Assessment of Global Geopotential Models for Modelling Malaysia Marine Geoid

The evaluation towards global geopotential models represents a significant part in modelling the localised Marine Geoid. The marine geoid provides the vertical reference information in Marine Spatial Data Infrastructures (MSDI) development response to United Nations Sustainable Development Goals 14 for the sustainable development in marine environment. The main purpose of this study is to select the best model from both combined missions and satellite-only missions for the Malaysian region. The gravity anomaly field from 30 global models were exclusively calculated over the selected study area within 11 years period-time. Afterwards, each dataset was extracted from the ICGEM server to evaluate with the airborne-derived gravity anomaly from the Department of Surveying and Mapping, Malaysia. The internal accuracy, root mean square error (RMSE) and differences between every model and airborne data were computed. The result indicates GGM-derived gravity anomaly for the best combined mission is GECO with RMSE of 8.44 mGal and the standard deviation value of 28.034 mGal. While, the model from Gravity field and steady state Ocean Circulation Explorer (GOCE) namely, the GO_CONS_GCF_2_DIR_R5 is the best for the satellite-only mission with RMSE of 17.43 mGal and the standard deviation value of 22.828 mGal. As a conclusion, GECO model is preferred as the best fit for determining the marine geoid as it has the lowest RMSE value between both mission and the maximum degree of 2109o coverage. The finding can assist in development of marine geoid for modelling precise surface elevation

Assessment of Global Geopotential Models for Modelling Malaysia Marine Geoid

The evaluation towards global geopotential models represents a significant part in modelling the localised Marine Geoid. The marine geoid provides the vertical reference information in Marine Spatial Data Infrastructures (MSDI) development response to United Nations Sustainable Development Goals 14 for the sustainable development in marine environment. The main purpose of this study is to select the best model from both combined missions and satellite-only missions for the Malaysian region. The gravity anomaly field from 30 global models were exclusively calculated over the selected study area within 11 years period-time. Afterwards, each dataset was extracted from the ICGEM server to evaluate with the airborne-derived gravity anomaly from the Department of Surveying and Mapping, Malaysia. The internal accuracy, root mean square error (RMSE) and differences between every model and airborne data were computed. The result indicates GGM-derived gravity anomaly for the best combined mission is GECO with RMSE of 8.44 mGal and the standard deviation value of 28.034 mGal. While, the model from Gravity field and steady state Ocean Circulation Explorer (GOCE) namely, the GO_CONS_GCF_2_DIR_R5 is the best for the satellite-only mission with RMSE of 17.43 mGal and the standard deviation value of 22.828 mGal. As a conclusion, GECO model is preferred as the best fit for determining the marine geoid as it has the lowest RMSE value between both mission and the maximum degree of 2109o coverage. The finding can assist in development of marine geoid for modelling precise surface elevation

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

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

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