Objective: To determine the user experience of wearing comfort of reusable sterile surgical gowns and compare these gowns with conventional disposable surgical gowns. Design: Cross-sectional survey. Setting: An academic hospital in the Netherlands. Population: Gynaecologists, surgeons, residents and operating room assistants (n=80). Methods: Quantitative and qualitative data were obtained via a written questionnaire. Participants provided subjective comments and scored the reusable gown on each individual topic with a score from 1 to 5 (1 = unsatisfactory, 2 = moderate, 3 = good, 4 = very good, 5 = excellent) and compared the reusable gown with the conventional disposable alternative (better, equal or worse). Main outcome measures: Wearing comfort: ventilation and temperature regulation, fit and length, functionality, barrier function and ease of use. Results: The results of the overall scores of the reusable gown are scored as ‘very good’ (mean 4.3, SD ± 0.5) by its users. Regarding comparison of the gowns, more than 79% (lowest score 79%, highest score 95%) of the participants scored the reusable gown equal or higher on six of seven topics. The topic ‘ease of use’ was scored equal or higher by 59% of the participants. Subjective comments provided information on possible improvements. Conclusions: The findings of this study demonstrate that there is professional acceptance regarding the utilisation of reusable surgical gowns. To facilitate broader adoption, it is imperative to foster collaboration among suppliers and healthcare institutions. The reusable surgical gown is an environmentally sustainable, safe and comfortable alternative in the operating room.

@en

Annually, over 300 million surgeries occur globally, requiring numerous surgical instruments. However, many instruments on the tray are returned to the central sterile supply department (CSSD) unused, creating an unsustainable pattern of unnecessary consumption. To address this, we developed a method for optimising surgical instrument trays (SITs) that is straightforward to implement in other hospitals. This optimisation aims to enhance patient safety and sustainability and to improve working conditions and reduce costs. We identified actual instrument usage (IU) in the operating room (OR) and obtained expert recommendations (ERs). Data from both methods were combined in a computer model (CM) to adjust the SITs. The performance of the adjusted SITs was assessed over a year. IU of three different SITs was collected during 16 procedures (mean = 28.4%, SD = 6.4%). Combining IU and ERs resulted in a 36.7% reduction in instruments and a 31.3% weight reduction. These measures contribute to reducing the carbon footprint and enhancing sustainability. During the evaluation of the new SIT contents (n = 7 procedures), mean IU increased from 28.4% (SD = 6.4%) to 46.5% (SD = 11.0%), with no missing instruments during surgery. A one-year follow-up showed no need for further alterations. Combining both methods yields better results than using them individually, efficiently reducing unnecessary items in SITs without compromising patient safety.@en

Literature proposes numerous initiatives for optimization of the Operating Room (OR). Despite multiple suggested strategies for the optimization of workflow on the OR, its patients and (medical) staff, no uniform description of ‘optimization’ has been adopted. This makes it difficult to evaluate the proposed optimization strategies. In particular, the metrics used to quantify OR performance are diverse so that assessing the impact of suggested approaches is complex or even impossible. To secure a higher implementation success rate of optimisation strategies in practice we believe OR optimisation and its quantification should be further investigated. We aim to provide an inventory of the metrics and methods used to optimise the OR by the means of a structured literature study. We observe that several aspects of OR performance are unaddressed in literature, and no studies account for possible interactions between metrics of quality and efficiency. We conclude that a systems approach is needed to align metrics across different elements of OR performance, and that the wellbeing of healthcare professionals is underrepresented in current optimisation approaches.

@en

STUDY QUESTION: What is the additional value of the comprehensive complication index (CCI) and ClassIntra system (classification for intraoperative adverse events (ioAEs)) in adverse event (AE) reporting in (deep) endometriosis (DE) surgery compared to only using the Clavien-Dindo (CD) system? SUMMARY ANSWER: The CCI and ClassIntra are useful additional tools alongside the CD system for a complete and uniform overview of the total AE burden in patients with extensive surgery (such as DE), and with this uniform data registration, it is possible to provide greater insight into the quality of care. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Uniform comparison of AEs reported in the literature is hampered by scattered registration. In endometriosis surgery, the usage of the CD complication system and the CCI is internationally recommended; however, the CCI is not routinely adapted in endometriosis care and research. Furthermore, a recommendation for ioAEs registration in endometriosis surgery is lacking, although this is vital information in surgical quality assessments. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: A prospective mono-center study was conducted with 870 surgical DE cases from a nonuniversity DE expertise center between February 2019 and December 2021. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Endometriosis cases were collected with the EQUSUM system, a publicly available web-based application for registration of surgical procedures for endometriosis. Postoperative adverse events (poAEs) were classified with the CD complication system and CCI. Differences in reporting and classifying AEs between the CCI and the CD were assessed. ioAEs were assessed with the ClassIntra. The primary outcome measure was to assess the additional value toward the CD classification with the introduction of the CCI and ClassIntra. In addition, we report a benchmark for the CCI in DE surgery. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: A total of 870 DE procedures were registered, of which 145 procedures with one or more poAEs, resulting in a poAE rate of 16.7% (145/870), of which in 36 cases (4.1%), the poAE was classified as severe (Grade 3b). The median CCI (interquartile range) of patients with poAEs was 20.9 (20.9-31.7) and 33.7 (33.7-39.7) in the group of patients with severe poAEs. In 20 patients (13.8%), the CCI was higher than the CD because of multiple poAEs. There were 11 ioAEs reported (11/870, 1.3%) in all procedures, mostly minor and directly repaired serosa injuries. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: This study was conducted at a single center; thus, trends in AE rates and type of AEs could differ from other centers. Furthermore, no conclusion could be drawn on ioAEs in relation to the postoperative course because the power of this database is not robust enough for that purpose. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: From our data, we would advise to use the Clavien-Dindo classification system together with the CCI and ClassIntra for a complete overview of AE registration. The CCI appeared to provide a more complete overview of the total burden of poAEs compared to only reporting the most severe poAEs (as with CD). If the use of the CD, CCI, and ClassIntra is widely adapted, uniform data comparison will be possible at (inter)national level, providing better insight into the quality of care. Our data could be used as a first benchmark for other DE centers to optimize information provision in the shared decision-making process.

@en

Objective: To assess the various factors that influence environmentally sustainable behaviour in gynaecological surgery and examine the differences between gynaecologists and residents. Design: An interview study. Setting: Academic and non-academic hospitals in the Netherlands. Population: Gynaecologists (n = 10) and residents (n = 6). Methods: Thematic analysis of semi-structured interviews to determine the various factors that influence environmentally sustainable behaviour in gynaecological surgery and to examine the differences between gynaecologists and residents. By using the Desmond framework and the COM-B BCW, both organisational and individual factors related to behaviour were considered. Main outcome measures: Factors that influence environmentally sustainable behaviour. Results: Awareness is increasing but practical knowledge is insufficient. It is crucial to integrate education on the environmental impact of everyday decisions for residents and gynaecologists. Gynaecologists make their own choices but residents’ autonomy is limited. There is the necessity to provide environmentally sustainable surgical equipment without compromising other standards. There is a need for a societal change that encourages safe and open communication about environmental sustainability. To transition to environmentally sustainable practices, leadership, time, collaboration with the industry and supportive regulatory changes are essential. Conclusion: This study lays the groundwork for promoting more environmentally sustainable behaviour in gynaecological surgery. The key recommendations, addressing hospital regulations, leadership, policy revisions, collaboration with the industry, guideline development and education, offer practical steps towards a more sustainable healthcare system. Encouraging environmentally sustainable practices should be embraced to enhance the well-being of both our planet and our population, driving us closer to a more environmentally sustainable future in healthcare.

@en