The literature on sustainability performance frameworks for healthcare organisations varies in its applicability to different types of organisations and settings, functions and activities, and definitions and dimensions of sustainability. This fragmentation creates implementation barriers which may be overcome by consolidating existing evidence in a format that can be linked directly to organisations’ business models. This protocol proposes a scoping review to assess the extent of the literature on frameworks for monitoring and evaluating the multidimensional sustainability performance of healthcare organisations and to assemble a consolidated framework in an operationally relevant format to support progress towards sustainable healthcare organisations.

The search strategy will be applied across Semantic Scholar, Google Scholar, Web of Science, MEDLINE, Embase, Academic Search Premier, CINAHL and Business Source Premier databases. Search results from 2009, coinciding with the publication of the WHO’s ‘Healthy Hospitals, Healthy Planet, Healthy People’ report, will be considered. The scoping review will include studies reporting on multidimensional sustainability monitoring or evaluation frameworks applied or developed for use at the level of healthcare delivery organisations. Studies relating to operational units within organisations or to healthcare systems will be excluded. The review’s context will be restricted to operational sustainability and will not consider the literature on sustainable design planning and construction of new facilities. No specific exclusion criteria will be applied to the types of healthcare delivery organisations nor participants implicated in the frameworks. Title and abstract screening against the inclusion and exclusion criteria, followed by full-text assessment of remaining articles, will be performed by two reviewers. Data from included studies will be extracted using a custom-designed extraction tool, analysed using topic or thematic analysis to consolidate themes and presented within the triple-layered business model canvas.

Only publicly available sources will be used; research ethics approval is not required. Findings will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal and presented at scientific meetings.

Physicians are increasingly interested in part-time employment. However, the impact of part-time work on efficiency and quality of care of inpatients is unknown.

To investigate the association between part-time clinical work of hospitalists in General Internal Medicine (GIM) and resource utilisation and short-term patient outcomes.

Retrospective study.

GIM wards of 3 Swiss teaching hospitals.

Each inpatient was categorised as having received care mainly (>50%) by part-time or full-time hospitalists. Part-time clinical work was defined as employment of

Primary outcome was length of hospital stay, secondary outcomes included 30-day readmission, in-hospital mortality, hospitalisation cost and time to completion of the discharge letter. We assessed the association between both groups and outcomes using generalised estimating equations, clustering for individual patients and adjusting for patient and hospitalist characteristics.

There was no statistically relevant difference in length of stay in cases cared for mainly by part-time (mean 7.3 days, 95% CI 7.1 to 7.6) compared with full-time hospitalists (mean 7.6 days, 95% CI 7.3 to 7.8; p=0.18). Time to completion of the discharge letter was longer in the part-time (mean 11.4 days, 95% CI 11.0 to 11.8) versus full-time group (mean 10.9 days, 95% CI 10.6 to 11.2, p=0.049). There was no statistically significant difference between groups for the other outcomes.

We found no evidence that part-time clinical work of hospitalists negatively affects resource utilisation and short-term patient outcomes compared with full-time work.