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.

How should institutions help clinicians to practise greener anaesthesia: first-order and second-order responsibilities to practice sustainably.

There is a need for all industries, including healthcare, to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. In anaesthetic practice, this not only requires a reduction in resource use and waste, but also a shift away from inhaled anaesthetic gases and towards alternatives with a lower carbon footprint. As inhalational anaesthesia produces greenhouse gas emissions at the point of use, achieving sustainable anaesthetic practice involves individual practitioner behaviour change. However, changing the practice of healthcare professionals raises potential ethical issues. The purpose of this paper is twofold. First, we discuss what moral duties anaesthetic practitioners have when it comes to practices that impact the environment. We argue that behaviour change among practitioners to align with certain moral responsibilities must be supplemented with an account of institutional duties to support this. In other words, we argue that institutions and those in power have second-order responsibilities to ensure that practitioners can fulfil their first-order responsibilities to practice more sustainably. The second goal of the paper is to consider not just the nature of second-order responsibilities but the content. We assess four different ways that second-order responsibilities might be fulfilled within healthcare systems: removing certain anaesthetic agents, seeking consensus, education and methods from behavioural economics. We argue that, while each of these are a necessary part of the picture, some interventions like nudges have considerable advantages.

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.

Greener Operations: a James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership to define research priorities in environmentally sustainable perioperative practice through a structured consensus approach.

OBJECTIVES: To agree on the 'top 10' research priorities for environmentally sustainable perioperative practice. DESIGN: Surveys and literature review; final consensus workshop using a nominal group technique. SETTING: UK-based setting. PARTICIPANTS: Healthcare professionals, patients, carers and the public. OUTCOME MEASURES: Initial survey-suggested research questions; interim survey-shortlist of 'indicative' questions (the 20 most frequently nominated by patients, carers and the public, and healthcare professionals); final workshop-ranked research priorities. RESULTS: Initial survey-1926 suggestions by 296 respondents, refined into 60 indicative questions. Interim survey-325 respondents. Final workshop-21 participants agreed the 'top 10': (1) How can more sustainable reusable equipment safely be used during and around the time of an operation? (2) How can healthcare organisations more sustainably procure (obtain) medicines, equipment and items used during and around the time of an operation? (3) How can healthcare professionals who deliver care during and around the time of an operation be encouraged to adopt sustainable actions in practice? (4) Can more efficient use of operating theatres and associated practices reduce the environmental impact of operations? (5) How can the amount of waste generated during and around the time of an operation be minimised? (6) How do we measure and compare the short-term and long-term environmental impacts of surgical and non-surgical treatments for the same condition? (7) What is the environmental impact of different anaesthetic techniques (eg, different types of general, regional and local anaesthesia) used for the same operation? (8) How should the environmental impact of an operation be weighed against its clinical outcomes and financial costs? (9) How can environmental sustainability be incorporated into the organisational management of operating theatres? (10) What are the most sustainable forms of effective infection prevention and control used around the time of an operation (eg, personal protective equipment, drapes, clean air ventilation)? CONCLUSIONS: A broad range of 'end-users' have identified research priorities for sustainable perioperative care.

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.

Carbon footprint of inhalational and total intravenous anaesthesia for paediatric anaesthesia: a modelling study.

BACKGROUND: Tackling the climate emergency is now a key target for the healthcare sector. Avoiding inhalational anaesthesia is often cited as an important element of reducing anaesthesia-related emissions. However, evidence supporting this is based on adult practice. The aim of this study was to identify the difference in carbon footprint of inhalational and i.v. anaesthesia when used in children. METHODS: We used mathematical simulation models to compare general anaesthetic techniques in children weighing 5-50 kg for TIVA, i.v. induction then inhalational maintenance, inhalational induction then i.v. maintenance, and inhalational induction and maintenance. We simulated inhalational induction with sevoflurane alone, and co-induction with sevoflurane and nitrous oxide, and both remifentanil-propofol and propofol-only i.v. anaesthesia. For each technique, we drew on previously published life-cycle data to calculate carbon dioxide equivalents for anaesthetic durations up to 480 min. RESULTS: TIVA with propofol and remifentanil had a smaller carbon footprint over a typical anaesthetic duration of 60 min (1.26 kg carbon dioxide equivalents [CO2e] for a 20 kg child) than i.v. induction followed by inhalational maintenance (2.58 kg CO2e) or inhalational induction and maintenance (2.98 kg CO2e). Inhalational induction followed by i.v. maintenance only had a lower carbon footprint than inhalational induction and maintenance when used in longer procedures (>77 min for children 5-20 kg; >105 min for children 30-50 kg). CONCLUSIONS: In a simulation study, i.v. anaesthesia had climate benefits in paediatric anaesthesia. However, when used after inhalational induction, benefits were only achieved in longer procedures. These findings provide evidence-based guidance for reducing the environmental impact of paediatric anaesthesia, but these will require confirmation using real-world data.

The 'haves' and 'have-nots' of personal protective equipment during the COVID-19 pandemic: the ethics of emerging inequalities amongst healthcare workers.

The COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated inequalities, including among the healthcare workforce. Based on recent literature and drawing on our experiences of working in operating theatres and critical care in the UK's National Health Service during the pandemic, we review the role of personal protective equipment and consider the ethical implications of its design, availability and provision at a time of unprecedented demand. Several important inequalities have emerged, driven by factors such as individuals purchasing their own personal protective equipment (either out of choice or to address a lack of provision), inconsistencies between guidelines issued by different agencies and organisations, and the standardised design and procurement of equipment required to protect a diverse healthcare workforce. These, we suggest, have resulted largely because of a lack of appropriate pandemic planning and coordination, as well as insufficient appreciation of the significance of equipment design for the healthcare setting. As with many aspects of the pandemic, personal protective equipment has created and revealed inequalities driven by economics, gender, ethnicity and professional influence, creating a division between the 'haves' and 'have-nots' of personal protective equipment. As the healthcare workforce continues to cope with ongoing waves of COVID-19, and with the prospect of more pandemics in the future, it is vital that these inequalities are urgently addressed, both through academic analysis and practical action.