Sustainable and Resilient Health Care in the Face of a Changing Climate.

Climate change is a threat multiplier, exacerbating underlying vulnerabilities, worsening human health, and disrupting health systems' abilities to deliver high-quality continuous care. This review synthesizes the evidence of what the health care sector can do to adapt to a changing climate while reducing its own climate impact, identifies barriers to change, and makes recommendations to achieve sustainable, resilient health care systems.

Climate change and global health: A call to more research and more action.

There is increasing understanding, globally, that climate change and increased pollution will have a profound and mostly harmful effect on human health. This review brings together international experts to describe both the direct (such as heat waves) and indirect (such as vector-borne disease incidence) health impacts of climate change. These impacts vary depending on vulnerability (i.e., existing diseases) and the international, economic, political, and environmental context. This unique review also expands on these issues to address a third category of potential longer-term impacts on global health: famine, population dislocation, and environmental justice and education. This scholarly resource explores these issues fully, linking them to global health in urban and rural settings in developed and developing countries. The review finishes with a practical discussion of action that health professionals around the world in our field can yet take.

An Examination of the Intersection of Climate Change, the Physician Specialty Workforce, and Graduate Medical Education in the U.S.

Issue: As U.S. healthcare systems plan for future physician workforce needs, the systemic impacts of climate change, a worldwide environmental and health crisis, have not been factored in. The current focus on increasing the number of trained physicians and optimizing efficiencies in healthcare delivery may be insufficient. Graduate medical education (GME) priorities and training should be considered in order to prepare a climate-educated physician workforce. Evidence: We used a holistic lens to explore the available literature regarding the intersection of future physician workforce needs, GME program priorities, and resident education within the larger context of climate change. Our interinstitutional, transdisciplinary team brought perspectives from their own fields, including climate science, climate and health research, and medical education to provide recommendations for building a climate-educated physician workforce. Implications: Acknowledging and preparing for the effects of climate change on the physician workforce will require identification of workforce gaps, changes to GME program priorities, and education of trainees on the health and societal impacts of climate change. Alignment of GME training with workforce considerations and climate action and adaptation initiatives will be critical in ensuring the U.S. has a climate-educated physician workforce capable of addressing health and healthcare system challenges. This article offers a number of recommendations for physician workforce priorities, resident education, and system-level changes to better prepare for the health and health system impacts of climate change.

Clinical Implications of Climate Change on US Emergency Medicine: Challenges and Opportunities.

The adverse influences of climate change are manifesting as health burdens relevant to clinical practice, affecting the very underpinnings of health and stressing the health care system. Emergency medicine is likely to bear a large burden, with its focus on urgent and emergency care, through its role as a safety-net provider for vulnerable populations and as a leader in disaster medicine. Clinically, climate change is affecting emergency medicine practice through the amplification of climate-related disease patterns and epidemiologic shifts for conditions diagnosed and treated in emergency departments (EDs), especially for vulnerable populations. In addition, climate-driven intensification of extreme weather is disrupting health care delivery in EDs and health care systems. Thus, there are significant opportunities for emergency medicine to lead the medical response to climate change through 7 key areas: clinical practice improvements, building resilient EDs and health care systems, adaptation and public health engagement, disaster preparedness, mitigation, research, and education. In the face of this growing health threat, systemwide preparation rooted in local leadership and responsiveness is necessary to efficiently and effectively care for our vulnerable communities.

Prospective Double-Blinded Randomized Field-Based Clinical Trial of Metoclopramide and Ibuprofen for the Treatment of High Altitude Headache and Acute Mountain Sickness.

INTRODUCTION: High altitude headache (HAH) and acute mountain sickness (AMS) are common pathologies at high altitudes. There are similarities between AMS and migraine headaches, with nausea being a common symptom. Several studies have shown ibuprofen can be effective for AMS prophylaxis, but few have addressed treatment. Metoclopramide is commonly administered for migraine headaches but has not been evaluated for HAH or AMS. We aimed to evaluate metoclopramide and ibuprofen for treatment of HAH and AMS. METHODS: We performed a prospective, double-blinded, randomized, field-based clinical trial of metoclopramide and ibuprofen for the treatment of HAH and AMS in 47 adult subjects in the Mount Everest region of Nepal. Subjects received either 400 mg ibuprofen or 10 mg metoclopramide in a 1-time dose. Lake Louise Score (LLS) and visual analog scale of symptoms were measured before and at 30, 60, and 120 min after treatment. RESULTS: Subjects in both the metoclopramide and ibuprofen arms reported reduced headache severity and nausea compared to pretreatment values at 120 min. The ibuprofen group reported 22 mm reduction in headache and 6 mm reduction in nausea on a 100 mm visual analog scale at 120 min. The metoclopramide group reported 23 mm reduction in headache and 14 mm reduction in nausea. The ibuprofen group reported an average 3.5-point decrease on LLS, whereas the metoclopramide group reported an average 2.0-point decrease on LLS at 120 min. CONCLUSIONS: Metoclopramide and ibuprofen may be effective alternative treatment options in HAH and AMS, especially for those patients who additionally report nausea.

Impact of extreme weather events on healthcare utilization and mortality in the United States.

Climate change is intensifying extreme weather events. Yet a systematic analysis of post-disaster healthcare utilization and outcomes for severe weather and climate disasters, as tracked by the US government, is lacking. Following exposure to 42 US billion-dollar weather disasters (severe storm, flood, flood/severe storm, tropical cyclone and winter storm) between 2011 and 2016, we used a difference-in-differences (DID) approach to quantify changes in the rates of emergency department (ED) visits, nonelective hospitalizations and mortality between fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries in affected compared to matched control counties in post-disaster weeks 1, 1-2 and 3-6. Overall, disasters were associated with higher rates of ED utilization in affected counties in post-disaster week 1 (DID of 1.22% (95% CI, 0.20% to 2.25%; P < 0.020)) through week 2. Nonelective hospitalizations were unchanged. Mortality was higher in affected counties in week 1 (DID of 1.40% (95% CI, 0.08% to 2.74%; P = 0.037)) and persisted for 6 weeks. Counties with the greatest loss and damage experienced greater increases in ED and mortality rates compared to all affected counties. Thus, billion-dollar weather disasters are associated with excess ED visits and mortality in Medicare beneficiaries. Tracking these outcomes is important for adaptation that protects patients and communities, health system resilience and policy.

Neighborhood Environmental Burden and Cardiovascular Health in the US.

Importance: Cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death in the US. However, little is known about the association between cumulative environmental burden and cardiovascular health across US neighborhoods. Objective: To evaluate the association of neighborhood-level environmental burden with prevalence of cardiovascular risk factors and diseases, overall and by levels of social vulnerability. Design, Settings, and Participants: This was a national cross-sectional study of 71 659 US Census tracts. Environmental burden (EBI) and social vulnerability indices from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry were linked to the 2020 CDC PLACES data set. Data were analyzed from March to October 2023. Exposures: The EBI, a measure of cumulative environmental burden encompassing 5 domains (air pollution, hazardous or toxic sites, built environment, transportation infrastructure, and water pollution). Main Outcomes and Measures: Neighborhood-level prevalence of cardiovascular risk factors (hypertension, diabetes, and obesity) and cardiovascular diseases (coronary heart disease and stroke). Results: Across the US, neighborhoods with the highest environmental burden (top EBI quartile) were more likely than those with the lowest environmental burden (bottom EBI quartile) to be urban (16 626 [92.7%] vs 13 414 [75.4%]), in the Midwest (5191 [28.9%] vs 2782 [15.6%]), have greater median (IQR) social vulnerability scores (0.64 [0.36-0.85] vs 0.42 [0.20-0.65]), and have higher proportions of adults in racial or ethnic minority groups (median [IQR], 34% [12-73] vs 12% [5-30]). After adjustment, neighborhoods with the highest environmental burden had significantly higher rates of cardiovascular risk factors than those with the lowest burden, including hypertension (mean [SD], 32.83% [7.99] vs 32.14% [6.99]; adjusted difference, 0.84%; 95% CI, 0.71-0.98), diabetes (mean [SD], 12.19% [4.33] vs 10.68% [3.27]; adjusted difference, 0.62%; 95% CI, 0.53-0.70), and obesity (mean [SD], 33.57% [7.62] vs 30.86% [6.15]; adjusted difference, 0.77%; 95% CI, 0.60-0.94). Similarly, neighborhoods with the highest environmental burden had significantly higher rates of coronary heart disease (mean [SD], 6.66% [2.15] vs 6.82% [2.41]; adjusted difference, 0.28%; 95% CI, 0.22-0.33) and stroke (mean [SD], 3.65% [1.47] vs 3.31% [1.12]; adjusted difference, 0.19%; 95% CI, 0.15-0.22). Results were consistent after matching highest and lowest environmentally burdened neighborhoods geospatially and based on other covariates. The associations between environmental burden quartiles and cardiovascular risk factors and diseases were most pronounced among socially vulnerable neighborhoods. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study of US neighborhoods, cumulative environmental burden was associated with higher rates of cardiovascular risk factors and diseases, although absolute differences were small. The strongest associations were observed in socially vulnerable neighborhoods. Whether initiatives that address poor environmental conditions will improve cardiovascular health requires additional prospective investigations.