4 research outputs found

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

    Get PDF
    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

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

    Get PDF
    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

    Weiterbildung zum Facharzt für Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe: Wo stehen wir aktuell und was brauchen wir für die Zukunft? Eine Studie zur Weiterbildung in Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe in Deutschland, Österreich und Schweiz

    No full text
    Objective: In this study, we aim to assess the current situation of postgraduate medical education in obstetrics and gynaecology in Germany, Austria and Switzerland. In addition, we aim to determine transferable advantages amongst the countries. Study design: We performed a survey through a digital questionnaire with a total of 40 questions. The survey was advertised via communication channels of the German, Austrian and Swiss gynaecological societies; the participants were enrolled anonymously. Results: A total of 422 trainees took part in the survey. Differences within the three countries where found regarding the workload and the training of sub-specialties. Generally, the participants described to spend the majority of their daily working hours on documentation. Concerning assessment of current training regulations, more than half of trainees stated that they were actually faced with notable difficulties to fulfil the required obligatory numbers of self-performed interventions being documented. When asked for their intrinsic feeling of safety, around two-third of trainees felt "confident to very confident" during standard interventions. These numbers were up to 12% higher in the group of trainees who experienced simulation training during their education. Conclusion: With the help of this survey, weak points can be identified such as workload and implementation of current training regulations. Projects and ideas as EBCOG PACT, EPAs, the reduction of bureaucracy through digitization and deepening skills through simulation make a valuable contribution to compensate for these deficits and to adapt to future requirements.Ziel: Diese Studie stellt die aktuelle Situation der medizinischen Weiterbildung zum Facharzt für Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe in Deutschland, Österreich und der Schweiz dar. Zusätzlich werden adaptierbare Stärken der jeweiligen Länder identifiziert.Studiendesign: Wir führten eine Online-Umfrage mit 30 Fragen durch. Die Umfrage wurde durch verschiedenste Kommunikationskanäle der Deutschen, Österreichischen und Schweizer Gesellschaft für Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe beworben. Die Teilnahme war freiwillig und anonym.Resultat: 422 Assistenzärzt*innen und junge Fachärzt*innen nahmen an der Umfrage teil. Unterschiede zwischen den drei Ländern zeigten sich bei den Aufgaben der Ärzt*innen und dem Training in Sub-Spezialisierungen. Grundsätzlich berichteten die Teilnehmer*innen, dass sie einen Großteil ihrer Arbeitszeit mit Dokumentation verbringen. Ein beunruhigendes Ergebnis ist die Tatsache, dass mehr als die Hälfte der Teilnehmer*innen angaben, Schwierigkeiten mit der Erfüllung der geforderten Fallzahlen für selbstdurchgeführte Eingriffe zu haben. Auf die Frage, wie sicher sie sich bei Standardeingriffen fühlen, gaben 2/3 an, "sich sicher bis sehr sicher" zu fühlen. Diese Zahl war 12% höher bei Assistenzärzt*innen, welche während ihrer Weiterbildung Simulationstrainings besucht haben.Zusammenfassung: Mit Hilfe dieser Umfrage konnten Schwachstellen bei der Arbeitsverteilung und der Umsetzung aktueller Weiterbildungsinhalte identifiziert werden. Projekte und Ideen wie EBCOG PACT und EPA, die Reduktion von Bürokratie, und die Vertiefung von Fähigkeiten durch Simulationstraining helfen individuelle Schwachstellen zu kompensieren und für die Zukunft vorbereitet zu sein

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

    Get PDF
    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 coprioritized 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
    corecore