Greener Operations: a James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership to define research priorities in environmentally sustainable perioperative practice through a structured consensus approach

Implementing sustainable practices to reduce wastage and costs in adenotonsillectomy

BACKGROUND

Surgical waste presents significant environmental and economic challenges in healthcare. Adenotonsillectomy, a common otolaryngological procedure, contributes to this issue. There is limited research on sustainability measures in adenotonsillectomy, and no studies have specifically identified waste reduction strategies for this operation in a general ENT unit. This study aimed to identify sustainable practices for waste reduction in adenotonsillectomy surgeries and quantify the extent of waste reduction in terms of weight and cost.

METHODS

The items opened and waste produced during adenotonsillectomies in a single institution were documented, including weights and costs. After reviewing the actual materials used by otolaryngologists and identifying potentially avoidable waste, a low-waste setup was designed. Waste weight and costs were evaluated post-implementation and compared with baseline values.

RESULTS

Several steps to reduce wastage in adenotonsillectomy surgeries were identified, including the elimination of surgical drapes and gowns. This resulted in a waste reduction of over 60%, with an average reduction in weight per case of 1.114 kg. The estimated reduction over 1 year for 294 cases was 327.52 kg. The mean reduction in material costs per case was $41.67, with an extrapolated annual savings of $12 250.98 for 294 cases.

CONCLUSION

Implementing sustainable practices in adenotonsillectomy surgeries can significantly reduce waste and healthcare facility cost, providing both environmental and economic benefits.

Research priorities in regional anaesthesia: an international Delphi study

BACKGROUND

Regional anaesthesia use is growing worldwide, and there is an increasing emphasis on research in regional anaesthesia to improve patient outcomes. However, priorities for future study remain unclear. We therefore conducted an international research prioritisation exercise, setting the agenda for future investigators and funding bodies.

METHODS

We invited members of specialist regional anaesthesia societies from six continents to propose research questions that they felt were unanswered. These were consolidated into representative indicative questions, and a literature review was undertaken to determine if any indicative questions were already answered by published work. Unanswered indicative questions entered a three-round modified Delphi process, whereby 29 experts in regional anaesthesia (representing all participating specialist societies) rated each indicative question for inclusion on a final high priority shortlist. If ≥75% of participants rated an indicative question as 'definitely' include in any round, it was accepted. Indicative questions rated as 'definitely' or 'probably' by <50% of participants in any round were excluded. Retained indicative questions were further ranked based on the rating score in the final Delphi round. The final research priorities were ratified by the Delphi expert group.

RESULTS

There were 1318 responses from 516 people in the initial survey, from which 71 indicative questions were formed, of which 68 entered the modified Delphi process. Eleven 'highest priority' research questions were short listed, covering themes of pain management; training and assessment; clinical practice and efficacy; technology and equipment.

CONCLUSIONS

We prioritised unanswered research questions in regional anaesthesia. These will inform a coordinated global research strategy for regional anaesthesia and direct investigators to address high-priority areas.

ACcurate COnsensus Reporting Document (ACCORD) explanation and elaboration: Guidance and examples to support reporting consensus methods

BACKGROUND

When research evidence is limited, inconsistent, or absent, healthcare decisions and policies need to be based on consensus amongst interested stakeholders. In these processes, the knowledge, experience, and expertise of health professionals, researchers, policymakers, and the public are systematically collected and synthesised to reach agreed clinical recommendations and/or priorities. However, despite the influence of consensus exercises, the methods used to achieve agreement are often poorly reported. The ACCORD (ACcurate COnsensus Reporting Document) guideline was developed to help report any consensus methods used in biomedical research, regardless of the health field, techniques used, or application. This explanatory document facilitates the use of the ACCORD checklist.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

This paper was built collaboratively based on classic and contemporary literature on consensus methods and publications reporting their use. For each ACCORD checklist item, this explanation and elaboration document unpacks the pieces of information that should be reported and provides a rationale on why it is essential to describe them in detail. Furthermore, this document offers a glossary of terms used in consensus exercises to clarify the meaning of common terms used across consensus methods, to promote uniformity, and to support understanding for consumers who read consensus statements, position statements, or clinical practice guidelines. The items are followed by examples of reporting items from the ACCORD guideline, in text, tables and figures.

CONCLUSIONS

The ACCORD materials - including the reporting guideline and this explanation and elaboration document - can be used by anyone reporting a consensus exercise used in the context of health research. As a reporting guideline, ACCORD helps researchers to be transparent about the materials, resources (both human and financial), and procedures used in their investigations so readers can judge the trustworthiness and applicability of their results/recommendations.

Reducing the carbon footprint of general anaesthesia: a comparison of total intravenous anaesthesia vs. a mixed anaesthetic strategy in 47,157 adult patients

Global warming is a major public health concern. Volatile anaesthetics are greenhouse gases that increase the carbon footprint of healthcare. Modelling studies indicate that total intravenous anaesthesia is less carbon intensive than volatile anaesthesia, with equivalent quality of care. In this observational study, we aimed to apply the findings of previous modelling studies to compare the carbon footprint per general anaesthetic of an exclusive TIVA strategy vs. a mixed TIVA-volatile strategy. This comparative retrospective study was conducted over 2 years in two French hospitals, one using total intravenous anaesthesia only and one using a mixed strategy including both intravenous and inhalation anaesthetic techniques. Based on pharmacy procurement records, the quantity of anaesthetic sedative drugs was converted to carbon dioxide equivalents. The primary outcome was the difference in carbon footprint of hypnotic drugs per intervention between the two strategies. From 1 January 2021 to 31 December 2022, 25,137 patients received general anaesthesia in the hospital using the total intravenous anaesthesia strategy and 22,020 in the hospital using the mixed strategy. The carbon dioxide equivalent footprint of hypnotic drugs per intervention in the hospital using the total intravenous anaesthesia strategy was 20 times lower than in the hospital using the mixed strategy (emissions of 2.42 kg vs. 48.85 kg carbon dioxide equivalent per intervention, respectively). The total intravenous anaesthesia strategy significantly reduces the carbon footprint of hypnotic drugs in general anaesthesia in adult patients compared with a mixed strategy. Further research is warranted to assess the risk-benefit ratio of the widespread adoption of total intravenous anaesthesia.

Sustainability in healthcare: patient and public perspectives

The sustainable healthcare agenda has become increasingly prominent in recent years. But what does this mean for patients? In this article, we draw on our personal views and experiences as patients, carers and patient advocates, and consider the effects that efforts to improve the sustainability of healthcare may have on care quality and patient experience. We also review the small amount of existing research and policy in this area, with particular focus on documents from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence and the Health Foundation. Based on synthesising these resources with our own experiences, we make recommendations on how to: share information with patients about how they can contribute to healthcare sustainability; offer more sustainable alternatives without pressure; account for diverse patient views on the relevance of sustainable healthcare; provide information about the impact of healthcare on the environment; involve patients and the public in leading positive change; and avoid broadening health inequalities. There is a clear need for more research and engagement to help advance our understanding and weigh up the benefits to individual patients vs. the environmental impacts on the wider population.

ACCORD (ACcurate COnsensus Reporting Document): A reporting guideline for consensus methods in biomedicine developed via a modified Delphi

BACKGROUND

In biomedical research, it is often desirable to seek consensus among individuals who have differing perspectives and experience. This is important when evidence is emerging, inconsistent, limited, or absent. Even when research evidence is abundant, clinical recommendations, policy decisions, and priority-setting may still require agreement from multiple, sometimes ideologically opposed parties. Despite their prominence and influence on key decisions, consensus methods are often poorly reported. Our aim was to develop the first reporting guideline dedicated to and applicable to all consensus methods used in biomedical research regardless of the objective of the consensus process, called ACCORD (ACcurate COnsensus Reporting Document).

METHODS AND FINDINGS

We followed methodology recommended by the EQUATOR Network for the development of reporting guidelines: a systematic review was followed by a Delphi process and meetings to finalize the ACCORD checklist. The preliminary checklist was drawn from the systematic review of existing literature on the quality of reporting of consensus methods and suggestions from the Steering Committee. A Delphi panel (n = 72) was recruited with representation from 6 continents and a broad range of experience, including clinical, research, policy, and patient perspectives. The 3 rounds of the Delphi process were completed by 58, 54, and 51 panelists. The preliminary checklist of 56 items was refined to a final checklist of 35 items relating to the article title (n = 1), introduction (n = 3), methods (n = 21), results (n = 5), discussion (n = 2), and other information (n = 3).

CONCLUSIONS

The ACCORD checklist is the first reporting guideline applicable to all consensus-based studies. It will support authors in writing accurate, detailed manuscripts, thereby improving the completeness and transparency of reporting and providing readers with clarity regarding the methods used to reach agreement. Furthermore, the checklist will make the rigor of the consensus methods used to guide the recommendations clear for readers. Reporting consensus studies with greater clarity and transparency may enhance trust in the recommendations made by consensus panels.