×

Tracking the impact of climate change on health

The World Health Organisation (WHO) has launched the second round of its Climate and Health Country profiles – providing updated national level evidence on health risks and opportunities, and tracking progress.

The WHO UNFCCC Climate and Health Country Profile Project aims to provide country-specific, evidence-based snapshots of the climate hazards and health risks facing countries.

The project has strengthened the linkages between climate and health communities; promoted innovative research on national climate hazard and health impact modelling; and engaged an inter-ministerial network of climate and health focal points to develop, advance and disseminate the findings.

Climate change undermines access to safe water, adequate food, and clean air, exacerbating the approximately 12.6 million deaths each year that are caused by avoidable environmental risk factors.

Between 2030 and 2050, climate change is expected to cause approximately 250 000 additional deaths per year, from malnutrition, malaria, diarrhoea and heat stress, and billions of dollars in direct damage costs to health.

WHO works with countries across the world to protect the most vulnerable populations from the health effects of extreme weather events, and to increase their resilience to long-term climate change.

At the same time, the policy decisions and polluting energy sources that are causing climate change are also causing direct health impacts, most notably contributing to the 6.5 million deaths each year from air pollution.

Through the 2015 Paris Agreement on climate change, countries have made commitments to cut carbon pollution, for example through promoting cleaner energy sources, and more sustainable urban transport systems, that will also protect and improve the health of their own populations. WHO is supporting countries to assess the expected health gains from their Paris commitments, and to promote policy choices that bring the greatest benefits both to health, and the environment.

The Lancet has called climate change: “The biggest global health threat of the 21st century.”

The Lancet’s report Managing the Health Effects of Climate Change, states that the effects of climate change on health will affect most populations in the next decades and put the lives and wellbeing of billions of people at increased risk. 

The next series of WHO’s climate and health country profiles will be released in 2019.

The just released list can be found at: http://www.who.int/globalchange/resources/countries/en/

The AMA’s Position Statement on Climate Change and Human Health can be viewed at: position-statement/ama-position-statement-climate-change-and-human-health-2004-revised-2015

MEREDITH HORNE

[Correspondence] Closing the NIH Fogarty Center threatens US and global health

The budget set out by the Trump administration for the 2018 fiscal year proposes cutting about US$6 billion from the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Specifically, this budget intends to eliminate the John E Fogarty International Center, which currently receives 0·2% of the NIH’s 2017 budget of $33·1 billion. Despite its modest size, the Fogarty Center has become a crucial contributor to health research worldwide over the past 50 years by funding the training of over 6000 scientists in developing countries, including many of the world’s leading scientists in infectious disease research.

[Perspectives] Fowzan Alkuraya: leading light in Saudi Human Genome Program

Fowzan Alkuraya occupies a unique position in Saudi Arabia’s scientific community. As Principal Clinical Scientist of the Developmental Genetics Unit at the King Faisal Specialist Hospital and Research Centre, and as Professor of Human Genetics at the College of Medicine, Alfaisal University, both in Riyadh, his laboratory is focused on understanding genetic disorders specific to the Saudi population, where consanguinity and resultant inherited genetic disorders represent a major public health problem.

[Perspectives] Ebola: transforming fear into appropriate action

It is interesting that so many of the experts who proffered guidance on outbreak control during the west African Ebola crisis had no previous field experience of Ebola, with some seeming to lack understanding of Ebola epidemiology. They, along with others, seeded and perpetuated fear, with statements that ranged from predicting that this high mortality pathogen could become endemic in humans if not rapidly contained, and declaring the need for a vaccine if the outbreak were to be effectively stopped, through to the prediction that patient numbers would continue to increase exponentially, requiring a huge input of hospital beds and extraordinary measures for burial of those who died.

Audit reveals public hospital shifts still dangerous

 There are still too many doctors working unsafe shifts in Australian public hospitals, according to an audit of hospital working conditions for doctors.

The AMA’s fourth nationwide survey of doctors’ working hours shows that one in two Australian public hospital doctors (53 per cent) are at significant or high risk of fatigue.

A report of the 2016 AMA Safe Hours Audit was launched on July 15 and showed that while an improvement has been recorded since the first AMA Audit in 2001 (when 78 per cent of those surveyed reported working high risk hours), the result has not changed since the last AMA Safe Hours Audit in 2011.

The report confirms that although there has been an overall decline in at-risk work hours in the past decades, the demands on many doctors continue to be extreme.

“The AMA audit has revealed work practices that contribute to doctor fatigue and stress remain prevalent in Australian public hospitals and can impact on the ability of doctors to work effectively and safely,” said AMA Vice President Dr Tony Bartone.

“It’s no surprise that doctors at higher risk of fatigue reported to work longer hours, longer shifts, have more days on call, less days off and are more likely to skip meal breaks.”

One doctor reported working a 76-hour shift in 2016, almost double the longest shift reported in 2011, and the maximum total hours worked during the survey week was 118 hours, which was no change since 2006.

The most stressed disciplines were Intensive Care Physicians and Surgeons with 75 and 73 per cent respectively reporting they were working hours that placed them at significant or high risk of fatigue.

Research shows that fatigue endangers patient safety and can have a real impact on the health and wellbeing of doctors. This audit shows that the demands on public hospital doctors are still too great and State and Territory governments and hospital administrators need to intensify efforts to ensure better rostering and safer work practices for hospital doctors.

However, the AMA says that reducing fatigue related risks does not necessarily mean doctors have to work fewer hours, just better structured ones.

“It could be a case of smarter rostering practices and improved staffing levels so doctors get a chance to recover after extended periods of work,” Dr Bartone said.

“Safe rostering practices are a critical part of ensuring a safe work environment. Rostering and working hours should contribute to good fatigue-management and a safe work and training environment.

“This includes implementing and supporting rostering schedules and staffing levels that reduce the risk of fatigue, providing appropriate access to rest and leave provisions. And for clinicians, protected teaching and training time, and teaching that’s organised within working hours.

“Employers have an obligation and a duty to provide a safe workplace. They can support staff to maintain a healthy lifestyle and work-life balance by making provisions available for leave and by providing flexible work and training arrangements.

“Research shows that this not only benefits the health and wellbeing of doctors but contributes to higher quality care, patient safety, and health outcomes.

“The Austin and Monash hospitals in Victoria are currently trialling a rostering schedule to mitigate against fatigue based on sleep research. This is the kind of innovative rostering that we’d like to see more of.”

Fatigue has a big effect on doctors in training, who have to manage the competing demands of work, study and exams.

The report showed that six out of ten Registrars are working rosters that place them at significant or higher risk of fatigue compared to the average of five out of ten hospital based doctors.

“Public hospitals need to strike a better balance to provide a quality training environment that recognises the benefits that a safe working environment and teaching and training can bring to quality patient care,” said Dr John Zorbas, Chair of the AMA Council of Doctors in Training.

“The audit suggests that six out of ten Registrars are working shifts and rosters that put them at risk of fatigue. The number of Interns and RMOs working at high risk of fatigue has also increased by 11 per cent compared with the 2011 report.

“Public hospitals in conjunction with medical colleges need to urgently review training and service requirements and implement rostering arrangements and work conditions that create safe work environments and provide for high quality patient care.

“This could include improving access to suitable rest facilities or making sure doctors have access to sufficient breaks when working long shifts.

“The AMA’s National Code of Practice – Hours of Work, Shiftwork and Rostering for Hospital Doctors provides advice on best practice rostering and work arrangements. We’d encourage every hospital to look at this and adopt it as best practice to provide safe, high quality patient care and a safe working environment for all doctors.”

While the profile of doctors working longer hours has decreased across medical disciplines since the AMA’s first survey in 2001, many procedural specialists are still working long hours with fewer breaks.

Three out of four Intensivists (75 per cent) and Surgeons (73 per cent) reported to work rosters that place them at significant and higher risk of fatigue, significantly more than the 53 per cent reported by all doctors.

Further, there is evidence that extreme rostering practices remain with shifts of up to 76 hours and working weeks of 118 hours reported amongst doctors at higher risk of fatigue.

The 2016 Audit confirms that doctors at higher risk of fatigue typically work longer hours, longer shifts, have more days on call, fewer days off and are more likely to skip a meal break.

These are red flags that public hospitals need to urgently address in their rostering arrangements.

The 2016 AMA Safe Hours Audit Report is at: article/2016-ama-safe-hours-audit

The AMA’s National Code of Practice – Hours of Work, Shiftwork and Rostering for Hospital Doctors is at: article/national-code-practice-hours-work-shiftwork-and-rostering-hospital-doctors

CHRIS JOHNSON

 

 

[Department of Error] Department of Error

Jaffe S. Judith Bradford: a pioneer of research on LGBT health. Lancet 2016; 387: 1048—In this Profile, the fourth sentence of the fourth paragraph should have ended “from 1984–85”. This correction has been made to the online version as of July 6, 2017.

[Correspondence] The dilemmas of the European Union’s open access to data policy

European, Arab, and Turkish researchers worked for 2 years on research in six southern and eastern Mediterranean countries, funded by the European Union’s (EU’s) Seventh Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development. This project allowed researchers from these countries to explore and analyse their peoples’ situation in times of turbulent changes. It also created potential collaboration within various research teams and between researchers and their European counterparts in these six countries.

[Correspondence] Response to what WHO can do to support research in LMICs

José M Belizán and Suellen Miller1 (April 29, p 1697) described what the WHO could do to support research in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) with an emphasis on better use of evidence in policy development. WHO established the Evidence-Informed Policy Network (EVIPNet)2,3 in 25 LMICs in Africa, Asia, and Latin America with the main goal of bridging the gap between research and policy. EVIPNet teams, composed of researchers, policy makers, and civil society, facilitate access and synthesis of evidence, develop policy options, and organise discussions between stakeholders—in which individuals can speak openly without fear of retribution—to build trust and improve communication.

[Correspondence] Patients’ decisions on joint replacement need data on earnings and welfare benefits

The study by Lee Bayliss and colleagues1 (Feb 13, p 1424) provides useful prognostic evidence of the lifetime risks of joint revision. After hip or knee replacement, the revision rate is 5% for men and women older than 70 years, but as high as 35% for men in their early 50s.1 But the risk of revision needs to be weighed against the potential gains from remaining in work and continued earnings. Research is needed to help patients decide and in theory, this research is possible in England. It requires use of the National Health Service (NHS) resource, NHS Digital, to enable linkage between NHS data and data on benefits and earnings held by the Department for Work and Pensions and Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs.

Vaping doesn’t lead to quitting

The AMA believes that there is currently no compelling evidence that e-cigarettes are successful in helping people to stop smoking, and they should remain subject to strong regulation in Australia.

In its submission to the Standing Committee on Health, Aged Care and Sport Inquiry into the Use and Marketing of Electronic Cigarettes and Personal Vaporisers in Australia, the AMA says that the tobacco industry is aggressively pursuing the potential of new products, including e-cigarettes, which can either maintain or establish a nicotine addiction in users.

AMA President Dr Michael Gannon said the growth in e-cigarette products internationally has provided sections of the tobacco industry with the opportunity to rebrand themselves as part of the effort to reduce smoking – but there is no evidence that e-cigarettes work as a deterrent.

“Smoking causes cancer and smoking kills people,” Dr Gannon said.

“Australia is a world leader in tobacco control, and we must remain a world leader in stopping people smoking or taking up smoking for the first time.

“We must not allow e-cigarettes to become a socially acceptable alternative to smoking.

“E-cigarettes essentially mimic or normalise the act of smoking. They can result in some smokers delaying their decision to quit, and they can send signals to children and young people that it is okay to smoke.

“E-cigarettes and related products should only be available to people over 18 years of age. The marketing and advertising of e-cigarettes should be subject to the same restrictions as cigarettes.

“And, importantly, e-cigarettes must not be allowed to be marketed with claims that they are a smoking cessation aid. There is no such evidence.

“Australian authorities have not been able to establish any proof that e-cigarettes are safe or effective in stopping people smoking.”

Dr Gannon said that longitudinal research being conducted by the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) into the safety or otherwise of e-cigarettes is ongoing and will take time.

“Until we see comprehensive clinical reports from the NHMRC on the safety or non-safety of e-cigarettes, we must continue to treat these products with extreme caution,” Dr Gannon said.

The AMA submission is available at submission/ama-submission-standing-committee-health-aged-care-and-sport-inquiry-use-and-marketing

JOHN FLANNERY