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

Max Clayton-Smith; Hrishi Narayanan; Clifford Leigh Shelton; Louise Bates; Fiona Brennan; Beck Diedo; Mike Donnellon; Jenny Dorey; Bob Evans; Jonathan Gower; Yasmina Hamdaoui; John Hitchman; S Michael Kinsella; Rebecca Knagg; Cathy Lawson; Daniel Morris; Victoria Pegna; Tracey Radcliffe; Olivia Schaff; Tim Sheppard; Jennifer Strong; David Jones

doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2022-066622

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

Max Clayton-Smith, Hrishi Narayanan, Clifford Leigh Shelton, Louise Bates, Fiona Brennan, Beck Diedo, Mike Donnellon, Jenny Dorey, Bob Evans, Jonathan Gower, Yasmina Hamdaoui, John Hitchman, S Michael Kinsella, Rebecca Knagg, Cathy Lawson, Daniel Morris, Victoria Pegna, Tracey Radcliffe, Olivia Schaff, Tim SheppardJennifer Strong, David Jones

School of Sport and Health Sciences

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

Abstract

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.

Original language	English
Article number	e066622
Number of pages	10
Journal	BMJ Open
Volume	13
Issue number	3
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2022-066622
Publication status	Published - 28 Mar 2023

Bibliographical note

Funding Information:
This work was supported by a grant from the Manchester Foundation Trust (MFT) Charity.

Publisher Copyright:
© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

Keywords

anaesthetics
gynaecology
intensive & critical care
obstetrics
surgery

Access to Document

10.1136/bmjopen-2022-066622Licence: CC BY-NC

Cite this

Clayton-Smith, M., Narayanan, H., Shelton, C. L., Bates, L., Brennan, F., Diedo, B., Donnellon, M., Dorey, J., Evans, B., Gower, J., Hamdaoui, Y., Hitchman, J., Kinsella, S. M., Knagg, R., Lawson, C., Morris, D., Pegna, V., Radcliffe, T., Schaff, O., ... Jones, D. (2023). Greener Operations: a James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership to define research priorities in environmentally sustainable perioperative practice through a structured consensus approach. BMJ Open, 13(3), Article e066622. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2022-066622

@article{65a36e0dfe66401db64df362d0dfb1cf,

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

abstract = "Objectives: To agree on the {\textquoteleft}top 10{\textquoteright} 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 {\textquoteleft}indicative{\textquoteright} 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 {\textquoteleft}top 10{\textquoteright}: (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 {\textquoteleft}end-users{\textquoteright} have identified research priorities for sustainable perioperative care.",

keywords = "anaesthetics, gynaecology, intensive & critical care, obstetrics, surgery",

author = "Max Clayton-Smith and Hrishi Narayanan and Shelton, {Clifford Leigh} and Louise Bates and Fiona Brennan and Beck Diedo and Mike Donnellon and Jenny Dorey and Bob Evans and Jonathan Gower and Yasmina Hamdaoui and John Hitchman and Kinsella, {S Michael} and Rebecca Knagg and Cathy Lawson and Daniel Morris and Victoria Pegna and Tracey Radcliffe and Olivia Schaff and Tim Sheppard and Jennifer Strong and David Jones",

note = "Funding Information: This work was supported by a grant from the Manchester Foundation Trust (MFT) Charity. Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.",

year = "2023",

month = mar,

day = "28",

doi = "10.1136/bmjopen-2022-066622",

language = "English",

volume = "13",

journal = "BMJ Open",

issn = "2044-6055",

number = "3",

}

Clayton-Smith, M, Narayanan, H, Shelton, CL, Bates, L, Brennan, F, Diedo, B, Donnellon, M, Dorey, J, Evans, B, Gower, J, Hamdaoui, Y, Hitchman, J, Kinsella, SM, Knagg, R, Lawson, C, Morris, D, Pegna, V, Radcliffe, T, Schaff, O, Sheppard, T, Strong, J & Jones, D 2023, 'Greener Operations: a James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership to define research priorities in environmentally sustainable perioperative practice through a structured consensus approach', BMJ Open, vol. 13, no. 3, e066622. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2022-066622

Greener Operations: a James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership to define research priorities in environmentally sustainable perioperative practice through a structured consensus approach. / Clayton-Smith, Max; Narayanan, Hrishi; Shelton, Clifford Leigh et al.
In: BMJ Open, Vol. 13, No. 3, e066622, 28.03.2023.

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Greener Operations

T2 - a James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership to define research priorities in environmentally sustainable perioperative practice through a structured consensus approach

AU - Clayton-Smith, Max

AU - Narayanan, Hrishi

AU - Shelton, Clifford Leigh

AU - Bates, Louise

AU - Brennan, Fiona

AU - Diedo, Beck

AU - Donnellon, Mike

AU - Dorey, Jenny

AU - Evans, Bob

AU - Gower, Jonathan

AU - Hamdaoui, Yasmina

AU - Hitchman, John

AU - Kinsella, S Michael

AU - Knagg, Rebecca

AU - Lawson, Cathy

AU - Morris, Daniel

AU - Pegna, Victoria

AU - Radcliffe, Tracey

AU - Schaff, Olivia

AU - Sheppard, Tim

AU - Strong, Jennifer

AU - Jones, David

N1 - Funding Information: This work was supported by a grant from the Manchester Foundation Trust (MFT) Charity. Publisher Copyright: © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

PY - 2023/3/28

Y1 - 2023/3/28

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

KW - anaesthetics

KW - gynaecology

KW - intensive & critical care

KW - obstetrics

KW - surgery

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85151110918&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-066622

DO - 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-066622

M3 - Article

SN - 2044-6055

VL - 13

JO - BMJ Open

JF - BMJ Open

IS - 3

M1 - e066622

ER -

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

Abstract

Bibliographical note

Keywords

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this