Search

Objective: The climate crisis necessitates urgent decarbonisation. The health sector must address its large carbon footprint. In the present study, we sought healthcare thought leaders' views about a future environmentally sustainable health system. Methods: The present study was a qualitative exploratory study consisting of semistructured, in-depth interviews with 15 healthcare thought leaders from Australia, the UK, the US and New Zealand. Audio recordings of the interviews were transcribed and analysed by matrix display and thematic analysis. Results: Overall, healthcare thought leaders believe that to reduce the carbon footprint of healthcare we need to look beyond traditional 'green' initiatives towards a more fundamental and longer-term redesign. Five main themes and one 'key enabler' (information communication technology) were identified. In this paper we draw on other relevant findings, but chiefly focus on the fifth theme about reshaping the role of healthcare within society and using the size and influence of the health sector to leverage wider health, environmental and societal benefits. Conclusions: These ideas represent potentially low-carbon models of care. The next step would be to pilot and measure the outcomes (health, environmental, financial) of these models. What is known about the topic?: The health sector needs to reduce its large carbon footprint. Traditional 'green' initiatives, such as recycling and improving energy efficiency, are insufficient to achieve the scale of decarbonisation required. What does this paper add?: Healthcare thought leaders surveyed in the present study suggested that we also consider other, non-traditional ways to achieve environmental sustainability. In this paper we discuss their ideas about adopting an anticipatory approach to healthcare using predictive analytics, and using the size and influence of the health sector to effect wider health and environmental benefits. What are the implications for practitioners?: Achieving an environmentally sustainable healthcare system is likely to require broad and fundamental (i.e. transformational) change to the current service model. Health practitioners throughout the sector must be closely engaged in this process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The aim of this study was to explore whether a relationship exists between the number of disasters a jurisdiction has experienced and the presence of disaster-specific pharmacy legislation. Methods: Pharmacy legislation specific to disasters was reviewed for five countries: Australia, Canada, UK, US and New Zealand. A binary logistic regression test using a generalised estimating equation was used to examine the association between the number of disasters experienced by a state, province, territory or country and whether they had disaster-specific pharmacy legislation. Results: Three of six models were statistically significant, suggesting that the odds of a jurisdiction having disaster-specific pharmacy legislation increased as the number of disasters increased for the period 2007–17 and 2013–17. There was an association between the everyday emergency supply legislation and the presence of the extended disaster-specific emergency supply legislation AH19093_IE1.gif. Conclusions: It is evident from this review that there are inconsistencies as to the level of assistance pharmacists can provide during times of crisis depending on their jurisdiction and location of practice. It is not a question of whether pharmacists have the skills and capabilities to assist, but rather what legislative barriers are preventing them from being able to contribute further to the disaster healthcare team. What is known about the topic?: The contributing factors to disaster-specific pharmacy legislation has not previously been explored in Australia. It can be postulated that the number of disasters experienced by a jurisdiction increases the likelihood of governments introducing disaster-specific pharmacy legislation based on other countries. What does this paper add?: This study compared five countries and their pharmacy legislation specific to disasters. It identified that as the number of disasters increases, the odds of a jurisdiction having disaster-specific emergency supply or disaster relocation or mobile pharmacy legislation increases. However, this is likely to be only one of many factors affecting the political decisions of when and what legislation is passed in relation to pharmacists' roles in disasters. What are the implications for practitioners?: Pharmacists are well situated in the community to be of assistance during disasters. However, their ability to help patients with chronic disease management or providing necessary vaccinations in disasters is limited by the legislation in their jurisdiction. Releasing pharmacists' full potential in disasters could alleviate the burden of low-acuity patients on other healthcare services. This could subsequently free up other healthcare professionals to treat high-acuity patients and emergencies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Australian government has announced major reforms with the move to a primary maternity care model. The direction of the reforms remains contentious; with the Australian Medical Association warning that the introduction of non-medically led services will compromise current high standards in maternity services and threaten the safety of mothers and babies. The purpose of this paper is to conduct a critical review of the literature to determine whether there is convincing evidence to support the safety of non-medically led models of primary maternity care. Twenty-two non-randomised international studies were included representing midwifery-led care, birth centre care and home birth. Comparative outcome measurements included: perinatal mortality; perinatal morbidity; rates of medical intervention in labour; and antenatal and intrapartum referral and transfer rates. Findings support those of the three Cochrane reviews, that there is sufficient international evidence to support the conclusion of no difference in outcomes associated with low risk women in midwifery-led, birth centre and home birth models compared with standard hospital or obstetric care. These findings are limited to services involving qualified midwives working within rigorous exclusion, assessment and referral guidelines, limiting the number of urgent intrapartum transfers that come with increased risk of perinatal mortality. What is known about the topic? Systematic reviews of maternal and perinatal outcomes associated with midwifery-led care when compared to conventional intrapartum hospital care concluded that these non-medically led models of care are associated with several benefits for low risk women and their babies with no identified adverse effects. What does this paper add? The finding of no difference in outcomes associated with midwifery-led, birth centre and home birth compared with standard hospital or obstetric care is limited to international studies involving women in the care of qualified midwives working within rigorous guidelines for practice involving inter-professionally agreed exclusion, assessment and referral criteria. What are the implications for practitioners? Midwives caring for women in non-medically led models are urged to be vigilant to the need for early detection and prompt action in the event of unforseen complications to avoid an over emphasis on normality. This decreases the likelihood of urgent intrapartum transfers that come with an increased risk of perinatal mortality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]