associate Director
41 Oakview Terrace
Worcester MA
Jamaica
Plane
MA
Environmental Health &
Safety Office
77 Mass Ave. BLDG
N52-496
Cambridge MA
O2139 loudib@mit.edu
02130
617-965-2176
pdiamond@environment (617) 524alhealthfund.org
6018
617-253-9389
Anuj
Goel, Esq
Andrew
Grace
Robin
Guenther
Massachusetts
General Hospital
Rocky Mountain
Institute
Cambridge Health
Alliance
Dana Farber Cancer
Institute
Mass. Governor’s
Office
Environmental
Health Fund
Turner
Construction
Company
Beverly Hospital
Massachusetts
Hospital
Association
Boston
Redevelopment
Authority
Guenther 5
Architects
Dorothy
Haney
Massachusetts
General Hospital
David
Hanitchak
Jamie
Harvie
Greg
Doyle
Huston
Eubank
David
Louise
Farmer
Forrest Bowes
Douglas
Foy
Aquene
Freechild
Mike
Paul
Gallivan
Galzerano
Director Buildings and
Operations
Principal, Green
Development Services
Network Architect
Director of Materials
Management
Chief of Commonwealth
Development
55 Fruit St STE 17
Boston
1739 Snowmass Creek
Road
Snowmas
1493 Cambridge ST
MA
02114
CO
81654
Cambridge MA
tarchambault@rmi.org
O2139 dfarmer@challiance.org
970-927-3851
617-591-6975
MA
O2215
MA
02114
617-573-1380
Assistant
44 Binney St
Boston
100 Cambridge St STE
1000
Boston
Jamaica
41 Oakview Terrace
Plain
MA
02130
afreechild@environment
alhealthfund.org
617-524-6018
Healthcare Manager
VP Support services
Two Seaport Lane
85 Herrick St
MA
MA
O2210 mgallivan@tcco.com
O1915
Manager Regulatory
Compliance
5 New England
Executive Park
Senior Planner / Urban
Designer
One City Hall Plaza
3 West 18th Street,
7th Floor
President
Project Manager, Real
Estate, Planning and
Construction
55 Fruit St West End
House 3-310
Partners Healthcare Director of Planning &
System,Inc.
Construction
Institute for a
Sustainable Future Director
55 Fruit St West End
House 2nd Floor
32 East First St. Ste
206
Boston
Beverly
617.247.5467
781-272-8000
ext 140
Burlington MA
O1803 agoel@mhalink.org
Boston
MA
Andrew.Grace.bra@ci.bo
O2201 ston.ma.us
617-918-4379
New York
NYC
10011
Boston
MA
O2114
Boston
MA
O2114
Duluth
MN
55802
rg@g5arch.com
212-941-9911
harvie@isfusa.org
218-525-7806
Robert
Haveles AIA
Deborah
Karen
Hearl
HerronMigdelany
Peg
Cornelia
Hill
Holden
Rick
Hrycaj AIA
Stanley
Hunter
Marietta
Joseph
Alexis
Karolides
Harvey
Kirk AIA
Robin
Klar, DNSc,
RN
Richard
Kobus AIA
Robert
Kroin
Architectural
Insights, Inc. (Wing
Memorial)
Boston Medical
Center
U Mass Memorial
Medical Center
Rocky Mountain
Institute
Funder
Cannon Design
Baystate Medical
Center
Massachusetts
Health &
Educational Facility
Authority
Architect
3 Converse St. Suite
201
Palmer
MA
admin@architecturalO1069 insights.com
Design Manager
88 E. Newton ST M-4
Boston
MA
O2118
Project Manager
16 Shaffner St
1739 Snowmass Creek
Road
PO Box 6347
2 Center Plaza 2nd
Floor
Worcester MA
O1605
Snowmas
Lincoln
CO
MA
Boston
MA
81654 phill@rmi.org
970-927-3851
O1773
rhrycaj@cannondesign.c
O2108 om
617-742-5440
759 Chestnut St
Springfield MA
O1199
99 Summer St
Boston
02110
mjoseph@mhefa.org
617-737-8377
81654
alexis@rmi.org
970-927-3851
Develoment
Architect-Associate
Principal
Manager Construction
Services
Deputy Director of
Financing Programs
Principal & Team Leader
Green Development
Services
Rocky Mountain
Institute
The Stubbins
Associates
Senior Associate
University of
Massachusetts
Graduate School of
Nursing
Assistant Professor
TSOI / KOBUS
Associates
President
Boston
Redevelopment
Authority
Chief Architect
MA
1739 Snowmass Creek
Road
Snowmass CO
1030 Massachusetts
Ave.
Cambridge MA
55 Lake Avenue North
1 Brattle Sq PO BOX
9114
One City Hall Plaza
O2138 hkirk@stubbins.us
413-283-2553
617-491-6450
Cambridge MA
Robin.Klar@umassmed.e
O1655 du
508-856-5295
rkobus@tka02238 architects.com
617-475-4000
Boston
Robert.Kroin.BRA@ci.bos
O2201 ton.ma.us
617-918-4245
Worcester MA
MA
Wendy
Krum
Janice
Kucewicz
Chuck
Labins
Tom
Lam AIA
Sarah
Laverty
Robert
Loranger
Amory
Lovins
AnnaBeth Macy
Tom
Maistros
Mark
Maloney
Tim
Marsters
James
Marzilli
Jack
Barbra
McCarthy
McCarthy
Bill
McFarland
Partners Healthcare
System,Inc.
Wing Memorial
Hospital
Brigham &
Women’s Hospital
Steffian Bradley
Associates
Aspen Center for
Environmental
Studies
Tufts New England
Medical Center
Rocky Mountain
Institute
Green Round Table
(GRT)
Spaulding
Rehabilitation
Hospital
Boston
Redevelopment
Authority
Perkins & Will Architects
Commonwealth of
Massachusetts
Environmental
Health &
Engineering (EH&E)
Beverly Hospital
Cambridge Health
Alliance
55 Fruit St Ruth
Sleeper Hall Rm 160
Boston
MA
O2114
40 Wright St
Palmer
MA
O1069
75 Francis St
Boston
MA
O2115
100 Summer St.
Boston
MA
O2110 toml@steffian.com
CO
81611
MA
O2111
CO
81654
1 Broadway Suite 600
Cambridge MA
02142
Facilities Mgt.
125 Nashua St
Boston
MA
O2114
Director
One City Hall Sq
Boston
MA
Architect
55 Court St
State House Room
443
Boston
MA
Boston
MA
Mark.Maloney.BRA@ci.bo
O2201 ston.ma.us
617-918-4201
Tim.Marsters@perkinswill
02108 .com
617-478-0300
Rep.JamesMarzilli@hou.s
02133 tate.ma.us
617-722-2460
60 Wells Ave
85 Herrick St
Newton
Beverly
MA
MA
02459 jfmccarthy@eheinc.com 617-964-8550
O1915
1493 Cambridge ST
Cambridge MA
Senior Project Manager
VP for Nursing and
Behavioral Health
Senior Project Manager
Senior Associate
Architect
Director of Facilities
CEO
Project Manager: Green
Boston Initiative
State Representative
Predident
Safety Director
Senior Dircetor Support
Servicces
100 Puppy Smith Dr.
Aspen
750 Washington St
Box 834
Boston
1739 Snowmass Creek
Road
Snowmas
O2139
617-305-7100
slaverty2003@yahoo.co
m
970-925-5756
ablovins@rmi.org,mmorg
an@rmi.org
970-927-3851
annabeth@greenroundta
ble.org
617-374-3740
Michael
McGowan
Thomas
Menino
John
Myron
Arthur
Michelle
Karen
Michael
Robert
Linvelle
Jennifer
Dana Farber Cancer Manager of Facilities
Institute
Planning
44 Binney St
Boston
MA
O2215
City of Boston
Mayor
One City Hall Sq.
Boston
MA
02201
Director of Capital &
Planning Facilities
55 Fruit St Ruth
Sleeper Hall Rm 180
Boston
MA
O2114
Principal & President
286 Congress St
Boston
MA
O2110 mmiller@mds-bos.com
VP Support Services
75 Francis St
Boston
MA
O2115
Intern
1 Broadway Suite 600
Cambridge MA
02142
VP Hospital Operations
VP Facilities & Guest
Services
164 High St
Greenfield MA
O1301
759 Chestnut St
Springfield MA
O1199
Vice President
1300 West 34th Street Austin
TX
78705
Asst Project Manager
Assistant Director of
Planning
75 Francis ST
Boston
25 Shattuck St.
Planning Office Rm 408 Boston
MA
O2115
MA
O2115
Director Facilities Capital
Planning & Management 55 Lake Ave. North
Worcester MA
O1655
Director of Engineering
125 Nashua St
Boston
MA
O2114
Director of Engineering
75 Francis ST
The Pilot House
Lewis Wharf
Boston
MA
O2115
O2110
Boston
MA
Partners Healthcare
Messervy
System,Inc.
Miller Dyer Spears
Miller
Inc.
Mombourque Brigham &
tte
Women’s Hospital
Mondazzi
Green Round Table
LEED AP
(GRT)
Baystate Health
Systems/ Franklin
Moore
Medical Center
Baystate Medical
Moran
Center
Seton Network
Moroz
Facilities
Brigham &
Morton
Women’s Hospital
Harvard Medical
Nadelson
School
George
Nolan
Mike
Pakievich
George
Player
Mariella
Puerto
U Mass Memorial
Medical Center
Spaulding
Rehabilitation
Hospital
Brigham &
Women’s Hospital
617-635-2886
617-338-5350
michelle@greenroundtab
le.org
617-374-3740
Bill
Ravanesi
Bob
Raymond
Robby
Kurt
Robertson
Rockstroh
AIA
James
Rogers PE
Mark
Rossi, PhD
Sherri
Rullen
Jenny
Russell
Ted
Health Care
Without Harm
Brigham &
Women’s Hospital
Winchester
Hospital
Steffian Bradley
Associates
Boston Campaign
Director
Senior Planner
Director, Facilites &
Engineering
75 Francis ST
CEO & President
100 Summer St.
Energy Consultant
Senior Researcher
Associate
Health Care
Without Harm
Dana Farber Cancer
Institute
Director of Achitecture
Merck Family Fund
Science and
Environmental
Health Network
Schettler, MD (SEHN)
Executive Director
Brad
Seamans
Anand
Seth
Kevin
Settlemyre
Kevin
Smith
Science Director
Senior Project Manager,
Massachusetts
Real Estate, Planning and
General Hospital
Construction
President of Northeast
Sebesta Blomberg Region
Green Round Table Director of Technical
(GRT)
Services
Winchester
Hospital
CFO
Spengler
Harvard School of
Public Health
(HSPH)
Jack
19 Pleasantview Ave
Akira Yamaguchi
Professor of
Environmental Health
and Human Habitation
Longmead
ow
MA
01106
ravanesi@comcast.net
413-565-2315
Boston
MA
Wincheste
r
MA
O2115
O2110 kurtr@steffian.com
1 Blacksmith Rd
Boston
MA
Chelmsfor
d
MA
122 Woburn St
Medford
MA
02155
44 Binney St
Boston
MA
O2215
303 Adams street
Milton
MA
O2186 jrussell@merckff.org
617-696-7262
84 Water St
Newburyp
ort
MA
01950
978-462-4092
55 Fruit St West End
House 210
Boston
MA
O2114
150 Presidential Way
Woburn
MA
01801
1 Broadway Suite 600
Cambridge MA
Wincheste
r
MA
02142
41 Highland Ave.
41 Highland Ave.
Landmark Center, Room
406 WEST 401 Park
Drive
Boston
MA
O1890
617-305-7100
O1824 jim.rogers@comcast.net 978-256-1345
marksrossi@comcast.net 781-391-6743
tschettler@igc.org
aseth@sebesta.com
781-721-7220
kevin@greenroundtable.
org
617-374-3740
O1890
02215
spengler@hsph.harvard.
edu
617-384-8810
Teerachai Srisirikul
Sandra
Steingraber
Joel
Swisher
Mark
Tallent
Joel
Tickner,ScD
Dick
Tinsman
Gary
Valcourt
Jose
Valencia
Hector
Vasquez
Alfred
Vellucci
Gail
Vittori
David
Walsh
Judith
Waterston
Partners Healthcare Director of Utilities &
System,Inc.
Planning
Distinguished Visiting
Scholar Division of
Ithaca College
Interdisciplinary Studies
Rocky Mountain
Institute
Assistant Project
Massachusetts
Manager, Real Estate,
General Hospital
Planning & Construction
Univ. of
Mass.Lowell Dept.
of Work
Research Assistant
Environment
Professo
Mass Technology
Collaborative
Director Green Building
U Mass Memorial
Medical Center
Sr Director, Facilities
Tufts New England
Medical Center
Architectural Designer
Cambridge Health Network Director
Alliance
Facilities
Cambridge Health
Alliance
Director Special Projects
Center for
Maximum Potential
Building Systems
Co-Director
Spaulding
Rehabilitation
Sr Director Support
Hospital
Services
Spaulding
Rehabilitation
Hospital
President
55 Fruit St West End
House 2nd Floor
MA
O2114
307 Job Hall
Ithaca
NY
1739 Snowmass Creek
Road
Snowmass CO
14850
ssteingraber@ithaca.edu 607-387-3013
81654
jswisher@rmi.org
55 Fruit St West End
House 2nd Floor
Boston
Boston
MA
970-927-3851
O2114
1 University Ave.
Mass Technology
Collaborative
Lowell
MA
Westboro
ugh
MA
Joel_Tickner@uml.edu
O1581 tinsman@masstech.org
16 Shaffner St
Worcester MA
O1605
750 Washington St
Boston
MA
O2111
1493 Cambridge ST
Cambridge MA
O2139
1493 Cambridge ST
Cambridge MA
O2139
8604 FM 969
Austin
TX
78724
125 Nashua St
Boston
MA
O2114
125 Nashua St
Boston
MA
O2114
gvittori@cmpbs.org
(978) 9342981
508-870-0312
ext 486
Charles
Weinstein
Kathryn
West
Sam
Wilson
Jessica
Woolliams
Mark
Yakren PE
Roberta
Planning
Staff
Young
Patti
Miller
Germaine Wong
Jim
Forsythe
Stacy
Malkan
Children’s Hospital
Boston
VP Real Estate
Development & Planning 300 Longwood Ave.
Boston
MA
O2115
Boston
MA
O2199
Partners Healthcare VP Real Estate &
System,Inc.
Facilities
Deputy Director of
NIEHS
Financing Programs
Harvard School of
Public Health
800 Boylston St Pru
Tower STE 1150
Syska & Hennessy
Baystate Medical
Center
Engineer
Director of Facilities
Planning & Mgmt
11 West 42 St
NYC
NY
10036
759 Chestnut St
Springfield MA
O1199
Premier Event
Resources
Conference Planner
9458 E. Topeka Dr.
Scottsdale AZ
HCWH
Press Director
1755 S. ST NW Unit
6B
Washingto
n
DC
wilson5@niehs.nih.gov
jwollia@hsph.harvard.ed
u
617-384-8860
myakren@syska.com
212-556-3323
85255
Patti@perteam.com
germaine@sbhn.net
480-538-1149
20009
smalkan@hcwh.org
202-234-0091
Health Care Without Harm  Rocky Mountain Institute • Massachusetts Hospital Association
Massachusetts Health & Educational Facilities Authority • Center for Maximum Potential Building Systems
Massachusetts Technology Collaborative  Green Round Table
Appendix C: Agenda
Design for Health:
Summit for Massachusetts Healthcare Decision Makers
28th –29th, September 2004
Massachusetts Medical Society
Waltham Woods Conference Center
860 Winter Street, Waltham, MA
(781) 434-7499
Summary of the Summit:
Design for Health introduces a series of roundtable work sessions, focused on specific
topics relevant to hospital design and operations. Targeted topics address
environmental health, indoor air quality, energy, water, community, products and waste
streams, and healing environments, with clearly defined performance and policy
recommendations associated with each topic area culminating from the two-day
gathering.
Professionals with expertise in healthcare design, high-performance green design, and
environmental health will facilitate the roundtables, enabling Summit participants to
creatively develop their ideas about effective policies and guidelines. A goal of the
Summit is to establish a blueprint for how whole-systems thinking can achieve radically
higher levels of whole building performance while simultaneously enhancing patient
healing, staff retention and productivity, and hospital financial security. Anticipated
topics include establishing overarching goals to improve hospital design, and
overarching policies and next steps to accelerate the healthcare industry’s transition
towards high performance healing environments.
This blueprint will serve as a roadmap of the Summit’s recommendations – highlighting
opportunities to create sustainable healthcare facilities and overcome barriers – will be
issued by the end of the year. Copies of the report will be distributed to all Summit
attendees, and to representatives of other health-care related organizations and media
entities.
Design for Health Summit
Tuesday, 28th September, 2004
7:30 am
Registration: Continental breakfast
8:15 am
Welcome: Bill Ravanesi, Boston Campaign Director, Health Care Without Harm and
Alexis Karolides, AIA, Principal, Rocky Mountain Institute
8:40 am
Opening Remarks: Dr. Samuel H. Wilson, Deputy Director, National Institute of
Environmental Health Sciences, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and
Human Services
8:50 am
Keynote: Amory Lovins, CEO of Rocky Mountain Institute: The Triple Bottom Line for
hospitals: healthier people, healthier environment, healthier financials. The talk will focus
on how energy-efficient, high performance buildings with clean, reliable power can meet
all three goals.
9:50 am
Break
10:15 am
Case Study: Robert Moroz, Vice President, Network Facilities for Seton Healthcare
Network in Central Texas
10:45 am
Regional Context: Barbra Batshalom, Executive Director, The Green Roundtable
11:00 am
“Green Guide for Health Care” Overview: Robin Guenther, AIA, Guenther 5
Architects (NYC) and Gail Vittori, Co-director, Center for Maximum Potential Building
Systems (Austin, TX).
12:00 pm
Luncheon Speaker, Connecting the Dots: Charlotte Brody, RN Co-Executive
Director Health Care Without Harm
1:00 pm
Breakout Session One—Defining Strategies. Topical working teams for
interactive brainstorming sessions. Attendees will be pre-assigned to one of seven
breakout groups.
Topics
Facilitators/ Presenters/Scribes
1. Precautionary Principle / Environmental Health
Facilitator: Charlotte Brody
Presenter: Dr. Ted Schettler
Presenter: Dr. Samuel H. Wilson
Scribe: Cathy Crumbley
2. Indoor Air Quality / Infection Control/ Risk Minimization
Facilitator: Jack McCarthy
Presenter: Jack Spengler
Scribe: Kevin Settlemyre
3. Energy / Resource Efficiency & Energy Waste
Facilitator: Joel Swisher
Presenter: Amory Lovins
Presenter: George Player
Scribe: Alex Chase
4. Site / Community / Footprint
Facilitator: Barbra Batshalom
Presenter: Robert Moroz
Presenter: Arthur Mombourquette
Scribe: Peg Hill
5. Materials / Products and Waste Streams
Facilitator: Gail Vittori
Presenter: Mark Rossi
Scribe: Janet Brown
6. The Healing Environment / Indoor Environmental Quality
Facilitator: Alexis Karolides
Presenter: Robin Guenther
Presenter: Nancy Clanton
Scribe: Dan Arons
7. Water Efficiency
Facilitator: David DelPorto
Presenter: Robert Loranger
Scribe: Jamie Harvie
3:00 pm
Break
3:20 pm
Plenary Discussion and Integration Session: Teams post flip chart pages,
quickly present key concepts.
4:30 pm
End of Day Remarks: Preparation for Wednesday
5:00 pm
Reception
Wednesday, 29th September, 2004
7:45 am
Continental Breakfast
8:45 am
Keynote: Sandra Steingraber, biologist and poet, author of Living Downstream: An
Ecologist Looks at Cancer and the Environment and Post Diagnosis.
9:45 am
A Green Building Policy Perspective: Mayor Thomas Menino, City of Boston
10:00 am
Break
10:15 am
Overview: Intended outcomes for Day Two.
10:30 am
Breakout Session Two—Healthcare Facilities: Reconfigure into hospital
facility type breakout groups.
Topic
Facilitators/ Presenters /Scribes
1. Inpatient Unit
Facilitator: Gail Vittori
Presenter: Arthur Mombourquette
Scribe: Peg Hill
2. Surgical Suite
Facilitator: Jack McCarthy
Presenter: Chuck Labins
Scribe: Alex Chase
3. Emergency Department / Diagnostic & Treatment Areas
Facilitator: Barbra Batshalom
Presenter: Robin Guenther
Scribe: Kevin Settlemyre
4. Outpatient / Medical Office Buildings
Facilitator: Alexis Karolides
Presenter: Dan Arons
Scribe: Mark Rossi
5. Cancer Centers
Facilitator: Dr. Samuel H. Wilson
Presenter: Michael McGowan
Scribe: Jamie Harvie
6. Laboratories
Facilitator: Jessica Woolliams
Presenter: Jack Spengler
Presenter: Louis DiBerardinis
Presenter: Anand Seth
Scribe: Michelle Mondazzi
7. Management & Operations
Facilitator: Robert Moroz
Presenter: Greg Doyle
Presenter: George Player
Scribe: Janet Brown
12:00 pm
Lunch
12:30 pm
Lunch Presentation: Douglas Foy, Secretary of Commonwealth Development,
Office of Community Development, State of Massachusetts
1:00 pm
Breakout Session Three—Shaping the Recommendations (Breakout
Session One from previous day reconvene)
3:00 pm
Break
3:30 PM
Plenary Discussion and Integration Session: Teams post flip chart pages,
quickly present key concepts.
5:00 PM
Concluding Remarks and Next Steps: Description of RMI/HCWH Deliverable,
how it will be disseminated, discussion of how it will be used and what could be
implemented.
5:30 PM
End of Summit
For comfort we recommend business casual dress.
Rocky Mountain Institute Health Care Without Harm
Design for Health
Appendix D: Summaries of Relevant Studies
D-1: Selected Studies Documenting the Health Benefits of Contact with Nature
STUDY: Stress reduction of ICU nurses and views of nature
SOURCE: Ovitt, Margaret A. 1996. “The effect of a view of nature on performance and stress reduction
of ICU nurses.” Unpublished master’s thesis, Department of Landscape Architecture, Graduate College of
the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
SUMMARY: This study examined the role that a view of nature might play in the workday environment of
ICU nurses. The research took place at the ICUs of two Midwestern medical centers. One ICU had a
lounge with large windows overlooking mature trees and buildings; the other lounge was windowless. The
nurses were asked to do a task and rate themselves on an Affect Grid that measured arousal and mood
while they were giving patient care in the morning. After their noon break in their lounges, they were
asked to repeat the task and self-rating. The group with the window had significantly reduced stress levels
made fewer errors on the task than the group with the windowless lounge.
DATA: The group with the windows had roughly 40% fewer errors on the letter-deletion task after
spending their lunch break in the lounge than the group with no windows. The nurses who spent their
break in the window lounge reported a 25% reduction in arousal (stress) from morning to afternoon, while
there was no change in self-reported arousal from the nurses with no windows.
The text of the summaries below are from: Ulrich, Roger S. “Biophilia, Biophobia and Natural
Landscapes” from The Biophilia Hypothesis, Island Press: 1993, pp. 73-137.
STUDY: Patient recovery and views of nature
ORIGINAL SOURCE: Ulrich, R.S. 1984. "View Through a Window May Influence Recovery from Surgery."
Science 224:420-421.
SUMMARY: A study examined patients recovering from gall bladder surgery in a Pennsylvania hospital
to evaluate whether assignment to a room with a window view of a natural setting might have therapeutic
influences (Ulrich 1984). Recovery data were compared for pairs of patients who were closely matched
for variables that could influence recovery such as age, sex, weight, tobacco use, and previous
hospitalization. The patients were assigned essentially randomly to rooms that were identical except for
window view: one member of each pair overlooked a small stand of deciduous trees; the other had a view
of a brown brick wall. Patients with the natural window view had shorter postoperative hospital stays, had
fewer negative comments in nurses' notes ("patient is upset," "needs much encouragement"), and tended
to have lower scores for minor post-surgical complications such as persistent headache or nausea
requiring medication. Moreover, the wall-view patients required many more injects of potent painkillers,
whereas the tree-view patients more frequently received weak oral analgesics such as acetaminophen.
STUDY: Patient window view preference
ORIGINAL SOURCE: Verderber, S. 1986. "Dimensions of Person-Window Transactions in the Hospital
Environment." Environment and Behavior 18:450-466.
SUMMARY: ...findings from a questionnaire study of patients who were severely disabled by accidents or
illness (and hence were presumably stressed) suggest than an especially highly preferred category of
hospital window views included scenes dominated by natural content (Verderber 1986).
STUDY: Patient recovery and nature images
ORIGINAL SOURCE: Ulrich, R.S., and O. Lunden. 1990. "Effects of Nature and Abstract Pictures on
Patients Recovering from Open Heart Surgery." Paper presented at the International Congress of
Behavioral Medicine, 27-30 June, Uppsala, Sweden.
63
Rocky Mountain Institute Health Care Without Harm
Design for Health
SUMMARY: ...Outi Lunden and I (1990) investigated whether exposure to visual stimulation in hospital
intensive care units, including simulated natural views, promotes wellness with respect to the
postoperative courses of open-heart surgery patients. At Uppsala University Hospital in Sweden, 166
patients who had undergone open-heart surgery involving a heart pump were randomly assigned to a
visual stimulation condition consisting of a nature picture (either an open view with water or a moderately
enclosed forest scene), an abstract picture dominated by either curvilinear or rectilinear forms, or a control
condition consisting of either a white panel or no picture at all. Our findings suggest that the patients
exposed to the open view of water experience much less postoperative anxiety than the control groups
and the groups exposed to the other types of pictures. The comparatively enclosed forest setting with
shadowed areas did not reduce anxiety significantly compared to the control conditions. The rectilinear
abstract picture was associated with higher anxiety than the control conditions. Future reports stemming
from this research will present findings based on a wide variety of indicators of wellness both
physiological (such as blood pressure) and behavioral (such as use of painkillers and post-surgical length
of stay).
STUDY: Stress reduction and contact with nature
ORIGINAL SOURCE: Hartig, T., M. Mang, and G.W. Evans. 1991. "Restorative Effects of Natural
Environment Experiences." Environment and Behavior 23:3-26.
SUMMARY: Hartig and his associates have reported the restorative effects of experiencing a park-like
nature area while controlling for certain stress-reducing variables such as physical exercise (Hartig,
Mang, and Evans 1991). They first produced stress in individuals with a demanding cognitive task and
then measured recovery effects of either (1) a forty-minute walk in an urban fringe nature area dominated
by trees and other vegetation, (2) walking for an equivalent period in a comparatively attractive, safe
urban area, or (3) reading magazines or listening to music for forty minutes. Their findings suggest that
people randomly assigned to the nature walk reported more positively toned emotional states than those
assigned to the other two conditions -- and performed better on a cognitive task (proofreading).
STUDY: Stress reducing effects of viewing nature
ORIGINAL SOURCE: Ulrich, R.S., R.F. Simons. B.D. Losito, E. Fiorito, M.A. Miles, and M. Zelson. 1991.
"Stress Recovery During Exposure to Natural and Urban Environments." Journal of Environmental
Psychology 11:201-230.
SUMMARY: In a study that used a number of measurements techniques for assessing the stressreducing effects of experiencing natural versus urban environments, 120 persons were first show a
stressful movie and then randomly assigned to a recovery condition that consisted of viewing one of six
different color/sound videotapes of natural settings or urban environments lacking in nature (Ulrich et al.
1991). Data concerning stress recovery during the environmental presentations were obtained from selfratings of affective states and four physiological measures: heart rate, skin conductance, muscle tension
(frontalis), and pulse transit time (a noninvasive measure that correlates highly with systolic blood
pressure). Findings from all measures, verbal and physiological, converged in indicating that recuperation
from stress was much faster and more thorough when people were exposed to the natural settings (a
grassy, park-like landscape and a setting with a prominent water feature).
STUDY: Prisoner health and views of nature
ORIGINAL SOURCE: Moore, E.O. 1982. "A Prison Environment's Effect on Health Care Service
Demands." Journal of Environmental Systems 11:17-34.
SUMMARY: In a prison study, Moore (1982) examined the need for healthcare services by inmates
whose cells looked out onto the prison yard versus those who had a view of nearby farmlands and
forests. He reported that the inmates with natural views were less likely to report for sick call.
64
Rocky Mountain Institute Health Care Without Harm
Design for Health
STUDY: Stress symptoms and views of nature
ORIGINAL SOURCE: West, M.J. 1985. "Landscape views and Stress Responses in the Prison
Environment." Unpublished master's thesis, Department of Landscape Architecture, University of
Washington.
SUMMARY: Likewise, West (1985) found that cell window views of nature -- compared to views of prison
walls, buildings, or other prisoners in cells -- were associated with lower frequencies of health-related
stress symptoms such as headaches and digestive upsets.
65
Rocky Mountain Institute Health Care Without Harm
Design for Health
D-2: The role of hospital design in the recruitment, retention and performance of
NHS nurses in England (CABE Study)
SOURCE: PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, et al, “The role of hospital design in the recruitment, retention
and performance of NHS nurses in England,” commissioned by the Commission for Architecture and the
Built Environment (CABE), July 2004. Download the full report from the following web link:
http://www.healthyhospitals.org.uk/diagnosis/HH_Full_report_Appendices.pdf
Abstract (excerpted from full report)
This research was commissioned by the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE)
and carried out by PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (PwC) in association with the University of Sheffield and
Queen Margaret University College, Edinburgh between September 2—3 and April 2004.
The primary aim of the research was to explore whether hospital design has an influence on the
recruitment, retention and performance of NHS nurses in England, and to further examine which aspects
of design matter to nursing staff.
The research methodology involved a mix of qualitative focus groups with nurses throughout England and
a large scale quantitative survey of Directors of Nursing.
Overall the research found that design does matter to nurses, and has the greatest influence on their
workplace performance, followed by recruitment and then retention.
In terms of specific aspects of design, the internal environment and the functionality of the environment
appears to mater most. Examples of specific aspects which are important to nurses include building and
unit layout, space in which to work, environmental control and interior design such as lighting and use of
colour.
66
Rocky Mountain Institute Health Care Without Harm
Design for Health
D-3: The Business Case for Better Buildings (Fable Study)
SOURCE: Berry, Leonard L., PhD, Derek Parker, Russell C. Coile, Jr., D. Kirk Hamilton, David D. O’Neill,
J.D., and Blair L. Sadler, J.D., “The Business Case for Better Buildings,” Frontiers of Health Services
Management, 21(1) pp 4-24. Download the full report from the following web link:
http://www.healthdesign.org/aboutus/press/releases/frontiers_0904.pdf
Summary (excerpted from full report)
The buildings in which customers receive services are inherently part of the service experience. Given the
high stress of illness, healthcare facility designs are especially likely to have a meaningful impact on
customers. In the past, a handful of visionary “healing environments” such as the Lucille Packard
Children’s Hospital at Stanford University in Palo Alto, California; Griffin Hospital in Derby, Connecticut;
Woodwinds Health Campus in St. Paul, Minnesota; and San Diego Children’s Hospital were built by
values-driven chief executive officers and boards and aided by philanthropy when costs per square foot
exceeded typical construction costs. Designers theorized that such facilities might have a positive impact
on patients’ health outcomes and satisfaction. But limited evidence existed to show that such exemplary
health facilities were superior to conventional designs in actually improving patient outcomes and
experiences and the organization’s bottom line. More evidence was needed to assess the impact of
innovative health facility designs. Beginning in 2000, a research collaborative of progressive healthcare
organizations voluntarily came together with The Center for Health Design to evaluate their new buildings.
Various “Pebble Projects” are now engaged in three-year programs of evaluation, using comparative
research instruments and outcome measures. Pebble Projects include hospital replacements, critical care
units, cancer units, nursing stations, and ambulatory care centers. The Pebble experiences are
synthesized here in a composite 300-bed “Fable Hospital” to present evidence in support of the business
case for better buildings as a key component of better, safer, and less wasteful healthcare. The evidence
indicates that the one-time incremental costs of designing and building optimal facilities can be quickly
repaid through operational savings and increased revenue and result in substantial, measurable, and
sustainable financial benefits. The one-time incremental costs of designing and building optimal facilities
can be quickly repaid.
67
Rocky Mountain Institute Health Care Without Harm
Design for Health
D-4: The Role of the Physical Environment in the Hospital of the 21st Century: A
Once-in-a-Lifetime Opportunity
SOURCE: Ulrich, Roger, Craig Zimring, Xiaobo Quan, Anjali Joseph, Ruchi Choudhary, “The Role of the
Physical Environment in the Hospital of the 21st Century: A Once-in-a-Lifetime Opportunity,” 2004.
Download the full report at: http://www.healthdesign.org/research/reports/physical_environ.php
Summary (excerpted from full report)
A visit to a U.S. hospital is dangerous and stressful for patients, families and staff members. Medical
errors and hospital-acquired infections are among the leading causes of death in the United States, each
killing more Americans than AIDS, breast cancer, or automobile accidents (Institute of Medicine, 2000;
2001). According to the Institute of Medicine in its landmark Quality Chasm report: "The frustration levels
of both patients and clinicians have probably never been higher. Yet the problems remain. Health care
today harms too frequently and routinely fails to deliver its potential benefits" (IOM, 2001). Problems with
U.S. health care not only influence patients; they impact staff. Registered nurses have a turnover rate
averaging 20 percent.
At the same time, the United States is facing one of the largest hospital building booms in US history. As
a result of a confluence of the need to replace aging 1970s hospitals, population shifts in the United
States, the graying of the baby boom generation, and the introduction of new technologies, the United
States will spend more than $16 billion for hospital construction in 2004, and this will rise to more than
$20 billion per year by the end of the decade. These hospitals will remain in place for decades.
This once-in-lifetime construction program provides an opportunity to rethink hospital design, and
especially to consider how improved hospital design can help reduce staff stress and fatigue and increase
effectiveness in delivering care, improve patient safety, reduce patient and family stress and improve
outcomes and improve overall healthcare quality.
Just as medicine has increasingly moved toward "evidence-based medicine," where clinical choices are
informed by research, healthcare design is increasingly guided by rigorous research linking the physical
environment of hospitals to patients and staff outcomes and is moving toward "evidence-based design".
This report assesses the state of the science that links characteristics of the physical setting to patient
and staff outcomes:
What can research tell us about "good" and "bad" hospital design?
Is there compelling scientifically credible evidence that design genuinely impacts staff and clinical
outcomes?
Can improved design make hospitals less risky and stressful for patients, their families, and for staff?
In this project, research teams from Texas A&M University and Georgia Tech combed through several
thousand scientific articles and identified more than 600 studies - most in top peer-reviewed journals - that
establish how hospital design can impact clinical outcomes. The team found scientific studies that
document the impact of a range of design characteristics, such as single-rooms versus multi-bed rooms,
reduced noise, improved lighting, better ventilation, better ergonomic designs, supportive workplaces and
improved layout that can help reduce errors, reduce stress, improve sleep, reduce pain and drugs, and
improve other outcomes. The team discovered that, not only is there a very large body of evidence to
guide hospital design, but a very strong one. A growing scientific literature is confirming that the
conventional ways that hospitals are designed contributes to stress and danger, or more positively, that
this level of risk and stress is unnecessary: improved physical settings can be an important tool in making
hospitals safer, more healing, and better places to work.
68
Rocky Mountain Institute Health Care Without Harm
Design for Health
Appendix E: Presentations
Most of the following presentations can be downloaded from the Design for Health Summit website:
http://www.noharm.org/designforhealth.
Tuesday, September 28, 2004
Samuel H. Wilson, M.D.
“Environmental Health: A Response Based on Partnership, Planning, and Environmental Stewardship”
Amory B. Lovins
“The Triple Bottom Line for Hospitals: healthier people, healthier environments, healthier financials”
Robert P. Moroz, AIA
“Case Study: The LEED Initiative at the Dell Children’s Medical Center of Central Texas: The business
case for high performance hospitals”
Barbra Batshalom
“Statewide Trends for Green Building: The Context for Emerging Sustainability”
Robin Guenther, AIA
“Green Guide for Health Care”
Breakout Group 1: Precautionary Principle; Samuel H. Wilson M.D.
Breakout Group 2: Indoor Air Quality, Infection Control, Risk Management; John D. Spengler, PhD.
Breakout Group 3: Energy/Resource Efficiency & Energy Waste; Amory Lovins and George Player
Breakout Group 4: Site/Community/Footprint; Arthur Mombourquette
Breakout Group 5: Lighting Healing Environments; Nancy Clanton
Breakout Group 6: The Healing Environment; Robin Guenther
Breakout Group 7: Economics of Water; David Del Porto
Breakout Group 7: Water Supply and Usage; Robert Loranger
Wednesday, September 29, 2004
Douglas Foy
“Developing the Common Wealth”
Sandra Steingraber
“The Pirates of Illiopolis”
Breakout Group 1: Inpatient Unit; Arthur Mombourquette
Breakout Group 2: Surgical Suites; Chuck Labins
Breakout Group 3: Labs; Jessica Wooliams and Jack Spengler
Breakout Group 4: Personal Protection; Louis DiBerardinis
Breakout Group 5: Clinical Laboratories; Anand K. Seth
Breakout Group 6: Management and Operation; Greg Doyle and George Player
69
Comments from participants of the Design for Health Summit:
“Ground breaking work!
“[A] very important beginning.”
“Culture change is the next step.”
“Make sure as broad an audience as possible sees and learns the results, attitudes, [and] recommendations
of this Summit.”
“This is an excellent conference – very well organized and focused on drawing conclusions elicited from
participants.”
“This was a terrific two day conference. Keep it going, take it to other parts of the country and come back
to New England.”
“Plan another summit next year to expand knowledge and reinforce healthcare institutions who are
incorporating the green planning guide principles and actions.”
“We spend a lot of time on whether “green” has an extra cost or not. That is not valuable for two reasons
– 1) There is the cost of not doing high performance in lost marketability and other factors; 2) By labeling
it “green” we invite it to be signaled out and seen as a risk.”
“Well done – there’s a great need for more examples and case studies.”
Comments about making the “business case”: “Organize each specialty to formulate financial aspects of
each topic for a “how to” for each aspect of this Summit. This would substantially promote these issues.”
“[We need] cost benefit information and discussion.”
Rocky Mountain Institute
1739 Snowmass Creek Road
Snowmass, CO 81654
970-927-3851
FAX 970-927-4510
www.rmi.org
Alexis Karolides <alexis@rmi.org>
Health Care Without Harm
1901 North Moore Street
Suite 509
Arlington, VA 22209
703-243-0056
703-243-4008 fax
Bill Ravanesi <ravanesi@comcast.net>
Press contact:
Stacy Malkan, Communications Director
1958 University Ave.
Berkeley, CA 94704
510-848-5343, ext 105
smalkan@hcwh.org
Was this manual useful for you? yes no
Thank you for your participation!

* Your assessment is very important for improving the work of artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project

Download PDF

advertising