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, Cliff; Bates, Louise; Brennan, Fiona; Deido, Beck; Donnellon, Mike; Dorey, Jenny; Evans, Bob; Gower, Jonathan; Hamdaoui, Yasmina; Hitchman, John; Kinsella, S Michael; Knagg, Rebecca; Lawson, Cathy; Morris, Daniel S.; Pegna, V; Radcliffe, Tracey; Schaff, Olivia; Sheppard, Tim; Strong, Jennifer; J, Jones David

doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2022-066622

Cited by 10 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We are aware that the NHS is under extreme strain at present and competing priorities such as finance and staffing may make local investment in sustainable policies and practices harder to justify. Therefore, changes need to start at a national level and be fully researched and resourced [4]. We feel that patients will always have concerns around the unknown and changes to their care, which is why shared decision‐making, with ample (patient‐friendly) information and communication is key to managing successful change.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Of note, we are all regular contributors to patient and public involvement, engagement forums and activities (focused on both research and practice), and have been previously involved in a priority‐setting partnership regarding sustainability in peri‐operative practice [4]. However, we focus here on our own views – not those of any organisation with which we are affiliated.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Sustainability in healthcare: patient and public perspectives

Knagg,

Dorey,

Evans

et al. 2024

Anaesthesia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SummaryThe sustainable healthcare agenda has become increasingly prominent in recent years. But what does this mean for patients? In this article, we draw on our personal views and experiences as patients, carers and patient advocates, and consider the effects that efforts to improve the sustainability of healthcare may have on care quality and patient experience. We also review the small amount of existing research and policy in this area, with particular focus on documents from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence and the Health Foundation. Based on synthesising these resources with our own experiences, we make recommendations on how to: share information with patients about how they can contribute to healthcare sustainability; offer more sustainable alternatives without pressure; account for diverse patient views on the relevance of sustainable healthcare; provide information about the impact of healthcare on the environment; involve patients and the public in leading positive change; and avoid broadening health inequalities. There is a clear need for more research and engagement to help advance our understanding and weigh up the benefits to individual patients vs. the environmental impacts on the wider population.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sustainability in healthcare: patient and public perspectives

Knagg,

Dorey,

Evans

et al. 2024

Anaesthesia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Disease classification [11] Classifying disease type or severity Establishing research priorities [12] Defining and ranking priorities in the context of limited resources Developing core outcome sets [13] Defining the most important and clinically significant outcomes in research…”

Section: Study Purpose How Consensus Helpsmentioning

confidence: 99%

ACCORD (ACcurate COnsensus Reporting Document): A reporting guideline for consensus methods in biomedicine developed via a modified Delphi

Gattrell,

Logullo,

van Zuuren

et al. 2024

PLoS Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background In biomedical research, it is often desirable to seek consensus among individuals who have differing perspectives and experience. This is important when evidence is emerging, inconsistent, limited, or absent. Even when research evidence is abundant, clinical recommendations, policy decisions, and priority-setting may still require agreement from multiple, sometimes ideologically opposed parties. Despite their prominence and influence on key decisions, consensus methods are often poorly reported. Our aim was to develop the first reporting guideline dedicated to and applicable to all consensus methods used in biomedical research regardless of the objective of the consensus process, called ACCORD (ACcurate COnsensus Reporting Document). Methods and findings We followed methodology recommended by the EQUATOR Network for the development of reporting guidelines: a systematic review was followed by a Delphi process and meetings to finalize the ACCORD checklist. The preliminary checklist was drawn from the systematic review of existing literature on the quality of reporting of consensus methods and suggestions from the Steering Committee. A Delphi panel (n = 72) was recruited with representation from 6 continents and a broad range of experience, including clinical, research, policy, and patient perspectives. The 3 rounds of the Delphi process were completed by 58, 54, and 51 panelists. The preliminary checklist of 56 items was refined to a final checklist of 35 items relating to the article title (n = 1), introduction (n = 3), methods (n = 21), results (n = 5), discussion (n = 2), and other information (n = 3). Conclusions The ACCORD checklist is the first reporting guideline applicable to all consensus-based studies. It will support authors in writing accurate, detailed manuscripts, thereby improving the completeness and transparency of reporting and providing readers with clarity regarding the methods used to reach agreement. Furthermore, the checklist will make the rigor of the consensus methods used to guide the recommendations clear for readers. Reporting consensus studies with greater clarity and transparency may enhance trust in the recommendations made by consensus panels.

show abstract

“…To help respondents to consider the full scope of the perioperative patient journey, we asked them to consider the preoperative, intraoperative and postoperative phases and also invited any further suggestions." [47] Example 2 "Three expert workshops (participant total n = 42), including members of the public, academic and user-researchers, researcher/clinicians, research funders and research managers were conducted to generate qualitative data. The range of normative, substantive and process-related values underpinning [public involvement], identified in a previously conducted literature review, 22 were discussed, to identify concepts to be explored at round 1 (R1) and round 2 (R2) of the subsequent modified Delphi survey."…”

Section: Example 1 "Public Panel-members Of the Public As Key Stakeho...mentioning

confidence: 99%

ACcurate COnsensus Reporting Document (ACCORD) explanation and elaboration: Guidance and examples to support reporting consensus methods

Logullo,

van Zuuren,

Winchester

et al. 2024

PLoS Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background When research evidence is limited, inconsistent, or absent, healthcare decisions and policies need to be based on consensus among interested stakeholders. In these processes, the knowledge, experience, and expertise of health professionals, researchers, policymakers, and the public are systematically collected and synthesised to reach agreed clinical recommendations and/or priorities. However, despite the influence of consensus exercises, the methods used to achieve agreement are often poorly reported. The ACCORD (ACcurate COnsensus Reporting Document) guideline was developed to help report any consensus methods used in biomedical research, regardless of the health field, techniques used, or application. This explanatory document facilitates the use of the ACCORD checklist. Methods and findings This paper was built collaboratively based on classic and contemporary literature on consensus methods and publications reporting their use. For each ACCORD checklist item, this explanation and elaboration document unpacks the pieces of information that should be reported and provides a rationale on why it is essential to describe them in detail. Furthermore, this document offers a glossary of terms used in consensus exercises to clarify the meaning of common terms used across consensus methods, to promote uniformity, and to support understanding for consumers who read consensus statements, position statements, or clinical practice guidelines (CPGs). The items are followed by examples of reporting items from the ACCORD guideline, in text, tables, and figures. Conclusions The ACCORD materials—including the reporting guideline and this explanation and elaboration document—can be used by anyone reporting a consensus exercise used in the context of health research. As a reporting guideline, ACCORD helps researchers to be transparent about the materials, resources (both human and financial), and procedures used in their investigations so readers can judge the trustworthiness and applicability of their results/recommendations.

show abstract

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

Cited by 10 publications

References 24 publications

Sustainability in healthcare: patient and public perspectives

Sustainability in healthcare: patient and public perspectives

ACCORD (ACcurate COnsensus Reporting Document): A reporting guideline for consensus methods in biomedicine developed via a modified Delphi

ACcurate COnsensus Reporting Document (ACCORD) explanation and elaboration: Guidance and examples to support reporting consensus methods

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About