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

The epidemiologic and economic impact of a quadrivalent human papillomavirus vaccine in Thailand.

BackgroundThe human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine was introduced into Thailand's national immunization program in 2017 for 11-12 year old school girls. The objectives of this study were to examine the epidemiological consequences and cost-effectiveness of a routine quadrivalent HPV (4vHPV) vaccination and the routine 4vHPV vaccination plus 5-year catch-up vaccination by comparing with cervical cancer screening only (no vaccination) in Thailand.MethodA transmission dynamic model was used to assess the cost-effectiveness of the routine 4vHPV vaccination and the routine 4vHPV vaccination plus catch-up vaccination, compared with no vaccination (screening only) in Thai population. The vaccination coverage rate assumptions were 95% in 11-12-year-old girls for the routine vaccination and 70% in 13-24 year-old females for the 5-year catch-up vaccination. Vaccination costs, direct medical costs of HPV-related diseases, and the number of quality of life years (QALYs) gained were calculated for over a 100-year time horizon with discount rate of 3%.ResultThe model indicated that the routine 4vHPV vaccination and the routine plus catch-up 4vHPV vaccination strategies could prevent approximately 434,130 and 472,502 cumulative cases of cervical cancer, 182,234 and 199,068 cumulative deaths from cervical cancer and 12,708,349 and 13,641,398 cumulative cases of HPV 6/11 related genital warts, respectively, when compared with no vaccination over 100 years. The estimated cost per QALY gained (ICER) when compared to no vaccination in Thailand was 8,370 THB/QALY for the routine vaccination and 9,650 THB/QALY for the routine with catch-up vaccination strategy.ConclusionConsidering the recommended threshold of 160,000 THB/QALY for Thailand, the implementation of the routine 4vHPV vaccination either alone or plus the catch-up vaccination was cost-effective as compared to the cervical cancer screening only

Evaluation of a quality improvement intervention to reduce anastomotic leak following right colectomy (EAGLE): pragmatic, batched stepped-wedge, cluster-randomized trial in 64 countries

Background Anastomotic leak affects 8 per cent of patients after right colectomy with a 10-fold increased risk of postoperative death. The EAGLE study aimed to develop and test whether an international, standardized quality improvement intervention could reduce anastomotic leaks. Methods The internationally intended protocol, iteratively co-developed by a multistage Delphi process, comprised an online educational module introducing risk stratification, an intraoperative checklist, and harmonized surgical techniques. Clusters (hospital teams) were randomized to one of three arms with varied sequences of intervention/data collection by a derived stepped-wedge batch design (at least 18 hospital teams per batch). Patients were blinded to the study allocation. Low- and middle-income country enrolment was encouraged. The primary outcome (assessed by intention to treat) was anastomotic leak rate, and subgroup analyses by module completion (at least 80 per cent of surgeons, high engagement; less than 50 per cent, low engagement) were preplanned. Results A total 355 hospital teams registered, with 332 from 64 countries (39.2 per cent low and middle income) included in the final analysis. The online modules were completed by half of the surgeons (2143 of 4411). The primary analysis included 3039 of the 3268 patients recruited (206 patients had no anastomosis and 23 were lost to follow-up), with anastomotic leaks arising before and after the intervention in 10.1 and 9.6 per cent respectively (adjusted OR 0.87, 95 per cent c.i. 0.59 to 1.30; P = 0.498). The proportion of surgeons completing the educational modules was an influence: the leak rate decreased from 12.2 per cent (61 of 500) before intervention to 5.1 per cent (24 of 473) after intervention in high-engagement centres (adjusted OR 0.36, 0.20 to 0.64; P < 0.001), but this was not observed in low-engagement hospitals (8.3 per cent (59 of 714) and 13.8 per cent (61 of 443) respectively; adjusted OR 2.09, 1.31 to 3.31). Conclusion Completion of globally available digital training by engaged teams can alter anastomotic leak rates. Registration number: NCT04270721 (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov)