ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are a serious environmental issue. The healthcare sector is an important emitter of GHGs. Our aim was to assess the environmental cost of teleconsultations in urology compared to face-to-face consultations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Prospective study of all patients who had a remote teleconsultation over a 2-week period during COVID-19 pandemic. Main outcome was the reduction in CO2e emissions related to teleconsultation compared to face-to-face consultation and was calculated as: total teleconsultation CO2e emissions-total face-to-face consultation CO2e emissions. Secondary outcome measures were the reduction in travel distance and travel time related to teleconsultation. RESULTS: Eighty patients were included. Face-to-face consultations would have resulted in 6699km (4162 miles) of travel (83.7km (52 miles) per patient). Cars were the usual means of transport. CO2e avoided due to lack of travel was calculated at 1.1 tonnes. Teleconsultation was responsible for 1.1kg CO2e while face-to-face consultation emitted 0.5kg of CO2e. Overall, the total reduction in GHGs with teleconsultation was 1141kg CO2e, representing a 99% decrease in emissions. Total savings on transport were 974 and savings on travel time were 112h (1.4h/patient). CONCLUSIONS: Teleconsultation reduces the environmental impact of face-to-face consultations. The use of teleconsultation in our urology departments resulted in the avoidance of more than 6000km of travel, equivalent to a reduction of 1.1 tonnes of CO2e. Teleconsultation should be considered for specific indications as the healthcare system attempts to become greener. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.
