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

AVOIDable medical errors in invasive procedures : facts on the ground – An NHS staff survey

BACKGROUND: Never Events represent a serious problem with a high burden on healthcare providers’ facilities. Despite introducing various safety checklists and precautions, many Never Events are reported yearly. OBJECTIVE: This survey aims to assess awareness and compliance with the safety standards and obtain recommendations from the National Health Service (NHS) staff on preventative measures. METHODS: An online survey of 45 questions has been conducted directed at NHS staff involved in invasive procedures. The questions were designed to assess the level of awareness, training and education delivered to the staff on patient safety. Moreover, we designed a set of focused questions to assess compliance with the National Safety Standards for Invasive Procedures (NatSSIPs) guidance. Open questions were added to encourage the staff to give practical recommendations on tackling and preventing these incidents. Invitations were sent through social media, and the survey was kept live from 20/11/2021 to 23/04/2022. RESULTS: Out of 700 invitations sent, 75 completed the survey (10.7%). 96% and 94.67% were familiar with the terms Never Events and near-miss, respectively. However, 52% and 36.49% were aware of National and Local Safety Standards for Invasive procedures (NatSSIPs-LocSSIPs), respectively. 28 (37.33%) had training on preventing medical errors. 48 (64%) believe that training on safety checklists should be delivered during undergraduate education. Fourteen (18.67%) had experiences when the checklists failed to prevent medical errors. 53 (70.67%) have seen the operating list or the consent forms containing abbreviations. 33 (44.00%) have a failed counting reconciliation algorithm. NHS staff emphasised the importance of multi-level checks, utilisation of specific checklists, patient involvement in the safety checks, adequate staffing, avoidance of staff change in the middle of a procedure and list order, and investment in training and education on patient safety. CONCLUSION: This survey showed a low awareness of some of the principal patient safety aspects and poor compliance with NatSSIPs recommendations. Checklists fail on some occasions to prevent medical errors. Process redesign creating a safe environment, and enhancing a safety culture could be the key. The study presented the recommendations of the staff on preventative measures

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

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 < 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)