Improving sustainability and mitigating the environmental impacts of anaesthesia and surgery: a narrative review.

Climate change, environmental degradation, and biodiversity loss are adversely affecting human health and exacerbating existing inequities, intensifying pressures on already strained health systems. Paradoxically, healthcare is a high-polluting industry, responsible for 4.6% of global greenhouse gas emissions and a similar proportion of air pollutants. Perioperative services are among the most resource-intensive healthcare services and are responsible for some unique pollutants. Opportunities exist to mitigate pollution throughout the entire continuum of perioperative care, including those that occur upstream of the operating room in the process of patient selection and optimisation, delivery of anaesthesia and surgery, and the postoperative recovery period. Within a patient-centred, holistic approach, clinicians can advocate for healthy public policies that modify the determinants of surgical illness, can engage in shared decision-making to ensure appropriate clinical decisions, and can be stewards of healthcare resources. Innovation and collaboration are required to redesign clinical care pathways and processes, optimise logistical systems, and address facility emissions. The results will extend beyond the reduction of public health damages from healthcare pollution to the provision of higher value, higher quality, patient-centred care.

Measuring environmentally sustainable health care: a scoping review.

Work to reduce environmental pollution from the health system is hampered by an absence of consensus on the definition of environmentally sustainable health care and the relevant measurement needed. This scoping review aims to encourage standardisation across sustainability efforts by examining how environmentally sustainable health care is defined and measured in current literature. We conducted a scoping review to identify candidate publications that included either a definition or description of environmentally sustainable health care or a measurement of the impact of health care on the environment. 328 publications were included in the final analysis. 52 publications included definitions or descriptions of environmentally sustainable health care. Results of the study highlight the heterogeneity in the current definition, measurement, and measurement calculation methods of environmentally sustainable health care in published literature. Work is needed to create more harmonised definitions and measurement to support progress and reduce environmental pollution from health care.

Guiding principles for the next generation of health-care sustainability metrics.

Metrics for health-care sustainability are crucial for tracking progress and understanding the advantages of different operations or systems as the health-care sector addresses the climate crisis and other environmental challenges. Measurement of the key metrics of absolute energy use and greenhouse gas emissions now has substantial momentum, but our overall measurement framework generally has serious deficiencies. Because existing metrics are often borrowed from other sectors, many are unconnected to the specifics of health-care provision or existing health system performance indicators, the potential negative effects of health care on public health are largely absent, a consistent and standardised set of health-care sustainability measurement concepts does not yet exist, and current dynamics in health systems such as privatisation are largely ignored. The next generation of health-care sustainability metrics must address these deficiencies by expanding the scope of observation and the entry points for interventions. Specifically, metrics should be standardised, reliable, meaningful, integrated with data management systems, fair, and aligned with the core mission of health care. Incentives with the potential to contradict sustainability goals must be addressed in future planning and implementation if the next generation of metrics is to be effective and incentivise positive systemic change.

Environmental Impact of a Direct Laryngoscopy: Opportunities for Pollution Mitigation.

OBJECTIVE: To quantify the environmental impact of standard direct laryngoscopy surgery and model the environmental benefit of three feasible alternative scenarios that meet safe decontamination reprocessing requirements. STUDY DESIGN: This is a life cycle assessment (LCA) modeling study. SETTING: Yale-New Haven Hospital (YNHH), a 1541-bed tertiary medical center in New Haven, Connecticut, USA. METHODS: We performed cradle-to-grave LCA of DLS at Yale New Haven Hospital in 2022, including global warming potential (GWP), water consumption, and fine particulate matter formation. Three alternative scenarios were modeled: disinfecting surgical tools using high-level disinfection rather than steam sterilization, substituting non-sterile for sterile gloves and gowns; and reducing surgical towel and drape sizes by 30%. RESULTS: Changes in disinfection practices would decrease procedure GWP by 11% in each environmental impact category. Substituting non-sterile gowns and gloves reduced GWP by 15%, with nominal changes to water consumption. Linen size reduction resulted in 28% less procedure-related water consumption. Together, a nearly 30% reduction across all environmental impact categories could be achieved. CONCLUSIONS: Not exceeding minimum Center for Disease Control (CDC) decontamination standards for reusable devices and optimizing non-sterile consumable materials could dramatically reduce healthcare-associated emissions without compromising safety, thereby minimizing the negative consequences of hospital operations to environmental and human health. Findings extend to other non-sterile surgical procedures. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: NA Laryngoscope, 134:3206-3214, 2024.

Environmental and financial impacts of perioperative paracetamol use: a multicentre international life-cycle analysis.

BACKGROUND: Pharmaceuticals account for 19-32% of healthcare greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Paracetamol is a common perioperative analgesic agent. We estimated GHG emissions associated with i.v. and oral formulations of paracetamol used in the perioperative period. METHODS: Life-cycle assessment of GHG emissions (expressed as carbon dioxide equivalents CO2e) of i.v. and oral paracetamol preparations was performed. Perioperative paracetamol prescribing practices and costs for 26 hospitals in USA, UK, and Australia were retrospectively audited. For those surgical patients for whom oral formulations were indicated, CO2e and costs of actual prescribing practices for i.v. or oral doses were compared with optimal oral prescribing. RESULTS: The carbon footprint for a 1 g dose was 38 g CO2e (oral tablet), 151 g CO2e (oral liquid), and 310-628 g CO2e (i.v. dependent on type of packaging and administration supplies). Of the eligible USA patients, 37% received paracetamol (67% was i.v.). Of the eligible UK patients, 85% received paracetamol (80% was i.v.). Of the eligible Australian patients, 66% received paracetamol (70% was i.v.). If the emissions mitigation opportunity from substituting oral tablets for i.v. paracetamol is extrapolated to USA, UK, and Australia elective surgical encounters in 2019, ∼5.7 kt CO2e could have been avoided and would save 98.3% of financial costs. CONCLUSIONS: Intravenous paracetamol has 12-fold greater life-cycle carbon emissions than the oral tablet form. Glass vials have higher greenhouse gas emissions than plastic vials. Intravenous administration should be reserved for cases in which oral formulations are not feasible.

Derailing Carcinogens-Oncologists and the Ohio Train Derailment.

This Viewpoint discusses how oncologists can support environmental strategies to reduce dependence on petrochemicals, which are associated with cancer risk.

Infection Prevention, Planetary Health, and Single-Use Plastics.

Authors of this Viewpoint present actionable steps for regulatory, industry, and health care organization practices to accelerate reduction of single-use plastics and help protect planetary and human health.

Assessing the potential climate impact of anaesthetic gases.

There is increasing concern within the health-care community about the role care delivery plays in environmental degradation, sparking research into how to reduce pollution from clinical practice. Inhaled anaesthetics is a particular research area of interest for two reasons. First, several gases are potent greenhouse gases, and waste gas is mostly emitted directly to the environment. Second, there are options to reduce gas waste and substitute medications and procedures with fewer embodied emissions while delivering high-quality care. Performance improvements are contingent on a proper understanding of the emission estimates and climate metrics used to ensure consistent application in guiding mitigation strategies and accounting at various scales. We review the current literature on the environmental impact and the estimation of the potential climate forcing of common inhaled anaesthetic drugs: desflurane, sevoflurane, isoflurane, methoxyflurane, and nitrous oxide.

Learning to treat the climate emergency together: social tipping interventions by the health community.

Accelerating the decarbonisation of local and national economies is a profound public health imperative. As trusted voices within communities around the world, health professionals and health organisations have enormous potential to influence the social and policy landscape in support of decarbonisation. We assembled a multidisciplinary, gender-balanced group of experts from six continents to develop a framework for maximising the social and policy influence of the health community on decarbonisation at the micro levels, meso levels, and macro levels of society. We identify practical, learning-by-doing approaches and networks to implement this strategic framework. Collectively, the actions of health-care workers can shift practice, finance, and power in ways that can transform the public narrative and influence investment, activate socioeconomic tipping points, and catalyse the rapid decarbonisation needed to protect health and health systems.

Environmental Impact of Prostate Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Transrectal Ultrasound Guided Prostate Biopsy.

BACKGROUND: Reducing low-value clinical care is an important strategy to mitigate environmental pollution caused by health care. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the environmental impacts associated with prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and prostate biopsy. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We performed a cradle-to-grave life cycle assessment of prostate biopsy. Data included materials and energy inventory, patient and staff travel contributed by prostate MRI, transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy, and pathology analysis. We compared environmental emissions across five clinical scenarios: multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) of the prostate with targeted and systematic biopsies (baseline), mpMRI with targeted biopsy cores only, systematic biopsy without MRI, mpMRI with systematic biopsy, and biparametric MRI (bpMRI) with targeted and systematic biopsies. We estimated the environmental impacts associated with reducing the overall number and varying the approach of a prostate biopsy by using MRI as a triage strategy or by omitting MRI. The study involved academic medical centers in the USA, outpatient urology clinics, health care facilities, medical staff, and patients. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Greenhouse gas emissions (CO2 equivalents, CO2e), and equivalents of coal and gasoline burned were measured. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: In the USA, a single transrectal prostate biopsy procedure including prostate MRI, and targeted and systematic biopsies emits an estimated 80.7 kg CO2e. An approach of MRI targeted cores alone without a systematic biopsy generated 76.2 kg CO2e, a systematic 12-core biopsy without mpMRI generated 36.2 kg CO2e, and bpMRI with targeted and systematic biopsies generated 70.5 kg CO2e; mpMRI alone contributed 42.7 kg CO2e (54.3% of baseline scenario). Energy was the largest contributor, with an estimated 38.1 kg CO2e, followed by staff travel (20.7 kg CO2e) and supply production (11.4 kg CO2e). Performing 100 000 fewer unnecessary biopsies would avoid 8.1 million kg CO2e, the equivalent of 4.1 million liters of gasoline consumed. Per 100 000 patients, the use of prostate MRI to triage prostate biopsy and guide targeted biopsy cores would save the equivalent of 1.4 million kg of CO2 emissions, the equivalent of 700 000 l of gasoline consumed. This analysis was limited to prostate MRI and biopsy, and does not account for downstream clinical management. CONCLUSIONS: A prostate biopsy contributes a calculable environmental footprint. Modifying or reducing the number of biopsies performed through existing evidence-based approaches would decrease health care pollution from the procedure. PATIENT SUMMARY: We estimated that prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with a prostate biopsy procedure emits the equivalent of 80.7 kg of carbon dioxide. Performing fewer unnecessary prostate biopsies or using prostate MRI as a tool to decide which patients should have a prostate biopsy would reduce procedural greenhouse gas emissions and health care pollution.

Sustainable and Resilient Health Care in the Face of a Changing Climate.

Climate change is a threat multiplier, exacerbating underlying vulnerabilities, worsening human health, and disrupting health systems' abilities to deliver high-quality continuous care. This review synthesizes the evidence of what the health care sector can do to adapt to a changing climate while reducing its own climate impact, identifies barriers to change, and makes recommendations to achieve sustainable, resilient health care systems.

Development and validation of a model to calculate anesthetic agent consumption from inspired and end-expired concentrations, minute ventilation, fresh gas flow and dead space ventilation.

Anesthetic agent consumption is often calculated as the product of fresh gas flow (FGF) and vaporizer dial setting (FVAP). Because FVAP of conventional vaporizers is not registered in automated anesthesia records, retrospective agent consumption studies are hampered. The current study examines how FVAP can be retrospectively calculated from the agent's inspired (FIN) and end-expired concentration (FET), FGF, and minute ventilation (MV). Theoretical analysis of agent mass balances in the circle breathing reveals FVAP = [FIN - (dead space fraction * FIN + (1 - dead space fraction) * FET) * (1 - FGF/MV)]/(1-(1 - FGF/MV)). FIN, FET, FGF and MV are routinely monitored, but dead space fraction is unknown. Dead space fraction for sevoflurane, desflurane, and isoflurane was therefore determined empirically from an unpublished data set of 161 patient containing FVAP, FIN, FET, MV and FGF ranging from 0.25 to 8 L/min delivered via an ADU® (GE, Madison, WI, USA). Dead space fraction for each agent was determined empirically by having Excel's solver function calculate the value of dead space fraction that minimized the sum of the squared differences between dialed FVAP and predicted FVAP. With dead space fraction known, the model was then prospectively tested for sevoflurane in O2/air using data collected over the course of two weeks with one FLOW-i (Getinge, Solna, Sweden) and one Zeus workstation (Dräger, Lübeck, Germany). Because both workstations use an electronically controlled vaporizer/injector, the dialed FVAP were available to allow the calculation of median performance error (MDPE) and median absolute performance error (MDAPE). MDPE and MDAP are reported as median and interquartiles. The empirical dead space fraction for isoflurane, sevoflurane, and desflurane were 0.59, 0.49, and 0.66, respectively. For prospective testing, a total of 149.4 h of useful data were collected from 78 patient with the Zeus and Flow-i combined, with FGF ranging from 0.18 to 8 L/min. The model predicted dialed FVAP well, with a MDPE of -1 (-11, 6) % and MDAPE of 8 (4, 17) %. FVAP can be retrospectively calculated from FIN, FET, FGF, and MV plus an agent specific dead space fraction factor with a degree of error that we believe suffices for retrospective sevoflurane consumption analyses. Performance with other agents and N2O awaits further validation.

Stakeholder perspectives on scaling up medical device reprocessing: A qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: The United States health care sector is one of the largest polluting industries, which has significant adverse effects on human health. Medical device reprocessing (MDR) is a sustainability solution that has the potential to decrease hospital waste, cut carbon emissions, reduce spending, and improve supply chain resiliency; however, only a small proportion of FDA-approved devices are actually reprocessed. Thus, we conducted a qualitative study to understand barriers and facilitators of scaling up MDR. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We conducted in-depth interviews with 17 stakeholders (exceeding thematic saturation) at a large academic health system in New England and national MDR organizations. We also collected observations through site visits at the health system. We recruited participants from June 2021 to April 2022 through purposive sampling. Using an analytic approach guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research, we applied inductive and deductive codes related to key implementation constructs. We then conducted a thematic analysis and identified five overarching themes related to barriers and facilitators of MDR. First, respondents explained that regulatory bodies and original equipment manufacturers determine which devices can be reprocessed. For example, some respondents described that original equipment manufacturers use tactics of forced obsolescence that prevent their devices from being reprocessed. Second, respondents explained that MDR has variable compatibility with hospital priorities; for example, the potential cost savings of MDR is compatible with their priorities, while the perception of decreased functionality of reprocessed medical devices is incompatible. Third, respondents described that physician preferences influence which reprocessed devices get ordered. Fourth, respondents explained that variable staff knowledge and beliefs about MDR influence their motivations to select and collect reprocessable devices. Lastly, respondents emphasized that there was a lack of infrastructure for evaluating and maintaining MDR programs within their health system. CONCLUSIONS: Based on our findings, we have outlined a number of recommendations that target these barriers and facilitators so that the environmental and financial benefits of MDR can be realized at this health system and nationally. For example, implementing federal policies that prevent original equipment manufacturers from using tactics of forced obsolescence can facilitate the scale-up of MDR nationally. Additionally, providing life cycle assessments that compare the environmental effects of single-use disposable, reprocessable disposable, and reusable devices could facilitate health systems' purchasing decisions. Creating and disseminating audit and feedback reports to hospital staff might also facilitate their continued engagement in the program. Lastly, hiring a full-time program manager that leads MDR programs within health systems could improve program sustainability.

Air exchanges, climate change, and severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2): Results from a survey of the Society of Healthcare Epidemiology of America Research Network (SRN).

In this cross-sectional survey, we assessed knowledge, attitudes and behaviors regarding operating room air-change rates, climate change, and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic implications. Climate change and healthcare pollution were considered problematic. Respondents checked air exchange rates for COVID-19 and ∼25% increased them. Respondents had difficulty completing questions concerning hospital heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) systems.