10 research outputs found

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

    Get PDF
    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

    Building the Digital Infrastructure to Enable Genetic Medicine: Recommendations from a Multi-Stakeholder Summit

    No full text
    Practical barriers to implementation prevent the promises of genetic medicine from being realized across the U.S. healthcare system. Though new genetic technologies are introduced daily, the process of determining if, when, and how to use them can take decades. Last Fall, we convened a multi-stakeholder summit to address systemic barriers to delivering precision medicine at scale. In particular, we focused on digital infrastructure connecting genetic information in healthcare. Our group consists of stakeholders across the supply chain including health insurers, clinicians, hospital systems, researchers, policy makers, patient advocates, clinical laboratories, technology vendors, and drug developers. Through facilitated discussions, we identified barriers to ordering, performing, delivering, reimbursing, and regulating genetic tests and the information they provide, and generated proposals to overcome these barriers. In a series of in-depth panel discussions and solution-oriented breakout sessions, we explored five key focus areas: (1) Laboratory quality and patient safety; (2) clinical validity, utility, and value assessment at scale; (3) test identification for market tracking, evidence-gathering, billing, and payment; (4) provider education, communication, and support at the point-of-care; and (5) patient access and control of genetic data. Here, we present each focus area with potential solutions and suggested next steps. Consistent with the Summit, all five draw on multi-stakeholder solutions to pressing problems, ultimately enabling a more connected genetic health information network to serve patients more effectively. To maintain a near-to-mid-term time horizon, both the meeting and this paper focus on projects that can achieve meaningful advancement within a 3-year time frame

    Circulating tumor cells in hepatocellular carcinoma: a pilot study of detection, enumeration, and next-generation sequencing in cases and controls

    Get PDF
    BACKGROUND: Circulating biomarkers are urgently needed in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). The aims of this study were to determine the feasibility of detecting and isolating circulating tumor cells (CTCs) in HCC patients using enrichment for epithelial cell adhesion molecule (EpCAM) expression, to examine their prognostic value, and to explore CTC-based DNA sequencing in metastatic HCC patients compared to a control cohort with non-malignant liver diseases (NMLD). METHODS: Whole blood was obtained from patients with metastatic HCC or NMLD. CTCs were enumerated by CellSearch then purified by immunomagnetic EpCAM enrichment and fluorescence-activated cell sorting. Targeted ion semiconductor sequencing was performed on whole genome-amplified DNA from CTCs, tumor specimens, and peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMC) when available. RESULTS: Twenty HCC and 10 NMLD patients enrolled. CTCs ≄ 2/7.5 mL were detected in 7/20 (35%, 95% confidence interval: 12%, 60%) HCC and 0/9 eligible NMLD (p = 0.04). CTCs ≄ 1/7.5 mL was associated with alpha-fetoprotein ≄ 400 ng/mL (p = 0.008) and vascular invasion (p = 0.009). Sequencing of CTC DNA identified characteristic HCC mutations. The proportion with ≄ 100x coverage depth was lower in CTCs (43%) than tumor or PBMC (87%) (p < 0.025). Low frequency variants were higher in CTCs (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: CTCs are detectable by EpCAM enrichment in metastatic HCC, without confounding false positive background from NMLD. CTC detection was associated with poor prognostic factors. Sequencing of CTC DNA identified known HCC mutations but more low-frequency variants and lower coverage depth than FFPE or PBMC. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12885-015-1195-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users

    Evaluation of a quality improvement intervention to reduce anastomotic leak following right colectomy (EAGLE): pragmatic, batched stepped-wedge, cluster-randomized trial in 64 countries

    Get PDF
    Background Anastomotic leak affects 8 per cent of patients after right colectomy with a 10-fold increased risk of postoperative death. The EAGLE study aimed to develop and test whether an international, standardized quality improvement intervention could reduce anastomotic leaks. Methods The internationally intended protocol, iteratively co-developed by a multistage Delphi process, comprised an online educational module introducing risk stratification, an intraoperative checklist, and harmonized surgical techniques. Clusters (hospital teams) were randomized to one of three arms with varied sequences of intervention/data collection by a derived stepped-wedge batch design (at least 18 hospital teams per batch). Patients were blinded to the study allocation. Low- and middle-income country enrolment was encouraged. The primary outcome (assessed by intention to treat) was anastomotic leak rate, and subgroup analyses by module completion (at least 80 per cent of surgeons, high engagement; less than 50 per cent, low engagement) were preplanned. Results A total 355 hospital teams registered, with 332 from 64 countries (39.2 per cent low and middle income) included in the final analysis. The online modules were completed by half of the surgeons (2143 of 4411). The primary analysis included 3039 of the 3268 patients recruited (206 patients had no anastomosis and 23 were lost to follow-up), with anastomotic leaks arising before and after the intervention in 10.1 and 9.6 per cent respectively (adjusted OR 0.87, 95 per cent c.i. 0.59 to 1.30; P = 0.498). The proportion of surgeons completing the educational modules was an influence: the leak rate decreased from 12.2 per cent (61 of 500) before intervention to 5.1 per cent (24 of 473) after intervention in high-engagement centres (adjusted OR 0.36, 0.20 to 0.64; P &lt; 0.001), but this was not observed in low-engagement hospitals (8.3 per cent (59 of 714) and 13.8 per cent (61 of 443) respectively; adjusted OR 2.09, 1.31 to 3.31). Conclusion Completion of globally available digital training by engaged teams can alter anastomotic leak rates. Registration number: NCT04270721 (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov)
    corecore