Multi-city comparative PM2.5 source apportionment for fifteen sites in Europe: The ICARUS project

PM_2.5 is an air pollution metric widely used to assess air quality, with the European Union having set targets for reduction in PM_2.5 levels and population exposure. A major challenge for the scientific community is to identify, quantify and characterize the sources of atmospheric particles in the aspect of proposing effective control strategies. In the frame of ICARUS EU2020 project, a comprehensive database including PM_2.5 concentration and chemical composition (ions, metals, organic/elemental carbon, Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons) from three sites (traffic, urban background, rural) of five European cities (Athens, Brno, Ljubljana, Madrid, Thessaloniki) was created. The common and synchronous sampling (two seasons involved) and analysis procedure offered the prospect of a harmonized Positive Matrix Factorization model approach, with the scope of identifying the similarities and differences of PM_2.5 key-source chemical fingerprints across the sampling sites. The results indicated that the average contribution of traffic exhausts to PM_2.5 concentration was 23.3% (traffic sites), 13.3% (urban background sites) and 8.8% (rural sites). The average contribution of traffic non-exhausts was 12.6% (traffic), 13.5% (urban background) and 6.1% (rural sites). The contribution of fuel oil combustion was 3.8% at traffic, 11.6% at urban background and 18.7% at rural sites. Biomass burning contribution was 22% at traffic sites, 30% at urban background sites and 28% at rural sites. Regarding soil dust, the average contribution was 5% and 8% at traffic and urban background sites respectively and 16% at rural sites. Sea salt contribution was low (1-4%) while secondary aerosols corresponded to the 16-34% of PM_2.5. The homogeneity of the chemical profiles as well as their relationship with prevailing meteorological parameters were investigated. The results showed that fuel oil combustion, traffic non-exhausts and soil dust profiles are considered as dissimilar while biomass burning, sea salt and traffic exhaust can be characterized as relatively homogenous among the sites.

Improving care at scale: process evaluation of a multi-component quality improvement intervention to reduce mortality after emergency abdominal surgery (EPOCH trial)

BACKGROUND

Improving the quality and safety of perioperative care is a global priority. The Enhanced Peri-Operative Care for High-risk patients (EPOCH) trial was a stepped-wedge cluster randomised trial of a quality improvement (QI) programme to improve 90-day survival for patients undergoing emergency abdominal surgery in 93 hospitals in the UK National Health Service.

METHODS

The aim of this process evaluation is to describe how the EPOCH intervention was planned, delivered and received, at both cluster and local hospital levels. The QI programme comprised of two interventions: a care pathway and a QI intervention to aid pathway implementation, focussed on stakeholder engagement, QI teamwork, data analysis and feedback and applying the model for improvement. Face-to-face training and online resources were provided to support senior clinicians in each hospital (QI leads) to lead improvement. For this evaluation, we collated programme activity data, administered an exit questionnaire to QI leads and collected ethnographic data in six hospitals. Qualitative data were analysed with thematic or comparative analysis; quantitative data were analysed using descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

The EPOCH trial did not demonstrate any improvement in survival or length of hospital stay. Whilst the QI programme was delivered as planned at the cluster level, self-assessed intervention fidelity at the hospital level was variable. Seventy-seven of 93 hospitals responded to the exit questionnaire (60 from a single QI lead response on behalf of the team); 33 respondents described following the QI intervention closely (35%) and there were only 11 of 37 care pathway processes that > 50% of respondents reported attempting to improve. Analysis of qualitative data suggests QI leads were often attempting to deliver the intervention in challenging contexts: the social aspects of change such as engaging colleagues were identified as important but often difficult and clinicians frequently attempted to lead change with limited time or organisational resources.

CONCLUSIONS

Significant organisational challenges faced by QI leads shaped their choice of pathway components to focus on and implementation approaches taken. Adaptation causing loss of intervention fidelity was therefore due to rational choices made by those implementing change within constrained contexts. Future large-scale QI programmes will need to focus on dedicating local time and resources to improvement as well as on training to develop QI capabilities.

EPOCH TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN80682973 https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN80682973 Registered 27 February 2014 and Lancet protocol 13PRT/7655.