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

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

Early urinary catheter removal after rectal surgery: systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND: Urinary catheters are placed after rectal surgery to prevent urinary retention, but prolonged use may increase the risk of urinary tract infection (UTI). This review evaluated the non-inferiority of early urinary catheter removal compared with late removal for acute urinary retention risk after rectal surgery. METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched from January 1980 to February 2019. RCTs comparing early versus late catheter removal after rectal surgery were eligible. Primary outcomes were acute urinary retention and UTI; the secondary outcome was length of hospital stay. Early catheter removal was defined as removal up to 2 days after surgery, with late removal after postoperative day 2. The non-inferiority margin from an included trial was used for analysis of change in urinary retention (ΔNI  = 15 per cent). Pooled estimates of risk differences (RDs) were derived from random-effects models. Risk of bias was assessed using a modified Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. RESULTS: Four trials were included, consisting of 409 patients. There was insufficient evidence to conclude non-inferiority of early versus late catheter removal for acute urinary retention (RD 9 (90 per cent c.i. -1 to 19) per cent; PNI  = 0·31). Early catheter removal was superior for UTI (RD -11 (95 per cent c.i. -17 to -4) per cent; P = 0·001). Results for length of stay were mixed. There were insufficient data to conduct subgroup analyses. CONCLUSION: The existing literature is inconclusive for non-inferiority of early versus late urinary catheter removal for acute urinary retention. Early catheter removal is superior in terms of reducing the risk of UTI

Impact of COVID 19 on the provision of surgical services in Ontario, Canada: population-based analysis

In this population-based analysis, the rate of surgical procedures decreased during the COVID period with hospitals rapidly reducing ambulatory and in-patient elective procedures in response to government directives. However, the observed and unexpected large reduction in urgent surgical procedures highlights the need to prioritize access to care for patients with emergency surgical conditions as part of pandemic planning

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 coprioritized 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