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

Dementia Risk in A Diverse Population: A Single-Region Nested Case-Control Study in the East End of London

BACKGROUND: Most evidence about dementia risk comes from relatively affluent people of White European ancestry. We aimed to determine the association between ethnicity, area level socioeconomic deprivation and dementia risk, and the extent to which variation in risk might be attributable to known modifiable clinical risk factors and health behaviours. METHODS: In this nested case-control study, we analysed data from primary care medical records of a population of 1,016,277 from four inner East London boroughs, United Kingdom, collected between 2009 and 2018. The outcome measures were odds ratios for dementia according to ethnicity and deprivation, before and after the addition of major modifiable risk factors for dementia; and weighted population attributable risk for comparison between individual risk factors. FINDINGS: We identified 4137 dementia cases and 15,754 matched controls (mean age for cases and controls were 80·7 years, (SD 8·7); 81·3 years, (SD 8·9) respectively, range 27–103). Black and South Asian ethnicity were both associated with increased risk of dementia relative to White (odds ratios [95% CI]: Black 1·43 [1·31–1·56]; South Asian 1.17 [1·06–1·29]). Area-level deprivation was independently associated with an increased risk of dementia in a dose-dependent manner. Black and South Asian ethnicity were both associated with a younger age at dementia diagnosis (odds ratios [95%CI]: 0·70 [0·61–0·80] and 0·55 [0·47–0·65], respectively). Population attributable risk was higher for ethnicity (9·7%) and deprivation (11·7%) than for any established modifiable risk factor in this population. INTERPRETATION: Ethnicity and area-level deprivation are independently associated with dementia risk in East London. This effect may not be attributable to the effect of known risk factors. FUNDING: Barts Charity (MGU0366)