Stakeholder perceptions of the benefits and barriers of implementing environmental management systems in the Nigerian construction industry

© 2016 Vilnius Gediminas Technical University (VGTU) Press. This study investigates stakeholder opinions of the major benefits and barriers of Environmental Management Systems (EMS) to the Nigerian construction industry, and the perceived issues to EMS adoption among organisations in the industry. The study highlights the environment as an important stakeholder in the industry because it affects and is affected by construction activities on a regular basis. It identifies the importance of ISO 14001 in ensuring adequate consideration for the environment is maintained on construction projects. The research adopts a quantitative approach by analysing responses from an online survey among construction industry professionals in Nigeria. The questions on the survey were drawn from a similar study carried out in Asia and the results were analysed using the Weighted Average and Standard Deviation statistical approach. Results reveal that the major benefits of EMS to the Nigerian construction industry were improved efficiency in waste management and environmental protection, as well as an overall increase in employee motivation due to better opportunities for training and development. Lack of technological support in organisations and the high cost of implementing EMS were viewed as the major barriers towards its uptake in construction companies. The findings also indicate that a feasible EMS implementation strategy must not ignore the unique nature of the Nigerian construction industry, which comprises mostly small and medium enterprises. The study concludes by recommending the use of a waste management plan based on the Reuse-Reduce-Recycle-Recover model and an employee training plan to ensure continuous improvement in the organisation’s environmental management strategy

Documenting the Recovery of Vascular Services in European Centres Following the Initial COVID-19 Pandemic Peak: Results from a Multicentre Collaborative Study

Objective: To document the recovery of vascular services in Europe following the first COVID-19 pandemic peak. Methods: An online structured vascular service survey with repeated data entry between 23 March and 9 August 2020 was carried out. Unit level data were collected using repeated questionnaires addressing modifications to vascular services during the first peak (March – May 2020, “period 1”), and then again between May and June (“period 2”) and June and July 2020 (“period 3”). The duration of each period was similar. From 2 June, as reductions in cases began to be reported, centres were first asked if they were in a region still affected by rising cases, or if they had passed the peak of the first wave. These centres were asked additional questions about adaptations made to their standard pathways to permit elective surgery to resume. Results: The impact of the pandemic continued to be felt well after countries’ first peak was thought to have passed in 2020. Aneurysm screening had not returned to normal in 21.7% of centres. Carotid surgery was still offered on a case by case basis in 33.8% of centres, and only 52.9% of centres had returned to their normal aneurysm threshold for surgery. Half of centres (49.4%) believed their management of lower limb ischaemia continued to be negatively affected by the pandemic. Reduced operating theatre capacity continued in 45.5% of centres. Twenty per cent of responding centres documented a backlog of at least 20 aortic repairs. At least one negative swab and 14 days of isolation were the most common strategies used for permitting safe elective surgery to recommence. Conclusion: Centres reported a broad return of services approaching pre-pandemic “normal” by July 2020. Many introduced protocols to manage peri-operative COVID-19 risk. Backlogs in cases were reported for all major vascular surgeries

Global impact of the first coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic wave on vascular services

This online structured survey has demonstrated the global impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on vascular services. The majority of centres have documented marked reductions in operating and services provided to vascular patients. In the months during recovery from the resource restrictions imposed during the pandemic peaks, there will be a significant vascular disease burden awaiting surgeons. One of the most affected specialtie

The CLEAR (Considering Leading Experts’ Antithrombotic Regimes around peripheral angioplasty) survey: an international perspective on antiplatelet and anticoagulant practice for peripheral arterial endovascular intervention

Background: Antiplatelet and anticoagulant therapy are commonly used before, during and after peripheral arterial endovascular intervention. This survey aimed to establish antiplatelet and anticoagulant choice for peripheral arterial endovascular intervention in contemporary clinical practice. Methods: Pilot-tested questionnaire distributed via collaborative research networks. Results: One hundred and sixty-two complete responses were collected from responders in 22 countries, predominantly the UK (48%) and the rest of the European Union (44%). Antiplatelet monotherapy was the most common choice pre-procedurally (62%). In the UK, there was no difference between dual and single antiplatelet therapy use post procedure (50% vs. 37% p = 0.107). However, a significant majority of EU respondents used dual therapy (68% vs. 20% p < 0.001). There was variation in choice of antiplatelet therapy by the device used and the anatomical location of the intervention artery. The majority (82%) of respondents believed there was insufficient evidence to guide antithrombotic therapy after peripheral endovascular intervention and most (92%) would support a randomised trial. Conclusions: There is widespread variation in the use of antiplatelet therapy, especially post peripheral arterial endovascular intervention. Clinicians would support the development of a randomised trial comparing dual antiplatelet therapy with monotherapy

Correction to: The CLEAR (Considering Leading Experts’ Antithrombotic Regimes around peripheral angioplasty) survey: an international perspective on antiplatelet and anticoagulant practice for peripheral arterial endovascular intervention (CVIR Endovascular, (2019), 2, 1, (37), 10.1186/s42155-019-0079-8)

an amendment to this paper has been published and can be accessed via the original article