The carbon footprint of different modes of birth in the UK and the Netherlands: An exploratory study using life cycle assessment.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the carbon footprint of caesarean and vaginal birth. DESIGN: Life cycle assessment (LCA). SETTING: Tertiary maternity units and home births in the UK and the Netherlands. POPULATION: Birthing women. METHODS: A cradle-to-grave LCA using openLCA software to model the carbon footprint of different modes of delivery in the UK and the Netherlands. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: 'Carbon footprint' (in kgCO2 equivalents [kgCO2 e]). RESULTS: Excluding analgesia, the carbon footprint of a caesarean birth in the UK was 31.21 kgCO2 e, compared with 12.47 kgCO2 e for vaginal birth in hospital and 7.63 kgCO2 e at home. In the Netherlands the carbon footprint of a caesarean was higher (32.96 kgCO2 e), but lower for vaginal birth in hospital and home (10.74 and 6.27 kgCO2 e, respectively). Emissions associated with analgesia for vaginal birth ranged from 0.08 kgCO2 e (with opioid analgesia) to 237.33 kgCO2 e (nitrous oxide with oxygen). Differences in analgesia use resulted in a lower average carbon footprint for vaginal birth in the Netherlands than the UK (11.64 versus 193.26 kgCO2 e). CONCLUSION: The carbon footprint of a caesarean is higher than for a vaginal birth if analgesia is excluded, but this is very sensitive to the analgesia used; use of nitrous oxide with oxygen multiplies the carbon footprint of vaginal birth 25-fold. Alternative methods of pain relief or nitrous oxide destruction systems would lead to a substantial improvement in carbon footprint. Although clinical need and maternal choice are paramount, protocols should consider the environmental impact of different choices.

Bubble-PAPR: a phase 1 clinical evaluation of the comfort and perception of a prototype powered air-purifying respirator for use by healthcare workers in an acute hospital setting.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to design and produce a low-cost, ergonomic, hood-integrated powered air-purifying respirator (Bubble-PAPR) for pandemic healthcare use, offering optimal and equitable protection to all staff. We hypothesised that participants would rate Bubble-PAPR more highly than current filtering face piece (FFP3) face mask respiratory protective equipment (RPE) in the domains of comfort, perceived safety and communication. DESIGN: Rapid design and evaluation cycles occurred based on the identified user needs. We conducted diary card and focus group exercises to identify relevant tasks requiring RPE. Lab-based safety standards established against British Standard BS-EN-12941 and EU2016/425 covering materials; inward particulate leakage; breathing resistance; clean air filtration and supply; carbon dioxide elimination; exhalation means and electrical safety. Questionnaire-based usability data from participating front-line healthcare staff before (usual RPE) and after using Bubble-PAPR. SETTING: Overseen by a trial safety committee, evaluation progressed sequentially through laboratory, simulated, low-risk, then high-risk clinical environments of a single tertiary National Health Service hospital. PARTICIPANTS: 15 staff completed diary cards and focus groups. 91 staff from a range of clinical and non-clinical roles completed the study, wearing Bubble-PAPR for a median of 45 min (IQR 30-80 (15-120)). Participants self-reported a range of heights (mean 1.7 m (SD 0.1, range 1.5-2.0)), weights (72.4 kg (16.0, 47-127)) and body mass indices (25.3 (4.7, 16.7-42.9)). OUTCOME MEASURES: Preuse particulometer 'fit testing' and evaluation against standards by an independent biomedical engineer.Primary:Perceived comfort (Likert scale).Secondary: Perceived safety, communication. RESULTS: Mean fit factor 16 961 (10 participants). Bubble-PAPR mean comfort score 5.64 (SD 1.55) vs usual FFP3 2.96 (1.44) (mean difference 2.68 (95% CI 2.23 to 3.14, p<0.001). Secondary outcomes, Bubble-PAPR mean (SD) versus FFP3 mean (SD), (mean difference (95% CI)) were: how safe do you feel? 6.2 (0.9) vs 5.4 (1.0), (0.73 (0.45 to 0.99)); speaking to other staff 7.5 (2.4) vs 5.1 (2.4), (2.38 (1.66 to 3.11)); heard by other staff 7.1 (2.3) vs 4.9 (2.3), (2.16 (1.45 to 2.88)); speaking to patients 7.8 (2.1) vs 4.8 (2.4), (2.99 (2.36 to 3.62)); heard by patients 7.4 (2.4) vs 4.7 (2.5), (2.7 (1.97 to 3.43)); all p<0.01. CONCLUSIONS: Bubble-PAPR achieved its primary purpose of keeping staff safe from airborne particulate material while improving comfort and the user experience when compared with usual FFP3 masks. The design and development of Bubble-PAPR were conducted using a careful evaluation strategy addressing key regulatory and safety steps. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04681365.

There is (probably) no (meaningful) difference in (most) outcomes between 'spinal' and 'general' anaesthesia for hip fracture surgery: time to move forward.

A meta-analysis influenced by two recent large randomised controlled trials (REGAIN and RAGA) concluded that little, if any, difference in commonly measured outcomes exists between patients administered spinal or general anaesthesia for their hip fracture surgery. We explore whether there is genuinely no difference, or what the methodological problems in research might be that prevent any real difference from being observed. We also discuss the need for greater nuance in future research to determine how anaesthetists might deliver perioperative care towards improving postoperative recovery trajectories in patients following hip fracture.

Maternal body weight and estimated circulating blood volume: a review and practical nonlinear approach.

Postpartum haemorrhage continues to be a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in the obstetric population worldwide, especially in patients at extremes of body weight. Quantification of blood loss has been considered extensively in the literature. However, these volumes must be contextualised to appreciate the consequences of blood loss for individual parturients. Knowledge of a patient's peripartum circulating blood volume is essential to allow accurate interpretation of the significance of haemorrhage and appropriate resuscitation. Greater body weight in obesity can lead to overestimation of blood volume, resulting in inappropriately high thresholds for blood product transfusion and delays in treatment. The most recent Mothers and Babies: Reducing Risk through Audits and Confidential Enquiries across the UK (MBRRACE-UK) surveillance report demonstrated the risk to this population, with more than half of all maternal mortality recorded in parturients who were either overweight or obese. Current linear calculations used to estimate circulating blood volumes based on patients' weights could be contributing to this phenomenon, as blood volume increases at a disproportional rate to body composition. In this review, we summarise the relevant physiology and explore the existing literature on the estimation of circulating blood volume, both during pregnancy and in obesity. Building on key works and principal findings, we present a practical, nonlinear approach to the adjustment of estimated blood volume with increasing body mass. This clinical tool aims to reduce the clinical bias influencing the management of obstetric haemorrhage in a population already at increased risk of morbidity and mortality. Discussion of the limitations of this approach and the call for further research within this field completes this review.

'It's learned on the job and it depends who you're with.' An observational qualitative study of how internal jugular cannulation is taught and learned.

Internal jugular cannulation may lead to serious complications. Ultrasound guidance is advocated; however, procedural complications remain a concern. Inconsistent education may be in part responsible for this. This study examined how internal jugular cannulation is taught and learned. An ethnographic approach was used in two acute hospitals. Methods comprised interviews, observations and focus groups. An inductive thematic analysis was undertaken. Three themes were identified: apprenticeship, trust and reciprocity. In apprenticeship, a new form of apprenticeship learning, necessitated by the structure of training is described. In trust the strategies by which trainers assess trainees' competence in order to allow them to gain experience is explored. In reciprocity the beneficial influence of trainees is illustrated. This study demonstrates how high-stakes procedures are learned. It provides insights into under-investigated topics such as the use of 'permitted mistakes' to stimulate reflection and the role played by trainees in promoting good practice.