Practices to support co-design processes: A case-study of co-designing a program for children with parents with a mental health problem in the Austrian region of Tyrol

Forms of collaborative knowledge production, such as community-academic partnerships (CAP), have been increasingly used in health care. However, instructions on how to deliver such processes are lacking. We aim to identify practice ingredients for one element within a CAP, a 6-month co-design process, during which 26 community- and 13 research-partners collaboratively designed an intervention programme for children whose parent have a mental illness. Using 22 published facilitating and hindering factors for CAP as the analytical framework, eight community-partners reflected on the activities which took place during the co-design process. From a qualitative content analysis of the data, we distilled essential practices for each CAP factor. Ten community- and eight research-partners revised the results and co-authored this article. We identified 36 practices across the 22 CAP facilitating or hindering factors. Most practices address more than one factor. Many practices relate to workshop design, facilitation methods, and relationship building. Most practices were identified for facilitating ‘trust among partners’, ‘shared visions, goals and/or missions’, ‘effective/frequent communication’, and ‘well-structured meetings’. Fewer practices were observed for ‘effective conflict resolution’, ‘positive community impact’ and for avoiding ‘excessive funding pressure/control struggles’ and ‘high burden of activities’. Co-designing a programme for mental healthcare is a challenging process that requires skills in process management and communication. We provide practice steps for delivering co-design activities. However, practitioners may have to adapt them to different cultural contexts. Further research is needed to analyse whether co-writing with community-partners results in a better research output and benefits for participants

Peri-operative red blood cell transfusion in neonates and infants: NEonate and Children audiT of Anaesthesia pRactice IN Europe: A prospective European multicentre observational study

BACKGROUND: Little is known about current clinical practice concerning peri-operative red blood cell transfusion in neonates and small infants. Guidelines suggest transfusions based on haemoglobin thresholds ranging from 8.5 to 12 g dl-1, distinguishing between children from birth to day 7 (week 1), from day 8 to day 14 (week 2) or from day 15 (≥week 3) onwards. OBJECTIVE: To observe peri-operative red blood cell transfusion practice according to guidelines in relation to patient outcome. DESIGN: A multicentre observational study. SETTING: The NEonate-Children sTudy of Anaesthesia pRactice IN Europe (NECTARINE) trial recruited patients up to 60 weeks' postmenstrual age undergoing anaesthesia for surgical or diagnostic procedures from 165 centres in 31 European countries between March 2016 and January 2017. PATIENTS: The data included 5609 patients undergoing 6542 procedures. Inclusion criteria was a peri-operative red blood cell transfusion. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary endpoint was the haemoglobin level triggering a transfusion for neonates in week 1, week 2 and week 3. Secondary endpoints were transfusion volumes, 'delta haemoglobin' (preprocedure - transfusion-triggering) and 30-day and 90-day morbidity and mortality. RESULTS: Peri-operative red blood cell transfusions were recorded during 447 procedures (6.9%). The median haemoglobin levels triggering a transfusion were 9.6 [IQR 8.7 to 10.9] g dl-1 for neonates in week 1, 9.6 [7.7 to 10.4] g dl-1 in week 2 and 8.0 [7.3 to 9.0] g dl-1 in week 3. The median transfusion volume was 17.1 [11.1 to 26.4] ml kg-1 with a median delta haemoglobin of 1.8 [0.0 to 3.6] g dl-1. Thirty-day morbidity was 47.8% with an overall mortality of 11.3%. CONCLUSIONS: Results indicate lower transfusion-triggering haemoglobin thresholds in clinical practice than suggested by current guidelines. The high morbidity and mortality of this NECTARINE sub-cohort calls for investigative action and evidence-based guidelines addressing peri-operative red blood cell transfusions strategies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier: NCT02350348

Global wealth disparities drive adherence to COVID-safe pathways in head and neck cancer surgery

Peer reviewe

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

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

Economic evaluation of family-focused programs when parents have a mental health problem: methodological considerations

Objectives: The nature of adverse effects of parental mental health problems and of the interventions to address them may require specific designs of economic evaluation studies. Nevertheless, methodological guidance is lacking. We aim to understand the broad spectrum of adverse effects from parental mental health problems in children and the economic consequences on an individual and societal level to navigate the design of economic evaluations in this field. Methods: We conducted a systematic literature search of empirical studies on children's adverse effects from parental mental illness. We clustered types of impact, identified individual and public cost consequences, and illustrated the results in an impact inventory. Results: We found a wide variety of short- and long-term (mental) health impacts, impacts on social functioning and socioeconomic implications for the children individually, and adverse effects on the societal level. Consequently, public costs can occur in various public sectors (eg, healthcare, education), and individuals may have to pay costs privately. Conclusions: Existing evaluations in this field mostly follow standard methodological approaches (eg, cost-utility analysis using quality-adjusted life-years) and apply a short-time horizon. Our findings suggest applying a long-term time horizon (at least up to early adulthood), considering cost-consequence analysis and alternatives to health-related quality of life and quality-adjusted life-years as outcome measures, and capturing the full range of possible public and private costs

Incidence of severe critical events in paediatric anaesthesia (APRICOT): a prospective multicentre observational study in 261 hospitals in Europe

Background Little is known about the incidence of severe critical events in children undergoing general anaesthesia in Europe. We aimed to identify the incidence, nature, and outcome of severe critical events in children undergoing anaesthesia, and the associated potential risk factors. Methods The APRICOT study was a prospective observational multicentre cohort study of children from birth to 15 years of age undergoing elective or urgent anaesthesia for diagnostic or surgical procedures. Children were eligible for inclusion during a 2-week period determined prospectively by each centre. There were 261 participating centres across 33 European countries. The primary endpoint was the occurence of perioperative severe critical events requiring immediate intervention. A severe critical event was defined as the occurrence of respiratory, cardiac, allergic, or neurological complications requiring immediate intervention and that led (or could have led) to major disability or death. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01878760. Findings Between April 1, 2014, and Jan 31, 2015, 31â127 anaesthetic procedures in 30â874 children with a mean age of 6·35 years (SD 4·50) were included. The incidence of perioperative severe critical events was 5·2% (95% CI 5·0â5·5) with an incidence of respiratory critical events of 3·1% (2·9â3·3). Cardiovascular instability occurred in 1·9% (1·7â2·1), with an immediate poor outcome in 5·4% (3·7â7·5) of these cases. The all-cause 30-day in-hospital mortality rate was 10 in 10â000. This was independent of type of anaesthesia. Age (relative risk 0·88, 95% CI 0·86â0·90; p<0·0001), medical history, and physical condition (1·60, 1·40â1·82; p<0·0001) were the major risk factors for a serious critical event. Multivariate analysis revealed evidence for the beneficial effect of years of experience of the most senior anaesthesia team member (0·99, 0·981â0·997; p<0·0048 for respiratory critical events, and 0·98, 0·97â0·99; p=0·0039 for cardiovascular critical events), rather than the type of health institution or providers. Interpretation This study highlights a relatively high rate of severe critical events during the anaesthesia management of children for surgical or diagnostic procedures in Europe, and a large variability in the practice of paediatric anaesthesia. These findings are substantial enough to warrant attention from national, regional, and specialist societies to target education of anaesthesiologists and their teams and implement strategies for quality improvement in paediatric anaesthesia. Funding European Society of Anaesthesiology