Barriers and facilitators to sustainable operating theatres: a systematic review using the Theoretical Domains Framework.

BACKGROUND: The health sector contributes significantly to the climate crisis. Operating theatres (OTs) in particular are a major contributor of greenhouse gas emissions and waste, and while there are several evidence-based guidelines to reduce this impact, these are often not followed. The authors systematically reviewed the literature to identify barriers and facilitators of sustainable behaviour in OTs, categorising these using the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Medline, Embase, PsychInfo, and Global Health databases were searched for articles published between January 2000 and June 2023, using the concepts: barriers and facilitators, sustainability, and surgery. Two reviewers screened abstracts from identified studies, evaluated quality, and extracted data. Identified determinants were mapped to TDF domains and further themes as required. The results were reported in line with PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) and AMSTAR (A MeaSurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews) guidelines. RESULTS: Twenty-one studies were selected for analysis and assessment (17 surveys and four interview studies) comprising 8286 participants, including surgeons, nurses, and anaesthetists. Eighteen themes across 10 TDF domains were identified. The most common barriers to adoption of green behaviours in OTs were in domains of: 'knowledge' ( N =18), for example knowledge of sustainable practices; 'environmental context and resources' ( N =16) for example personnel shortage and workload and inadequate recycling facilities; 'social influences' ( N =9) for example lack of leadership/organisational mandate or support; 'beliefs about consequences' ( N =9) for example concerns regarding safety. Intention was the most common facilitator, with 11 studies citing it. CONCLUSIONS: Despite intentions to adopt sustainable practices in OTs, this review identified several barriers to doing so. Interventions should focus on mitigating these, especially by improving staff's knowledge of sustainability practices and working within the environmental context and time pressures. Furthermore, institutional change programmes and policies are needed to prioritise sustainability at the hospital and trust level. Additional qualitative work should also be conducted using behavioural frameworks, to more comprehensively investigate barriers and determinants to decarbonise OTs.

Perceptions and priorities of perioperative staff and the public for sustainable surgery: a validated questionnaire study.

Surgery is a substantial contributor to healthcare-related emissions. Despite a drive to improve sustainability, few interventions have been adopted. Stakeholder engagement is considered a key barrier to implementation. This study aimed to determine the attitudes and beliefs of the perioperative staff and the public regarding sustainability initiatives in surgery, and whether differences exist between the two groups. Materials and Methods: Separate validated healthcare professional and public questionnaires were developed using a stepwise process. A systematic review was undertaken using Medline, Embase and Cochrane to identify key domains pertaining to sustainability and ensure content validity. Initial questionnaires were developed and refined using an iterative process of feedback from focus groups. Psychometric validation was conducted to remove question ambiguity. The final validated questionnaire was distributed to perioperative staff and the public using a multimodal approach involving online tools and in person. Results: Only 37.1% of perioperative staff reported the implementation of sustainability initiatives in their departments. Yet, staff (45.7%) and the public (48.2%) somewhat agreed that sustainability should influence a surgeon's procedural decision-making. Insufficient staff education regarding sustainability was a potential cause for the lack of adoption, with 71.4% reporting they had no formal training. Moreover, discrepancies in the perceived importance of sustainability may have contributed. Staff and the public agreed that outcomes (38.6 vs. 42.7%, P=0.767) and surgeon experience with a technique (28.6 vs. 40.0%, P=0.082) were more important than sustainability. However, 40.9% of the public did not consider operative time an important factor compared to sustainability, while 45.7% of staff would only tolerate procedures 25% longer. Conclusions: Engaging stakeholders is central to implementing long-term environmentally sustainable initiatives in surgery without compromising patient outcomes. More work is needed to understand the relative trade-offs considered by perioperative staff and the public, as well as provide both groups with more pertinent education on ecological outcomes.

Interventions for sustainable surgery: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To systematically evaluate interventions designed to improve the sustainability of surgical practice with respect to their environmental and financial impact. BACKGROUND: Surgery contributes significantly to emissions attributed to healthcare due to its high resource and energy use. Several interventions across the operative pathway have, therefore, been trialed to minimize this impact. Few comparisons of the environmental and financial effects of these interventions exist. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A search of studies published up to 2nd February 2022 describing interventions to increase surgical sustainability was undertaken. Articles regarding the environmental impact of only anesthetic agents were excluded. Data regarding environmental and financial outcomes were extracted with a quality assessment completed dependent upon the study design. RESULTS: In all, 1162 articles were retrieved, of which 21 studies met inclusion criteria. Twenty-five interventions were described, which were categorized into five domains: 'reduce and rationalize', 'reusable equipment and textiles', 'recycling and waste segregation', 'anesthetic alternatives', and 'other'. Eleven of the 21 studies examined reusable devices; those demonstrating a benefit reported 40-66% lower emissions than with single-use alternatives. In studies not showing a lower carbon footprint, the reduction in manufacturing emissions was offset by the high environmental impact of local fossil fuel-based energy required for sterilization. The per use monetary cost of reusable equipment was 47-83% of the single-use equivalent. CONCLUSIONS: A narrow repertoire of interventions to improve the environmental sustainability of surgery has been trialed. The majority focuses on reusable equipment. Emissions and cost data are limited, with longitudinal impacts rarely investigated. Real-world appraisals will facilitate implementation, as will an understanding of how sustainability impacts surgical decision-making.

Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Emergency Adult Surgical Patients and Surgical Services: An International Multi-center Cohort Study and Department Survey.

OBJECTIVES: The PREDICT study aimed to determine how the COVID-19 pandemic affected surgical services and surgical patients and to identify predictors of outcomes in this cohort. BACKGROUND: High mortality rates were reported for surgical patients with COVID-19 in the early stages of the pandemic. However, the indirect impact of the pandemic on this cohort is not understood, and risk predictors are yet to be identified. METHODS: PREDICT is an international longitudinal cohort study comprising surgical patients presenting to hospital between March and August 2020, conducted alongside a survey of staff redeployment and departmental restructuring. A subgroup analysis of 3176 adult emergency patients, recruited by 55 teams across 18 countries is presented. RESULTS: Among adult emergency surgical patients, all-cause in-hospital mortality (IHM) was 3.6%, compared to 15.5% for those with COVID-19. However, only 14.1% received a COVID-19 test on admission in March, increasing to 76.5% by July.Higher Clinical Frailty Scale scores (CFS >7 aOR 18.87), ASA grade above 2 (aOR 4.29), and COVID-19 infection (aOR 5.12) were independently associated with significantly increased IHM.The peak months of the first wave were independently associated with significantly higher IHM (March aOR 4.34; April aOR 4.25; May aOR 3.97), compared to non-peak months.During the study, UK operating theatre capacity decreased by a mean of 63.6% with a concomitant 27.3% reduction in surgical staffing. CONCLUSION: The first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic significantly impacted surgical patients, both directly through co-morbid infection and indirectly as shown by increasing mortality in peak months, irrespective of COVID-19 status.Higher CFS scores and ASA grades strongly predict outcomes in surgical patients and are an important risk assessment tool during the pandemic.

Insights from a global snapshot of the change in elective colorectal practice due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: There is a need to understand the impact of COVID-19 on colorectal cancer care globally and determine drivers of variation. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate COVID-19 impact on colorectal cancer services globally and identify predictors for behaviour change. DESIGN: An online survey of colorectal cancer service change globally in May and June 2020. PARTICIPANTS: Attending or consultant surgeons involved in the care of patients with colorectal cancer. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Changes in the delivery of diagnostics (diagnostic endoscopy), imaging for staging, therapeutics and surgical technique in the management of colorectal cancer. Predictors of change included increased hospital bed stress, critical care bed stress, mortality and world region. RESULTS: 191 responses were included from surgeons in 159 centers across 46 countries, demonstrating widespread service reduction with global variation. Diagnostic endoscopy was reduced in 93% of responses, even with low hospital stress and mortality; whilst rising critical care bed stress triggered complete cessation (p = 0.02). Availability of CT and MRI fell by 40-41%, with MRI significantly reduced with high hospital stress. Neoadjuvant therapy use in rectal cancer changed in 48% of responses, where centers which had ceased surgery increased its use (62 vs 30%, p = 0.04) as did those with extended delays to surgery (p<0.001). High hospital and critical care bed stresses were associated with surgeons forming more stomas (p<0.04), using more experienced operators (p<0.003) and decreased laparoscopy use (critical care bed stress only, p<0.001). Patients were also more actively prioritized for resection, with increased importance of co-morbidities and ICU need. CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 pandemic was associated with severe restrictions in the availability of colorectal cancer services on a global scale, with significant variation in behaviours which cannot be fully accounted for by hospital burden or mortality.

Initial Experience With a New Robotic Surgical System for Cholecystectomy.

Background. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy has been the gold standard treatment for symptomatic cholelithiasis for more than 3 decades. Robotic techniques are gaining traction in surgery, and recently, the Senhance™ robotic system was introduced. The system offers advantages over other robotic systems such as improved ergonomics, haptic feedback, eye tracking, and usability of standard laparoscopic trocars and reusable instruments. The Senhance was evaluated to understand the feasibility, benefits, and drawbacks of its use in cholecystectomy. Study Design. A prospectively maintained database of the first 20 patients undergoing cholecystectomy with the Senhance was reviewed at a single hospital. Data including operative time, console time, set up time, and adverse events were collected, with clinical outcome and operative time as primary outcome measures. A cohort of 20 patients having laparoscopic cholecystectomy performed by the same surgeon was used as a comparator group. Results. The 2 groups had comparable demographic data (age, sex, and body mass index). In the Senhance group, 19 of the 20 procedures (95%) were completed robotically. The median (interquartile range) total operating, docking, and console times were 86.5 (60.5-106.5), 11.5 (9-13), and 30.8 (23.5-35) minutes, respectively. In the laparoscopic group, the median (interquartile range) operating time was 31.5 (26-41) minutes. Postoperatively, only one patient had a surgical complication, namely a wound infection treated with antibiotics. Conclusion. Our results suggest that Senhance-assisted cholecystectomy is safe, feasible, and effective, but currently has longer operative times. Further prospective and randomized trials are required to determine whether this approach can offer any other benefits over other minimally invasive surgical techniques.