Reducing the environmental impact of surgery on a global scale: systematic review and co-prioritization with healthcare workers in 132 countries

Abstract Background Healthcare cannot achieve net-zero carbon without addressing operating theatres. The aim of this study was to prioritize feasible interventions to reduce the environmental impact of operating theatres. Methods This study adopted a four-phase Delphi consensus co-prioritization methodology. In phase 1, a systematic review of published interventions and global consultation of perioperative healthcare professionals were used to longlist interventions. In phase 2, iterative thematic analysis consolidated comparable interventions into a shortlist. In phase 3, the shortlist was co-prioritized based on patient and clinician views on acceptability, feasibility, and safety. In phase 4, ranked lists of interventions were presented by their relevance to high-income countries and low–middle-income countries. Results In phase 1, 43 interventions were identified, which had low uptake in practice according to 3042 professionals globally. In phase 2, a shortlist of 15 intervention domains was generated. In phase 3, interventions were deemed acceptable for more than 90 per cent of patients except for reducing general anaesthesia (84 per cent) and re-sterilization of ‘single-use’ consumables (86 per cent). In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for high-income countries were: introducing recycling; reducing use of anaesthetic gases; and appropriate clinical waste processing. In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for low–middle-income countries were: introducing reusable surgical devices; reducing use of consumables; and reducing the use of general anaesthesia. Conclusion This is a step toward environmentally sustainable operating environments with actionable interventions applicable to both high– and low–middle–income countries

Variation of Liver Transplant Practice and Outcomes During Public Holidays in the United States: Analysis of United Network for Organ Sharing Registry

Background:. It has been reported that patients hospitalized outside regular working hours have worse outcomes. This study aims to compare outcomes following liver transplantation (LT) performed during public holidays and nonholidays. Methods:. We analyzed the United Network for Organ Sharing registry data for 55 200 adult patients who underwent an LT between 2010 and 2019. Patients were grouped according to LT receipt during public holidays ±3 d (n = 7350) and nonholiday periods (n = 47 850). The overall post-LT mortality hazard was analyzed using multivariable Cox regression models. Results:. LT recipient characteristics were similar between public holidays and nonholidays. Compared with nonholidays, deceased donors during public holidays had a lower donor risk index (median [interquartile range]: holidays 1.52 [1.29–1.83] versus nonholidays 1.54 [1.31–1.85]; P = 0.001) and shorter cold ischemia time (median [interquartile range]: holidays 5.82 h [4.52–7.22] versus nonholidays 5.91 h [4.62–7.38]; P < 0.001). Propensity score matching 4-to-1 was done to adjust for donor and recipient confounders (n = 33 505); LT receipt during public holidays (n = 6701) was associated with a lower risk of overall mortality (hazard ratio 0.94 [95% confidence interval, 0.86-0.99]; P = 0.046). The number of livers that were not recovered for transplant was higher during public holidays compared with nonholidays (15.4% versus 14.5%, respectively; P = 0.03). Conclusions:. Although LT performed during public holidays was associated with improved overall patient survival, liver discard rates were higher during public holidays compared with nonholidays