Surgical smoke: how an issue in healthcare fits a planetary health framework

0Citations
Citations of this article
19Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Aim: The smoke generated from electrocautery machines may be harmful to health. Healthcare in general, and surgery in particular, has a large environmental footprint. The aims of this study were to discover what healthcare workers thought about the problem of electrocautery smoke, the idea of a surgical smoke-free policy, and to formulate ideas on how the matter could be approached in an environmentally and socially responsible way. METHOD: Operating room personnel in a tertiary referral hospital were invited to complete a survey about electrocautery smoke: perceived risks, current exposure, and measures to minimise exposure. Quantitative data were analysed in a generalised linear model, and qualitative data by reflexive thematic analysis within a constructivist theoretical framework. RESULTS: The survey response rate was 463/1234 (38%). Most supported a smoke-free policy (89%). Support for a policy was positively correlated with the perceived risk of electrocautery smoke (p<0.001. Support was lower amongst males (p<0.05). Themes from the qualitative analysis developed around nature, society and technology. A framework was developed consisting of earth and its ecosystems, human health, governance, economics, society, and the interconnected of these systems. CONCLUSION: Although smoke-free policies form part of the solution to electrocautery smoke, they are not the whole solution. Healthcare issues, in this case the issue of electrocautery smoke, could be tackled within a planetary health healthcare framework, promoting a systems approach. Applicability of the framework requires confirmation by further research.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Barber, L., Lane, R., Holmes, L., Murray, N., & Hamill, J. K. (2022). Surgical smoke: how an issue in healthcare fits a planetary health framework. New Zealand Medical Journal, 135(1560), 18–36. https://doi.org/10.26635/6965.5632

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free