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

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

Common pathogens associated with infected diabetic foot ulcers: A retrospective cohort study in a specialized medical center in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia

Background: Foot infections, a frequent complication of diabetes mellitus, are associated with heavy resource utilization, including antibiotic therapy and surgeries. However, the most common type of isolated pathogen in diabetic foot infections remains unknown. We aimed to identify the most common types of isolated pathogens in diabetic foot infections. Methods: This retrospective cohort study was conducted in a specialized medical center in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. A total of 96 patients diagnosed with diabetes and presented with a foot ulcer showing clinical signs of infection were included. Results: The mean age was 63.03 ± 10.88 years, and 67.7% were males. The mean duration of diabetes diagnosis was 21.86 ± 9.66 years, and the majority had foot ulcers for over six weeks. Bacteria were present in 65 patients (67.7%), Gram-negative organisms were observed in 37 patients (38.5%), and Gram-positive organisms were present in 28 patients (29.2%). In the 65 patients with bacterial culture, Staphylococcus aureus was the most common isolated organism and was observed in 18 patients (27.7%), followed by Escherichia coli in 11 (16.9%) and Pseudomonas aeruginosa in 10 (15.4%). Binary regression analyses found that Gram-negative organisms were significantly more multidrug-resistant than Gram-positive organisms (P = 0.012, OR = 7.172, 95% CI = 1.542–33.352). Patient outcomes included healed ulcers (n = 10, 10.4%), minor amputation (n = 16, 16.7%), major amputation (n = 1, 1%), and debridement (n = 48, 50%). Conclusion: Gram-negative organisms were predominant in patients with diabetes and foot ulcers having clinical signs of infection. Treatment with an individualized antibiotic regimen is vital in ensuring optimal outcomes and preventing major amputations

Surgical confidence when operating among residents in surgery – a cross-sectional study (SCAR study)

Abstract Background Self-confidence, is one of the critical variables influencing surgical resident’s abilities, and lack of confidence maybe a reason for not entering medical practice immediately. Measuring the level of confidence of senior surgical residents (SSRs) is a crucial step in assessing preparedness to practice. In this study, we aim to measure their confidence level and the factors that might contribute to it. Methods Cross-sectional survey conducted at King Abdulaziz University Hospital on SSRs in Saudi Arabia (SA). We approached 142 SSRs, 127 responded. Statistical analysis was performed using RStudio v 3.6.2. Descriptive statistics were performed using counts and percentages for categorical variables and using mean ± standard deviation for continuous variables. Multivariate linear regression (t-statistics) was used to assess the factors associated with confidence in performing essential procedures, while the association between demographics and residency-related factor with the number of completed cases was tested using Chi-square. The level of significance was determined as 0.05. Results Response rate was 89.4%. Among surveyed residents, 66% had completed < 750 cases as a primary surgeon. More than 90% of SSRs were confident in performing appendectomy, open inguinal hernia repair, laparoscopic cholecystectomy, and trauma laparotomy, while 88% were confident in being on-call in level-I trauma center. No difference was noted in confidence level in relation to the number of performed cases. Residents from the Ministry of Health accounted for 56.3% of the study population and showed a higher confidence level compared to others. 94% of SSRs plan to pursue fellowship training program. Conclusion The study showed that the confidence of SSRs in performing common general surgery procedures was as expected. However, it’s important to recognize that confidence doesn’t necessarily reflect competence. Considering the majority of SSRs planned to pursue fellowship training programs, it may be time to consider changing the structure of surgical training in SA to a modular format to allow earlier and more intensive exposure

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