Une occasion d’introduire une réforme : l'impact environnemental des déplacements faits pour se rendre à une entrevue de stage en chirurgie générale

Background: In light of the global climate emergency, it is worth reconsidering the current practice of medical students traveling to interview for residency positions. We sought to estimate carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions associated with travel for general surgery residency interviews in Canada, and the potential avoided emissions if interviews were restructured. Methods: An 8-item survey was constructed to collect data on cities visited, travel modalities, and costs incurred. Applicants to the University of Ottawa General Surgery Program during the 2019/20 Canadian Resident Matching Service (CaRMS) cycle were invited to complete the survey.  Potential reductions in CO2 emissions were modeled using a regionalized interview process with either one or two cities. Results: Of a total of 56 applicants, 39 (70%) completed the survey. Applicants on average visited 10 cities with a mean total cost of $4,866 (95% CI=3,995-5,737) per applicant. Mean CO2 emissions were 1.82 (95% CI=1.50-2.14) tonnes per applicant, and the total CO2 emissions by applicants was estimated to be 101.9 (95% CI=84.0 – 119.8) tonnes. In models wherein interviews are regionalized to one or two cities, emissions would be 57.9 tonnes (43.2% reduction) and 84.2 tonnes (17.4% reduction), respectively. Overall, 74.4% of respondents were concerned about the environmental impact of travel and 46% would prefer to interview by videoconference. Conclusion: Travel for general surgery residency interviews in Canada is associated with a considerable environmental impact. These findings are likely generalizable to other residency programs. Given the global climate crisis, the CaRMS application process must consider alternative structures.Contexte: Compte tenu de la situation d’urgence climatique mondiale, il convient de reconsidérer l’usage actuel selon lequel les étudiants en médecine se déplacent pour se présenter aux entrevues en vue d’obtenir un poste de résidence. Nous avons tenté d’estimer les émissions de dioxyde de carbone (CO2) causées par les déplacements pour les entretiens de résidence en chirurgie générale au Canada, et les émissions potentielles évitées si les entretiens étaient organisés autrement. Méthodes : Un sondage comportant huit questions a été élaboré pour recueillir les données sur les villes visitées, les modalités de voyage et les coûts encourus. Les candidats au programme de chirurgie générale de l’Université d’Ottawa au cours du cycle 2019/20 du Service canadien de jumelage des résidents (CaRMS) ont été invités à y répondre. Les réductions potentielles des émissions de CO2 ont été modélisées à l’aide d’un processus d’entrevue régionalisé avec une ou deux villes. Résultats : Sur un total de 56 candidats, 39 (70 %) ont répondu au sondage. Les candidats ont visité en moyenne 10 villes, pour un coût total moyen de 4 866 dollars (IC 95 % = 3 995-5 737) par candidat. Les émissions moyennes de CO2 étaient de 1,82 (IC 95 % = 1,50-2,14) tonne par candidat, et le total des émissions de CO2 pour l’ensemble des candidats était estimé à 101,9 (IC 95 % = 84,0 - 119,8) tonnes. D’après les modèles où les entrevues sont régionalisées avec une ou deux villes, les émissions seraient respectivement de 57,9 tonnes (43,2 % de réduction) et 84,2 tonnes (17,4 % de réduction). Dans l’ensemble, 74,4 % des personnes interrogées se disent préoccupées par l’impact environnemental des déplacements et 46 % préféreraient que l’entretien se fasse par vidéoconférence. Conclusion : Les déplacements pour les entrevues de résidence en chirurgie générale au Canada ont un impact environnemental considérable. Ces conclusions sont probablement généralisables à d’autres programmes de résidence. Compte tenu de la crise climatique mondiale, il conviendrait d’envisager d’autres modalités d’organisation des entrevuespour le processus de candidatures du CaRMS

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

Laparoscopic Colorectal Surgery -- Canadian Practice Patterns and the Role of the Hand Assist Device

Objectives: 1) To identify laparoscopic colorectal surgery practice patterns in Canada, 2) To systematically review the literature comparing hand assisted laparoscopic surgery to conventional laparoscopic surgery and 3) To design a randomized controlled trial protocol comparing conventional laparoscopic to hand assisted laparoscopic colorectal resections. Methods: A national cross sectional study was undertaken of Canadian General Surgeons with respect to their practice patterns specific to laparoscopic colorectal surgery. A systematic review comparing Conventional laparoscopic to Hand-Assisted Laparoscopic colorectal resections. A randomized controlled trial protocol with methodological discussions regarding issues in surgical trials was written. Results: The majority of Canadian General Surgeons are offering laparoscopic colorectal resections although the volume per surgeon appears to be low. The main barriers to adoption are operating time and lack of formal minimally invasive surgery training. There were two trials identified for inclusion in the systematic review with a total of 94 subjects with some methodological weaknesses. A potential trend towards decreased conversion to open surgery in the hand assisted group was identified. A protocol is presented for a trial comparing hand assisted to conventional laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Conclusion: A large percentage of Canadian surgeons perform laparoscopic colorectal resections although many perform less than one case per month. The limited number of trials performed and their associated methodological weaknesses and heterogeneity does not allow a reliable assessment of the relative benefits of hand-assisted and conventional laparoscopic resections for colorectal disease. Additional adequately powered and methodologically sound trials are needed to determine if there is a clinically important difference in perioperative outcomes