Surgeon-Journal of the Royal Colleges of Surgeons of Edinburgh and Ireland最新文献

Background and purpose

Healthcare is responsible for 5.4% of greenhouse gas emissions in the UK. Emissions in surgery is a relatively unexplored area; in particular, this hasn't yet been looked at as a whole in ENT in the UK. The purpose of the study was to quantify the amount of greenhouse gas (GHG) emission from a tonsillectomy and assess the proportion of each source's contribution.

Methods

Operational data from tonsillectomies performed at a large university teaching hospital in the UK were gathered and converted to global warming potential using established conversion factors and data from existing healthcare-focused carbon footprint studies. The domains considered were waste, pharmaceuticals, surgical instrument decontamination, transportation, consumables use and utilities. This study used a process-based carbon footprint approach based on the “Greenhouse Gas Protocol: Product Life Cycle Accounting and Reporting Standard”.

Main findings

The carbon footprint of a typical case was 41 kgCO2e which is equivalent to driving a car for approximately 150 miles. Consumables were responsible for 17% of this; 14% came from transport, 5.4% from decontamination, 4.8% from pharmaceuticals and 4% from waste. However, the largest GHG was from utilities, of which heating, ventilation and air conditioning was the overwhelming contributor.

Conclusions

While the largest sources of GHG emissions require hospital-wide initiatives, there are aspects of consumables and waste streams we can improve on in ENT surgery. These include the use of disposable vs reusable instruments as well as increased availability and use of recycling waste streams in theatres. Additionally, this study provides a template that can be applied to other ENT procedures.

Introduction

Hospitals and the healthcare system contribute significantly to global warming, due to the energy use, water use and waste produce going directly to landfill. The operating theatre environment contributes to 70% of all hospital waste, and a proportion of this is due to unused surgical supplies, such as those stocked but never used as they go past their use-by date.

Aim

To evaluate how use-by dates are identified and assigned to surgical equipment, and if there are opportunities to re-use, or re-sterilise this equipment in order to reduce waste from the operating theatre environment.

Results

Use-by dates are assigned to ensure sterility and longevity of the device, and are assigned based on risk analysis, retrospective and prospective assessment. Incineration is the mainstay of disposal of unused medical devices, but there are alternative options such as re-processing in specific circumstances.

Conclusion

A large volume of hospital waste is due to operating theatres, and there is movement towards developing more sustainable methods of dealing with expired surgical equipment. This is however in the early stages, with further research required to confirm if these methods will be safe for patients, and beneficial to the environment.

Background

Total hip replacement (THR)is typically cemented, cementless or hybrid depending on patient factors and surgeon preference. To date no studies have evaluated waste generated with each of these procedures in relation to implant choice, and particularly waste related to consumables. We aimed to quantify the volume; type and ability to recycle this waste and suggest potential strategies for reducing the overall waste related to consumables in THR.

Method

This was a prospective review of all waste related to consumables in THR. The waste was weighed using a Salter 1066 BKDR15 scale, accurate to the nearest 1 ​g. The primary outcome was the amount of waste generated per case depending on implant choice (cemented vs. uncemented). Secondary outcomes included: proportion of clinical waste and proportion of recyclable waste.

Results

Cemented THR generated a total of 1.89 ​kg of waste compared to 775 ​g for an uncemented THR. Cemented THR generated significantly more sterile (hazardous) waste than uncemented THR both as overall volume and as a proportion 763 ​g (40%) vs 76 ​g (10%). Significantly more of the waste related to uncemented THR was amenable to being recycled through conventional waste streams with simple changes in theatre 672 ​g (86%) compared to 989 ​g (52%) with cemented THR. Between 20 and 30% of waste packaging for both types of surgery compromised information booklets.

Conclusion

Cemented hip replacement generates significantly more waste from consumables than uncemented and a greater amount of this waste is hazardous requiring intensive processing. For both implants a significant proportion of waste can be recycled with simple process changes in theatre. Industry partners have a responsibility to minimise unnecessary packaging and work with surgeons to improve sustainability.

Background

General anaesthesia is in common use for patients undergoing surgical procedures, with the option of both inhalational and intravenous anaesthetic techniques. Anaesthetic gases are often excluded from discussions on sustainable healthcare delivery, despite being a significant contributor to the overall environmental impact of healthcare services.

Methods

A literature review was carried out on previously published papers on the impact anaesthetic gases have on our environment and at ways to reduce their impact in current anaesthetic practice. The aim was to write a narrative review detailing the areas of concern as well as the current clinical situation in the European setting.

Summary/conclusions

The two classes of inhaled anaesthetic agent most frequently used are nitrous oxide and volatile agents (most commonly sevoflurane, isoflurane and desflurane). Both are recognised greenhouse gases that contribute to climate change.

Minor modifications in the use of anaesthetic gases can have a significant environmental impact. These modifications include avoiding nitrous oxide whenever possible, avoiding desflurane (and using sevoflurane instead), using low flow anaesthesia during maintenance, swapping volatile-based anaesthesia for a TIVA technique when clinically appropriate and considering the use of central neuraxial or regional anaesthesia in place of general anaesthesia when possible.

Introduction

Healthcare contributes significantly to carbon dioxide emissions, which can be reduced by promoting sustainable mobility amongst staff commuting. This study aims to investigate the national sustainable transport infrastructure for staff of healthcare facilities and utilise this data to develop a novel scoring and ranking system.

Methods

This was an empirical retrospective observational study. Data was collected on all 47 hospitals sustainable transport infrastructure. A working group calculated the weighted scores for each sustainable transport data point. These scores were used to calculate the Total and Active Sustainability Scores for each hospital, allowing a ranking to be formed.

Results

7 of 47 (15 %) hospitals had EV charging on campus. 17 of 47 (36 %) hospitals had secure bike parking. 2 of 47 (4 %) hospitals had a “bike hub”. 18 of 47 (38 %) hospitals had a bike lane. 13 of 22 (59 %) city hospitals had bike sharing facilities. 42 of 47 (89 %) hospitals had one public transport route. City hospitals ranked higher in both Total & Active Sustainability Scores.

Discussion

This study explored a new concept of measuring sustainable transport infrastructure. Frameworks examining sustainability are available, however, none allowed for ranking of hospitals. This study highlights the lack of both research in this field and sustainable transport infrastructure in hospitals.

The environmental impact of healthcare is an issue currently examined with increased scrutiny and on a global scale with multiple stakeholders seeking to identify the appropriate interventions to reduce it. Interestingly, a significant portion of healthcare's environmental impact stems from intensive modalities of treatment for chronic disease. There is no better example than End-Stage Renal Disease (ESRD), where dialysis or transplantation are the modalities of treatment offered to the vast majority of these patients. Kidney transplantation (KTx) offers a longer life expectancy and improved quality of life in comparison to dialysis. Cost-effectiveness analyses have proven its financial superiority, as well. PubMed and EMBASE literature search using keywords “kidney transplantation”, “carbon footprint”, “sustainability” showed that there is no published work in the field of environmental sustainability in kidney transplantation. Relevant literature was identified for surgical services and applied to transplantation. Assuming its environmental superiority to dialysis, maximising KTx rate would be an important action towards “green” renal care services. That could be achieved through living organ donation, systematic use of machine perfusion for extended criteria deceased donors and individualised immune risk stratification techniques. All these measures aim towards implementing enhanced recovery protocols and two vital steps can be taken towards assessing their value. The first step is a detailed audit of the environmental impact of these novel techniques and secondly their impact in reducing the length of hospital stay and its subsequent environmental impact. Another key element is delivering appropriate post-operative care, substituting allograft biopsy with non-invasive techniques and reducing physical outpatient follow-up, using telemedicine. The gap in quantifying KTx services environmental impact needs to be addressed urgently, with development of strategies within the multidisciplinary transplant team. Introducing novel technologies can lead to donor pool expansion and improved organ utilisation rates, transforming transplant services in “green” hubs.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion