Empowering Surgeons, Anesthesiologists, and Obstetricians to Incorporate Environmental Sustainability in the Operating Room.

OBJECTIVE: We review the existing research on environmentally sustainable surgical practices to enable SAO to advocate for improved environmental sustainability in operating rooms across the country. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Climate change refers to the impact of greenhouse gases emitted as a byproduct of human activities, trapped within our atmosphere and resulting in hotter and more variable climate patterns.1 As of 2013, the US healthcare industry was responsible for 9.8% of the country's emissions2; if it were itself a nation, US healthcare would rank 13th globally in emissions.3 As one of the most energy-intensive and wasteful areas of the hospital, ORs drive this trend. ORs are 3 to 6 times more energy intensive than clinical wards.4 Further, ORs and labor/delivery suites produce 50%-70% of waste across the hospital.5,6 Due to the adverse health impacts of climate change, the Lancet Climate Change Commission (2009) declared climate change "the biggest global health threat of the 21st century" and predicted it would exacerbate existing health disparities for minority groups, children and low socioeconomic patients.7. METHODS/RESULTS: We provide a comprehensive narrative review of published efforts to improve environmental sustainability in the OR while simultaneously achieving cost-savings, and highlight resources for clinicians interested in pursuing this work. CONCLUSION: Climate change adversely impacts patient health, and disproportionately impacts the most vulnerable patients. SAO contribute to the problem through their resource-intensive work in the OR and are uniquely positioned to lead efforts to improve the environmental sustainability of the OR.

A Narrative Review of Plastic Surgery and Climate Change: Context and Considerations.

Climate change poses significant threats to human health and society. Although healthcare will bear a large burden of the downstream effects of climate change, the healthcare industry is simultaneously a major contributor to climate change. Within hospitals, surgery is one of the most energy-intensive practices. There is a growing body of literature describing ways to mitigate and adapt to climate change in surgery. However, there is a need to better understand the unique implications for each surgical subspecialty. This review contextualizes plastic and reconstructive surgery within the climate change discussion. In particular, this review highlights the specific ways in which plastic surgery may affect climate change and how climate change may affect plastic surgery. In light of growing public demand for change and greater alignment between industries and nations with regard to climate change solutions, we also offer a conceptual framework to guide further work in this burgeoning field of research.

A review on the biological, epidemiological, and statistical relevance of COVID-19 paired with air pollution.

This narrative review paper is aimed to critically evaluate recent studies of the associations between air pollution and the outcomes in the COVID-19 pandemic. The main air pollutants we have considered are carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), ground-level ozone (O3), particulate matter (PM2.5 and PM10), and sulfur dioxide (SO2). We, specifically, evaluated the influences of these pollutants, both individually and collaboratively, across various geographic areas and exposure windows. We further reviewed the proposed biological mechanisms underlying the association between air pollution and COVID-19. Ultimately, we aim to inform policy and public health practice regarding the implications of COVID-19 and air pollution.

Public Perceptions of Climate Change and Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery.

Healthcare has a major impact on climate change, and surgery is among the most energy-intensive hospital practices. Although most Americans believe climate change is happening, little is known regarding public awareness of the impact of healthcare on climate change and how this may impact perceptions of plastic surgery. Methods: A cross-sectional survey was administered to adults in the United States using Amazon Mechanical Turk in December 2021 to assess public perceptions of climate change, healthcare, and plastic surgery. Incomplete responses were excluded from analysis. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to determine predictors of responses. Results: There were 890 complete responses. Most participants strongly agreed or agreed that climate change is happening (89%). Fewer believed that healthcare has an impact on climate change (62%), with greater odds among respondents with an associate's degree or higher (odds ratio 2.8, P < 0.001). After they were given information about the impact of healthcare on climate change, most respondents were more worried about the effects of cosmetic plastic surgery (64%). Many respondents would be willing to engage in personal climate change mitigation measures if undergoing surgery and pay higher professional fees to support sustainable hospital practices. Conclusions: Most Americans believe climate change is happening, but fewer believe healthcare has an impact on climate change. Knowledge regarding the impact of healthcare and surgery on climate change may make patients more worried about the effects of plastic surgery on climate change, but patients may be willing to personally mitigate climate impacts of surgery.

The Connection between Climate Change, Surgical Care and Neglected Tropical Diseases.

The surgical burden of neglected tropical diseases (NTDs) is set to rise alongside average temperatures and drought. NTDs with surgical indications, including trachoma and lymphatic filariasis, predominantly affect people in low- and middle-income countries where the gravest effects of climate change are likely to be felt. Vectors sensitive to temperature and rainfall will likely expand their reach to previously nonendemic regions, while drought may exacerbate NTD burden in already resource-strained settings. Current NTD mitigation strategies, including mass drug administrations, were interrupted by COVID-19, demonstrating the vulnerability of NTD progress to global events. Without NTD programming that meshes with surgical systems strengthening, climate change may outpace current strategies to reduce the burden of these diseases.

Building sustainable and resilient surgical systems: A narrative review of opportunities to integrate climate change into national surgical planning in the Western Pacific region.

Five billion people lack access to surgical care worldwide; climate change is the biggest threat to human health in the 21st century. This review studies how climate change could be integrated into national surgical planning in the Western Pacific region. We searched databases (PubMed, Web of Science, and Global Health) for articles on climate change and surgical care. Findings were categorised using the modified World Health Organisation Health System Building Blocks Framework. 220 out of 2577 records were included. Infrastructure: Operating theatres are highly resource-intensive. Their carbon footprint could be reduced by maximising equipment longevity, improving energy efficiency, and renewable energy use. Service delivery Tele-medicine, outreaches, and avoiding desflurane could reduce emissions. Robust surgical systems are required to adapt to the increasing burden of surgically treated diseases, such as injuries from natural disasters. Finance: Climate change adaptation funds could be mobilised for surgical system strengthening. Information systems: Sustainability should be a key performance indicator for surgical systems. Workforce: Surgical providers could change clinical, institutional, and societal practices. Governance: Planning in surgical care and climate change should be aligned. Climate change mitigation is essential in the regional surgical care scale-up; surgical system strengthening is also necessary for adaptation to climate change.

National Evaluation of the Association Between Resident Labor Union Participation and Surgical Resident Well-being.

Importance: Labor unions are purported to improve working conditions; however, little evidence exists regarding the effect of resident physician unions. Objective: To evaluate the association of resident unions with well-being, educational environment, salary, and benefits among surgical residents in the US. Design, Setting, and Participants: This national cross-sectional survey study was based on a survey administered in January 2019 after the American Board of Surgery In-Training Examination (ABSITE). Clinically active residents at all nonmilitary US general surgery residency programs accredited by the American Council of Graduate Medical Education who completed the 2019 ABSITE were eligible for participation. Data were analyzed from December 5, 2020, to March 16, 2021. Exposures: Presence of a general surgery resident labor union. Rates of labor union coverage among non-health care employees within a region were used as an instrumental variable (IV) for the presence of a labor union at a residency program. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was burnout, which was assessed using a modified version of the abbreviated Maslach Burnout Inventory and was defined as experiencing any symptom of depersonalization or emotional exhaustion at least weekly. Secondary outcomes included suicidality, measures of job satisfaction, duty hour violations, mistreatment, educational environment, salary, and benefits. Results: A total of 5701 residents at 285 programs completed the pertinent survey questions (response rate, 85.6%), of whom 3219 (56.5%) were male, 3779 (66.3%) were White individuals, 449 (7.9%) were of Hispanic ethnicity, 4239 (74.4%) were married or in a relationship, and 1304 (22.9%) had or were expecting children. Among respondents, 690 residents were from 30 unionized programs (10.5% of programs). There was no difference in burnout for residents at unionized vs nonunionized programs (297 [43.0%] vs 2175 [43.4%]; odds ratio [OR], 0.92 [95% CI, 0.75-1.13]; IV difference in probability, 0.15 [95% CI, -0.11 to 0.42]). There were no significant differences in suicidality, job satisfaction, duty hour violations, mistreatment, educational environment, salary, or benefits except that unionized programs more frequently offered 4 weeks instead of 2 to 3 weeks of vacation (27 [93.1%] vs 52 [30.6%]; OR, 19.18 [95% CI, 3.92-93.81]; IV difference in probability, 0.77 [95% CI, 0.09-1.45]) and more frequently offered housing stipends (10 [38.5%] vs 9 [16.1%]; OR, 2.15 [95% CI, 0.58-7.95]; IV difference in probability, 0.62 [95% CI 0.04-1.20]). Conclusions and Relevance: In this evaluation of surgical residency programs in the US, unionized programs offered improved vacation and housing stipend benefits, but resident unions were not associated with improved burnout, suicidality, job satisfaction, duty hour violations, mistreatment, educational environment, or salary.