Low value care is a health hazard that calls for patient empowerment

The financial and environmental impact of purchased anaesthetic agents in an Australian tertiary hospital

Anaesthetic agents have various financial and environmental impacts. Climate change is one of the biggest threats to human health, and anaesthetic gases contribute to global heating by acting as greenhouse gases. The primary aim of this study was to quantify the financial and environmental impacts of anaesthesia maintenance agents used during surgery in an Australian university teaching hospital. The volume of desflurane, sevoflurane, isoflurane and propofol purchased by a university teaching hospital between 2010 and 2020 was analysed and described in terms of financial and environmental impact. Estimated carbon emissions and financial costs of each agent per annum were calculated using the volumes purchased for each agent. A model of ideal anaesthetic agent usage was used to hypothesise the financial and environmental impact of replacing desflurane (the most environmentally damaging and expensive agent) with alternative agents. Using 2019 as an example year at our health service, replacing desflurane with low flow sevoflurane would save greenhouse gas emissions equivalent to driving over 1.4 million kilometres in an average petrol car. Removing desflurane from machines at our institution could save an estimated A$14,630 per annum through reduced machine testing alone. Our findings and calculations indicate that reducing the use of desflurane would have both financial and environmental benefits for healthcare.

Attitudes and practices in the laboratory monitoring of conventional synthetic disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs by rheumatologists and rheumatology trainees

Objectives

There is scant research about laboratory monitoring in people taking conventional synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (csDMARDs) for rheumatic disease. Our objective was to conduct a scoping study to assess the range of current attitudes and the variation in practice of laboratory monitoring of csDMARDs by rheumatologists and trainees.

Methods

Australian and overseas rheumatologists or trainees were invited through newsletter, Twitter and personal e-mail, to complete an anonymous online survey between 1 February and 22 March 2021. Questions focused on laboratory tests requested by csDMARD prescribed, frequency/pattern of monitoring, influence of additional factors and combination therapy, actions in response to abnormal tests, and attitudes to monitoring frequencies. Results were presented descriptively and analysed using linear and logistic regression.

Results

There were 221 valid responses. Most respondents were from Australia (n = 53, 35%) followed by the US (n = 39, 26%), with a slight preponderance of women (n = 84, 56%), ≥ 11 years in rheumatology practice (n = 83, 56%) and in mostly public practice (n = 79, 53%). Respondents had a wide variation in the frequency and scheduling of tests. In general, respondents reported increasing monitoring frequency if patients had numerous comorbidities or if both methotrexate and leflunomide were being taken concurrently. There was a wide variety of responses to abnormal monitoring results and 27 (40%) considered that in general, monitoring tests are performed too frequently.

Conclusions

The results demonstrated a wide variation in the frequency of testing, factors that should influence this, and what responses to abnormal test results are appropriate, indicates a likely lack of evidence and the need to define the risks, benefits and costs of different csDMARD monitoring regimens.