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

Reliability of a wearable wireless patch for continuous remote monitoring of vital signs in patients recovering from major surgery: a clinical validation study from the TRaCINg trial

Objective: To validate whether a wearable remote vital signs monitor could accurately measure heart rate (HR), respiratory rate (RR) and temperature in a postsurgical patient population at high risk of complications. Design: Manually recorded vital signs data were paired with vital signs data derived from the remote monitor set in patients participating in the Trial of Remote versus Continuous INtermittent monitoring (TRaCINg) study: a trial of continuous remote vital signs monitoring. Setting: St James’s University Hospital, UK. Participants: 51 patients who had undergone major elective general surgery. Interventions: The intervention was the SensiumVitals monitoring system. This is a wireless patch worn on the patient’s chest that measures HR, RR and temperature continuously. The reference standard was nurse-measured manually recorded vital signs. Primary and secondary outcome measures: The primary outcomes were the 95% limits of agreement between manually recorded and wearable patch vital sign recordings of HR, RR and temperature. The secondary outcomes were the percentage completeness of vital sign patch data for each vital sign. Results: 1135 nurse observations were available for analysis. There was no clinically meaningful bias in HR (1.85 bpm), but precision was poor (95% limits of agreement −23.92 to 20.22 bpm). Agreement was poor for RR (bias 2.93 breaths per minute, 95% limits of agreement −8.19 to 14.05 breaths per minute) and temperature (bias 0.82°C, 95% limits of agreement −1.13°C to 2.78°C). Vital sign patch data completeness was 72.8% for temperature, 59.2% for HR and 34.1% for RR. Distributions of RR in manually recorded measurements were clinically implausible. Conclusions: The continuous monitoring system did not reliably provide HR consistent with nurse measurements. The accuracy of RR and temperature was outside of acceptable limits. Limitations of the system could potentially be overcome through better signal processing. While acknowledging the time pressures placed on nursing staff, inaccuracies in the manually recorded data present an opportunity to increase awareness about the importance of manual observations, particularly with regard to methods of manual HR and RR measurements