Instrument and Supply Variability: An Opportunity to Reduce the Carbon Footprint of the Operating Room.

INTRODUCTION: Reducing costs and carbon footprints are important, parallel priorities for the US health-care system. Within surgery, reducing the number of instruments that are sterilized and disposable supplies that are used for each operation may help achieve both goals. We wanted to measure the existing variability in surgical instrument and supply choices and assess whether standardization could have a meaningful cost and environmental impact. METHODS: We analyzed surgeon preference cards for common general surgery operations at our hospital to measure the number of sterilizable instrument trays and supplies used by each surgeon for each operation. From this data, we calculated supply costs, carbon footprint, and median operative time and studied the variability in each of these metrics. RESULTS: Among the ten operations studied, variability in sterilizable instrument trays requested on surgeon preference cards ranged from one to eight. Variability in disposable supplies requested ranged from 17 to 45. Variability in open supply costs ranged from $104 to $4184. Variability in carbon footprint ranged from 17 to 708 kg CO2e. If the highest-cost surgeon for each operation switched their preference card to that of the median-cost surgeon, $245,343 in open supply costs and 41,708 kg CO2e could be saved. CONCLUSIONS: There is significant variability in the instrument and supply choices of surgeons performing common general surgery operations. Standardizing this variability may lead to meaningful cost savings and carbon footprint reduction, especially if scaled across the entire health system.

Perspectives on sustainability among surgeons: findings from the SAGES-EAES sustainability in surgical practice task force survey.

BACKGROUND: Surgical care significantly contributes to healthcare-associated greenhouse gas emissions (GHG). Surgeon attitudes about mitigation of the impact of surgical practice on environmental sustainability remains poorly understood. To better understand surgeon perspectives globally, the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons and the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery established a joint Sustainability in Surgical Practice (SSP) Task Force and distributed a survey on sustainability. METHODS: Our survey asked about (1) surgeon attitudes toward sustainability, (2) ability to estimate the carbon footprint of surgical procedures and supplies, (3) concerns about the negative impacts of sustainable interventions, (4) willingness to change specific practices, and (5) preferred educational topics and modalities. Questions were primarily written in Likert-scale format. A clustering analysis was performed to determine whether survey respondents could be grouped into distinct subsets to inform future outreach and education efforts. RESULTS: We received 1024 responses, predominantly from North America and Europe. The study revealed that while 63% of respondents were motivated to enhance the sustainability of their practice, less than 10% could accurately estimate the carbon footprint of surgical activities. Most were not concerned that sustainability efforts would negatively impact their practice and showed readiness to adopt proposed sustainable practices. Online webinars and modules were the preferred educational methods. A clustering analysis identified a group particularly concerned yet willing to adopt sustainable changes. CONCLUSION: Surgeons believe that operating room waste is a critical issue and are willing to change practice to improve it. However, there exists a gap in understanding the environmental impact of surgical procedures and supplies, and a sizable minority have some degree of concern about potential adverse consequences of implementing sustainable policies. This study uniquely provides an international, multidisciplinary snapshot of surgeons' attitudes, knowledge, concerns, willingness, and preferred educational modalities related to mitigating the environmental impact of surgical practice.

Scoping review for the SAGES EAES joint collaborative on sustainability in surgical practice.

BACKGROUND: Surgical care in the operating room (OR) contributes one-third of the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in healthcare. The European Association of Endoscopic Surgery (EAES) and the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES) initiated a joint Task Force to promote sustainability within minimally invasive gastrointestinal surgery. METHODS: A scoping review was conducted by searching MEDLINE via Ovid, Embase via Elsevier, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Scopus on August 25th, 2023 to identify articles reporting on the impact of gastrointestinal surgical care on the environment. The objectives were to establish the terminology, outcome measures, and scope associated with sustainable surgical practice. Quantitative data were summarized using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: We screened 22,439 articles to identify 85 articles relevant to anesthesia, general surgical practice, and gastrointestinal surgery. There were 58/85 (68.2%) cohort studies and 12/85 (14.1%) Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) studies. The most commonly measured outcomes were kilograms of carbon dioxide equivalents (kg CO2eq), cost of resource consumption in US dollars or euros, surgical waste in kg, water consumption in liters, and energy consumption in kilowatt-hours. Surgical waste production and the use of anesthetic gases were among the largest contributors to the climate impact of surgical practice. Educational initiatives to educate surgical staff on the climate impact of surgery, recycling programs, and strategies to restrict the use of noxious anesthetic gases had the highest impact in reducing the carbon footprint of surgical care. Establishing green teams with multidisciplinary champions is an effective strategy to initiate a sustainability program in gastrointestinal surgery. CONCLUSION: This review establishes standard terminology and outcome measures used to define the environmental footprint of surgical practices. Impactful initiatives to achieve sustainability in surgical practice will require education and multidisciplinary collaborations among key stakeholders including surgeons, researchers, operating room staff, hospital managers, industry partners, and policymakers.

Sustainability in surgical practice: a collaborative call toward environmental sustainability in operating rooms.

BACKGROUND: The healthcare system plays a pivotal role in environmental sustainability, and the operating room (OR) significantly contributes to its overall carbon footprint. In response to this critical challenge, leading medical societies, government bodies, regulatory agencies, and industry stakeholders are taking measures to address healthcare sustainability and its impact on climate change. Healthcare now represents almost 20% of the US national economy and 8.5% of US carbon emissions. Internationally, healthcare represents 5% of global carbon emissions. US Healthcare is an outlier in both per capita cost, and per capita greenhouse gas emission, with almost twice per capita emissions compared to every other country in the world. METHODS: The Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES) and the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery (EAES) established the Sustainability in Surgical Practice joint task force in 2023. This collaborative effort aims to actively promote education, mitigation, and innovation, steering surgical practices toward a more sustainable future. RESULTS: Several key initiatives have included a survey of members' knowledge and awareness, a scoping review of terminology, metrics, and initiatives, and deep engagement of key stakeholders. DISCUSSION: This position paper serves as a Call to Action, proposing a series of actions to catalyze and accelerate the surgical sustainability leadership needed to respond effectively to climate change, and to lead the societal transformation towards health that our times demand.

Teach Design to Surgical Trainees: One Small Step for Surgeons, One Giant Leap for Surgery.

The field of surgery faces complex, systemic challenges that will require new academic frameworks. In this paper, we propose design thinking as a useful problem-solving technique to apply to such challenges. We define design thinking and provide a brief history of this practice. Finally, we offer suggestions to introduce design thinking to surgical trainees, drawing from the experience of innovation programs that have incorporated this technique.

How I GPT It: Development of Custom Artificial Intelligence (AI) Chatbots for Surgical Education.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) chatbots provide a novel format for individuals to interact with large language models (LLMs). Recently released tools allow nontechnical users to develop chatbots using natural language. Surgical education is an exciting area in which chatbots developed in this manner may be rapidly deployed, though additional work will be required to ensure their accuracy and safety. In this paper, we outline our initial experience with AI chatbot creation in surgical education and offer considerations for future use of this technology.

Needs Assessment for the Development of a Sustainability Curriculum for Surgical Residents.

INTRODUCTION: The healthcare sector accounts for 8.5% of United States (U.S.) greenhouse gas emissions, of which one-third comes from operating rooms (ORs). As a result, there is great interest in decarbonizing the OR and surgical care. However, surgical residents are not routinely educated on the negative environmental impact of surgery or how to reduce it. In this paper, we present a formal needs assessment for a sustainability curriculum geared towards surgical residents. METHODS: Using Kern's Six-Step Framework for curriculum development, we conducted focus groups with surgical residents to perform a targeted needs assessment on 3 main topics: 1) the current state of surgical sustainability curricula; 2) resident knowledge regarding the environmental impact of surgery and barriers to sustainable practice; and 3) preferred educational methods and topics within sustainability education. We audio-recorded all focus groups and performed thematic analysis using anonymized transcripts. RESULTS: Fourteen residents participated in 3 focus groups, from which a qualitative analysis revealed 4 themes. First, surgery residents receive limited formal teaching on the negative environmental impact of surgical care or how to reduce this impact. Second, surgery residents have variable levels of prior education about and interest in sustainability in surgery. Third, several barriers prevent the implementation of sustainable changes in surgical practice, including a lack of institutional initiative, cultural inertia, concerns about workflow efficiency, and limited formal education. Finally, residents prefer to learn about practical ways to reduce waste, specifically through interactive approaches such as quality improvement initiatives. CONCLUSIONS: Given the increasing importance of sustainability in surgery, there is an urgent need for formal resident education on this topic. This needs assessment provides a valuable foundation for future sustainability curriculum development.

Reimagining general surgery resident selection: Collaborative innovation through design thinking.

Introduction: The process by which surgery residency programs select applicants is complex, opaque, and susceptible to bias. Despite attempts by program directors and educational researchers to address these issues, residents have limited ability to affect change within the process at present. Here, we present the results of a design thinking brainstorm to improve resident selection and propose this technique as a framework for surgical residents to creatively solve problems and generate actionable changes. Methods: Members of the Collaboration of Surgical Education Fellows (CoSEF) used the design thinking framework to brainstorm ways to improve the resident selection process. Members participated in one virtual focus group focused on identifying pain points and developing divergent solutions to those pain points. Pain points and solutions were subsequently organized into themes. Finally, members participated in a second virtual focus group to design prototypes to test the proposed solutions. Results: Sixteen CoSEF members participated in one or both focus groups. Participants identified twelve pain points and 57 potential solutions. Pain points and solutions were grouped into the three themes of transparency, fairness, and applicant experience. Members subsequently developed five prototype ideas that could be rapidly developed and tested to improve resident selection. Conclusions: The design thinking framework can help surgical residents come up with creative ideas to improve pain points within surgical training. Furthermore, this framework can supplement existing quantitative and qualitative methods within surgical education research. Future work will be needed to implement the prototypes devised during our sessions and turn them into complete interventions. Key message: In this paper, we demonstrate the results of a resident-led design thinking brainstorm on improving resident selection in which our team identified twelve pain points in resident selection, ideated 57 solutions, and developed five prototypes for further testing. In addition to sharing our results, we believe design thinking can be a useful framework for creative problem solving within surgical education.

Filter Out the Noise: How to Narrow Your Search for the Perfect Match by the Collaboration of Surgical Education Fellows (CoSEF).

The residency match process can be overwhelming. We are the Collaboration of Surgical Education Fellows (CoSEF), a multi-institutional group of surgical residents. Our perspectives represent our current experiences as residents at academic programs, but all authors recently underwent the general surgery resident interview and match process, during which they interviewed at programs of all kinds. Based on our collective experiences, we aim to highlight program attributes that applicants should consider to find their perfect match.

Surgically Managed Signet Ring Cell Esophageal Carcinomas in the National Cancer Database.

BACKGROUND: Signet ring cell adenocarcinoma (SRC) is a less common histologic variant of esophageal adenocarcinoma (ACA). The low frequency of SRC limits the ability to make data-driven clinical recommendations for these patients. METHODS: The National Cancer Database was queried for adult patients with clinical stage I, II, or III adenocarcinoma of the noncervical esophagus diagnosed between 2004 and 2015 and stratified by SRC versus all other ACA variants. Cox proportional hazard regression models were adjusted for patient, tumor, and treatment characteristics. The role of surgery in SRC was evaluated among patients treated with chemoradiation alone versus chemoradiation with esophagectomy. RESULTS: Of the 681 SRC and 13,543 ACA patients who underwent esophagectomy, no significant differences in age, sex, race, or comorbidities were identified. Patients with SRC were more likely to have high-grade tumors (84% vs 41%, P < .001) and stage III tumors (47% vs 39%, P < .001) compared with patients with ACA. Complete (R0) resection was less common in SRC (81% vs 90%, P < .001). Adjusted 5-year mortality risk from surgery was higher for SRC patients compared with ACA patients (hazard ratio, 1.242; 95% confidence interval, 1.126-1.369; P < .001). Among SRC tumors, chemoradiation with esophagectomy was associated with superior survival (hazard ratio, 0.429; 95% confidence interval, 0.339-0.546; P < .001) compared with chemoradiation alone. CONCLUSIONS: Among surgically managed patients SRC appears to have a worse prognosis than ACA, which may reflect the tendency of SRC tumors to be higher grade and more locally advanced. However SRC histology does not appear to diminish the role of esophagectomy in the management of locoregionally confined esophageal cancer.