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

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

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

Pregnancy and neonatal outcomes of COVID -19: coreporting of common outcomes from PAN-COVID and AAP-SONPM registries

Objective Few large cohort studies have reported data on maternal, fetal, perinatal and neonatal outcomes associated with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2) infection in pregnancy. We report the outcome of infected pregnancies from a collaboration formed early during the pandemic between the investigators of two registries, the UK and Global Pregnancy and Neonatal outcomes in COVID‐19 (PAN‐COVID) study and the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) Section on Neonatal–Perinatal Medicine (SONPM) National Perinatal COVID‐19 Registry. Methods This was an analysis of data from the PAN‐COVID registry (1 January to 25 July 2020), which includes pregnancies with suspected or confirmed maternal SARS‐CoV‐2 infection at any stage in pregnancy, and the AAP‐SONPM National Perinatal COVID‐19 registry (4 April to 8 August 2020), which includes pregnancies with positive maternal testing for SARS‐CoV‐2 from 14 days before delivery to 3 days after delivery. The registries collected data on maternal, fetal, perinatal and neonatal outcomes. The PAN‐COVID results are presented overall for pregnancies with suspected or confirmed SARS‐CoV‐2 infection and separately in those with confirmed infection. Results We report on 4005 pregnant women with suspected or confirmed SARS‐CoV‐2 infection (1606 from PAN‐COVID and 2399 from AAP‐SONPM). For obstetric outcomes, in PAN‐COVID overall and in those with confirmed infection in PAN‐COVID and AAP‐SONPM, respectively, maternal death occurred in 0.5%, 0.5% and 0.2% of cases, early neonatal death in 0.2%, 0.3% and 0.3% of cases and stillbirth in 0.5%, 0.6% and 0.4% of cases. Delivery was preterm (< 37 weeks' gestation) in 12.0% of all women in PAN‐COVID, in 16.1% of those women with confirmed infection in PAN‐COVID and in 15.7% of women in AAP‐SONPM. Extreme preterm delivery (< 27 weeks' gestation) occurred in 0.5% of cases in PAN‐COVID and 0.3% in AAP‐SONPM. Neonatal SARS‐CoV‐2 infection was reported in 0.9% of all deliveries in PAN‐COVID overall, in 2.0% in those with confirmed infection in PAN‐COVID and in 1.8% in AAP‐SONPM; the proportions of neonates tested were 9.5%, 20.7% and 87.2%, respectively. The rates of a small‐for‐gestational‐age (SGA) neonate were 8.2% in PAN‐COVID overall, 9.7% in those with confirmed infection and 9.6% in AAP‐SONPM. Mean gestational‐age‐adjusted birth‐weight Z‐scores were −0.03 in PAN‐COVID and −0.18 in AAP‐SONPM. Conclusions The findings from the UK and USA registries of pregnancies with SARS‐CoV‐2 infection were remarkably concordant. Preterm delivery affected a higher proportion of women than expected based on historical and contemporaneous national data. The proportions of pregnancies affected by stillbirth, a SGA infant or early neonatal death were comparable to those in historical and contemporaneous UK and USA data. Although maternal death was uncommon, the rate was higher than expected based on UK and USA population data, which is likely explained by underascertainment of women affected by milder or asymptomatic infection in pregnancy in the PAN‐COVID study, although not in the AAP‐SONPM study. The data presented support strong guidance for enhanced precautions to prevent SARS‐CoV‐2 infection in pregnancy, particularly in the context of increased risks of preterm delivery and maternal mortality, and for priority vaccination of pregnant women and women planning pregnancy. Copyright © 2021 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd

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

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