Conectar
Healthcare waste production is a significant contributor to carbon emissions, negatively impacting the environment. Ineffective healthcare waste disposal results in greater measures to manage it which is costly to both the environment and healthcare organizations. This study aimed to improve waste management in a tertiary maternity hospital. Specifically, the impact of a midwife-led intervention to improve waste segregation, staff knowledge and attitudes and waste management-related costs was investigated.
A multi-method study including pre- and post-intervention staff waste management knowledge and attitude surveys and waste audits of bins located on the postnatal ward.
The intervention included education sessions, posters and signage by waste bins and monthly newsletters distributed throughout 2021 to raise staff awareness of correct waste segregation processes. Pre- and post-intervention surveys were distributed in early 2021 and early 2022, respectively. The waste audits occurred on three occasions, January, July and December of 2021. The waste audit included total waste in kilograms (kg), waste in kg by segregation and identification of correct and incorrect segregation. Waste audit and quantitative staff survey data were analysed using descriptive statistics and chi square. Qualitative data from the staff surveys were analysed using content analysis.
Knowledge and attitudes to waste management were similar across pre- and post-intervention staff surveys. Knowledge of accurate allocation of specific items to waste streams was variable with errors identified in both the pre- and post-surveys. Waste audit data showed reductions in clinical waste at each measurement, with a 71.2% decrease in clinical waste from baseline to the final audit. Accuracy of waste segregation also improved from the baseline to final audit, resulting in a 48% reduction in waste management costs.
The midwife-led initiative improved waste segregation and achieved the associated waste management cost reduction.
A midwifery-led initiative to address waste production and segregation on a maternity ward had a positive impact on waste segregation practices and associated waste management costs. The existence of change champions along with in-service sessions, posters and newsletters to raise awareness of correct waste segregation resulted in a 71% reduction of incorrect items being placed in clinical waste bins. Challenges such as COVID-19 pressures and workload made it difficult for midwives to engage in waste management education and effective waste segregation.
No patient or public contribution.
Implementing clinician-led waste management interventions across hospital wards while addressing workload issues are likely to have significant cost benefits for organisations and minimise the environmental impacts of healthcare settings.
In the 10 years since this paper was originally published in EBN’s Research Made Simple series,
Assessing the quality of research is crucial to ensure findings can be effectively applied to clinical practice and are based on...
VALTIVE1 is a multi-centre, single-arm, non-interventional biomarker study for patients with advanced ovarian cancer. Plasma samples (Tie2 concentration) are collected to detect vascular control in tumours during standard treatment with chemotherapy and bevacizumab. This qualitative study embedded in VALTIVE1 aimed to assess the acceptability and feasibility of a potential VALTIVE2 trial. It explored the participants’ perceptions of the study and treatments and how they might feel if bevacizumab were discontinued based on the results from the biomarker test.
This qualitative study used semi-structured telephone interviews, which were analysed using deductive and inductive thematic analysis.
Cancer treatment sites in the UK.
Participants recruited to VALTIVE1 were invited to take part in qualitative interviews. 11 female participants took part from four clinical sites.
Participants reported that they experienced side effects attributed to bevacizumab, including stiffness, pain, fatigue, nose bleeds and muscle aches. Participants felt that combining chemotherapy and bevacizumab may have increased the severity of the side effects they experienced. Most participants felt that it was acceptable, if not preferable, to be allocated to a group in a future VALTIVE2 study where bevacizumab may be discontinued according to the results from the biomarker test. A clear preference of participants was to be informed of the biomarker test results, health status and treatment side effects.
A future trial should consider ensuring all participants have access to test results, as participants indicated a preference to know whether bevacizumab was working and to discontinue bevacizumab if it had not prevented tumour growth based on the biomarker results. Comprehensive and ongoing information and support regarding treatment side effects should be provided to all participants throughout their cancer pathways and trials.
NHS 111 Wales offers 24-hour telephone assessment, care and referrals for urgent healthcare needs. Call handlers use the newly created and implemented Call Prioritisation Streaming System (CPSS) to assess patients. CPSS is a sophisticated Computer Decision Support Software designed to enhance decision-making processes. It achieves this by integrating individual patient data with a comprehensive computerised knowledge base, employing advanced software algorithms to produce recommendations and dispositions.
While CPSS offers many advantages, its introduction marked a major shift in clinical digital processes. Because of this significant change, it was essential to ensure that the system was functioning correctly and safely after it was implemented. This process of verification and validation is known as postimplementation clinical assurance.
An adapted Delphi–Rand/UCLA appropriateness method assessed patient outcomes. In round 1, 189 random anonymised cases were reviewed by international expert clinicians from diverse clinical backgrounds, with consensus measured at
In round 1, 49 participants reviewed all 189 cases (total 9913 reviews). In round 2, 41 participants continued to review (total 1746 reviews). Consensus on outcome appropriateness was achieved in 83% (7726 reviews of 144 cases), with a range of 100–76%. Non-consensus occurred in 16.6% (1535 reviews of 45 cases), with a range of 73–18%. For cases with consensus, participants agreed with the outcome 90.5% of the time; for non-consensus cases, outcome agreement was still 60.9%.
Content analysis highlighted the complex interplay of clinician-added value and the aims of prioritisation and streaming. Three themes to enhance CPSS were identified: clinical considerations, referral pathways and system-driven safeguarding identification. No significant clinical safety concerns were found.
The evaluation of CPSS in NHS 111 Wales shows high levels of outcome appropriateness, assuring patients, service providers and stakeholders. CPSS effectively prioritises and streams patients to appropriate outcomes based on expert clinician consensus.
Critically evaluating the evidence, in particular research evidence, which underpins practice, is central to quality care and service improvements. Systematically appraising research includes assessing the rigour with which methods were undertaken and factors that may have biased findings. This article will outline what bias means in relation to research, why it is important to consider bias when appraising research and describe common types of bias across research processes. We will also offer strategies that researchers can undertake to minimise bias.
The Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) describes bias in research as ‘systematic errors that can occur at any stage of the research process’ and can have a ‘significant impact on the reliability and validity of the findings’ that may lead to a distortion of the conclusions.
FreshRSS 