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

Patient-Related Benefits for Adults with Cochlear Implantation : A Multicultural Longitudinal Observational Study

To assess subjectively perceived, real-world benefits longitudinally for unilateral cochlear implant (CI) recipients in a multinational population treated routinely. To identify possible predictors of self-reported benefits. This was a prospective, multicenter, repeated-measures study. Self-assessment of performance at preimplantation and postimplantation at 1, 2, and 3 years using standardized, validated, local language versions of the Speech, Spatial, and Qualities of Hearing Scale (SSQ), and the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 (HUI3) was performed. Outcomes were analyzed using a longitudinal mixed-effects model incorporating country effect. Patient demographics were explored for associations with change over time. Two hundred ninety-one routinely treated, unilateral CI recipients, aged 13-81 years, from 9 clinics across 4 countries. Highly significant improvements were observed for all outcome measures (p < 0.0001). Postimplantation, mean outcome scores remained stable beyond 1 year, with notable individual variability. A significant association for one or more outcomes with preimplantation contralateral hearing aid use, telephone use, age at implantation, implantation side, preimplantation comorbidities, dizziness, and tinnitus was observed (p < 0.004). Longitudinal benefits of CI treatment can be measured using clinically standardized self-assessment tools to provide a holistic view of patient-related benefits in routine clinical practice for aggregated data from multinational populations. Self-reported outcomes can provide medical-based evidence regarding CI treatment to support decision-making by health service providers