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

Defining the Infrastructure for a National Item Bank Service

Item banks (sometimes known as question banks) have been around for many years but are not yet widely used in the UK. There are clear benefits such as economies of scale when items are built across a subject area or sector. When this is coordinated centrally items are more likely to be peer reviewed, validated properly and to adhere to technical, interoperability and accessibility standards. Quality can be enhanced by delivering the items to larger numbers of candidates, leading to improvements following analysis of item usage data. However there is currently no satisfactory way for these to be stored and made available to potential users; the available commercial learning object repositories are unable to deal with assessment content adequately. In an attempt to solve such issues and to begin to define the infrastructure of a distributed national item bank service, the Item Bank Infrastructure Study (IBIS) brought together individuals and institutions in the UK with key expertise in areas relating to item banks. The study was funded by JISC under the Exchange for Learning (X4L) Programme with financial contributions from three of the exam boards involved – Edexcel, the Scottish Qualifications Authority (SQA) and the University of Cambridge Local Examination Syndicate (UCLES). This paper extracts the key points and conclusions from the full report which can be downloaded from www.toia.ac.uk/ibis. An accompanying paper in these proceedings, Conceptualising Item Banks, defines items, item pools and item banks, and outlines the main components of a possible distributed item bank service

Platelet function/reactivity testing and prediction of risk of recurrent vascular events and outcomes after TIA or ischaemic stroke : systematic review and meta-analysis

Background: The prevalence of ex vivo ‘high on-treatment platelet reactivity (HTPR)’ and its relationship with recurrent vascular events/outcomes in patients with ischaemic cerebrovascular disease (CVD) is unclear. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed in accordance with the PRISMA statement. MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Library were searched for completed manuscripts until May 2019 on TIA/ischaemic stroke patients, ≥ 18 years, treated with commonly-prescribed antiplatelet therapy, who had platelet function/reactivity testing and prospective follow-up data on recurrent stroke/TIA, myocardial infarction, vascular death or other cerebrovascular outcomes. Data were pooled using random-effects meta-analysis. Primary outcome was the composite risk of recurrent stroke/TIA, myocardial infarction or vascular death. Secondary outcomes were recurrent stroke/TIA, severe stroke (NIHSS > 16) or disability/impairment (modified Rankin scale ≥ 3) during follow-up. Results: Antiplatelet–HTPR prevalence was 3–65% with aspirin, 8–56% with clopidogrel and 1.8–35% with aspirin–clopidogrel therapy. Twenty studies (4989 patients) were included in our meta-analysis. There was a higher risk of the composite primary outcome (OR 2.93, 95% CI 1.90–4.51) and recurrent ischaemic stroke/TIA (OR 2.43, 95% CI 1.51–3.91) in patients with vs. those without ‘antiplatelet–HTPR’ on any antiplatelet regimen. These risks were also more than twofold higher in patients with vs. those without ‘aspirin–HTPR’ and ‘dual antiplatelet–HTPR’, respectively. Clopidogrel–HTPR status did not significantly predict outcomes, but the number of eligible studies was small. The risk of severe stroke was higher in those with vs. without antiplatelet–HTPR (OR 2.65, 95% CI 1.00–7.01). Discussion: Antiplatelet–HTPR may predict risks of recurrent vascular events/outcomes in CVD patients. Given the heterogeneity between studies, further prospective, multi-centre studies are warranted