Quantification of the environmental impact of radiotherapy and associated secondary human health effects: a multi-institutional retrospective analysis and simulation.

BACKGROUND: The health-care industry is a substantial contributor to global greenhouse gas emissions, yet the specific environmental impact of radiotherapy, a cornerstone of cancer treatment, remains under-explored. We aimed to quantify the emissions associated with the delivery of radiotherapy in the USA and propose a framework for reducing the environmental impact of oncology care. METHODS: In this multi-institutional retrospective analysis and simulation study, we conducted a lifecycle assessment of external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) for ten anatomical disease sites, adhering to the International Organization for Standardization's standards ISO 14040 and ISO 14044. We analysed retrospective data from Jan 1, 2017, to Oct 1, 2023, encompassing patient and staff travel, medical supplies, and equipment and building energy use associated with the use of EBRT at four academic institutions in the USA. The primary objective was to measure the environmental impacts across ten categories: greenhouse gases (expressed as kg of carbon dioxide equivalents [CO2e]), ozone depletion, smog formation, acidification, eutrophication, carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic potential, respiratory effects, fossil fuel depletion, and ecotoxicity. Human health effects secondary to these environmental impacts were also estimated as disability-adjusted life years. We also assessed the potential benefits of hypofractionated regimens for breast and genitourinary (ie, prostate and bladder) cancers on US greenhouse gas emissions using an analytic model based on the 2014 US National Cancer Database for fractionation patterns and patient commute distances. FINDINGS: We estimated that the mean greenhouse gas emissions associated with a standard 25-fraction EBRT course were 4310 kg CO2e (SD 2910), which corresponded to 0·0035 disability-adjusted life years per treatment course. Transit and building energy usage accounted for 25·73% (1110 kg CO2e) and 73·95% of (3190 kg CO2e) of total greenhouse gas emissions, respectively, whereas supplies contributed only 0·32% (14 kg CO2e). Across the other environmental impact categories, most of the environmental impact also stemmed from patient transit and energy use within facilities, with little environmental impact contributed by supplies used. Hypofractionated treatment simulations suggested a substantial reduction in greenhouse gas emissions-by up to 42% for breast and 77% for genitourinary cancer-and environmental impacts more broadly. INTERPRETATION: This comprehensive lifecycle assessment of EBRT delineates the environmental and secondary health impacts of radiotherapy, and underscores the urgent need for sustainable practices in oncology. The findings serve as a reference for future decarbonisation efforts in cancer care and show the potential environmental benefits of modifying treatment protocols (when clinical equipoise exists). They also highlight strategic opportunities to mitigate the ecological footprint in an era of escalating climate change and increasing cancer prevalence. FUNDING: Mount Zion Health Fund.

A Life Cycle Assessment of Reusable and Disposable Surgical Caps.

INTRODUCTION: Surgical cap attire plays an important role in creating a safe and sterile environment in procedural suites, thus the choice of reusable versus disposable caps has become an issue of much debate. Given the lack of evidence for differences in surgical site infection (SSI) risk between the two, selecting the cap option with a lower carbon footprint may reduce the environmental impact of surgical procedures. However, many institutions continue to recommend the use of disposable bouffant caps. METHODS: ISO-14044 guidelines were used to complete a process-based life cycle assessment to compare the environmental impact of disposable bouffant caps and reusable cotton caps, specifically focusing on CO2 equivalent (CO2e) emissions, water use and health impacts. RESULTS: Reusable cotton caps reduced CO2e emissions by 79% when compared to disposable bouffant caps (10 kg versus 49 kg CO2e) under the base model scenario with a similar reduction seen in disability-adjusted life years. However, cotton caps were found to be more water intensive than bouffant caps (67.56 L versus 12.66 L) with the majority of water use secondary to production or manufacturing. CONCLUSIONS: Reusable cotton caps have lower total lifetime CO2e emissions compared to disposable bouffant caps across multiple use scenarios. Given the lack of evidence suggesting a superior choice for surgical site infection prevention, guidelines should recommend reusable cotton caps to reduce the environmental impact of surgical procedures.

The Environmental Impacts of Electronic Medical Records Versus Paper Records at a Large Eye Hospital in India: Life Cycle Assessment Study.

BACKGROUND: Health care providers worldwide are rapidly adopting electronic medical record (EMR) systems, replacing paper record-keeping systems. Despite numerous benefits to EMRs, the environmental emissions associated with medical record-keeping are unknown. Given the need for urgent climate action, understanding the carbon footprint of EMRs will assist in decarbonizing their adoption and use. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to estimate and compare the environmental emissions associated with paper medical record-keeping and its replacement EMR system at a high-volume eye care facility in southern India. METHODS: We conducted the life cycle assessment methodology per the ISO (International Organization for Standardization) 14040 standard, with primary data supplied by the eye care facility. Data on the paper record-keeping system include the production, use, and disposal of paper and writing utensils in 2016. The EMR system was adopted at this location in 2018. Data on the EMR system include the allocated production and disposal of capital equipment (such as computers and routers); the production, use, and disposal of consumable goods like paper and writing utensils; and the electricity required to run the EMR system. We excluded built infrastructure and cooling loads (eg. buildings and ventilation) from both systems. We used sensitivity analyses to model the effects of practice variation and data uncertainty and Monte Carlo assessments to statistically compare the 2 systems, with and without renewable electricity sources. RESULTS: This location's EMR system was found to emit substantially more greenhouse gases (GHGs) than their paper medical record system (195,000 kg carbon dioxide equivalents [CO2e] per year or 0.361 kg CO2e per patient visit compared with 20,800 kg CO2e per year or 0.037 kg CO2e per patient). However, sensitivity analyses show that the effect of electricity sources is a major factor in determining which record-keeping system emits fewer GHGs. If the study hospital sourced all electricity from renewable sources such as solar or wind power rather than the Indian electric grid, their EMR emissions would drop to 24,900 kg CO2e (0.046 kg CO2e per patient), a level comparable to the paper record-keeping system. Energy-efficient EMR equipment (such as computers and monitors) is the next largest factor impacting emissions, followed by equipment life spans. Multimedia Appendix 1 includes other emissions impact categories. CONCLUSIONS: The climate-changing emissions associated with an EMR system are heavily dependent on the sources of electricity. With a decarbonized electricity source, the EMR system's GHG emissions are on par with paper medical record-keeping, and decarbonized grids would likely have a much broader benefit to society. Though we found that the EMR system produced more emissions than a paper record-keeping system, this study does not account for potential expanded environmental gains from EMRs, including expanding access to care while reducing patient travel and operational efficiencies that can reduce unnecessary or redundant care.

Sustainability in the IVF laboratory: recommendations of an expert panel.

The healthcare industry is a major contributor to greenhouse gas emissions. Assisted reproductive technology is part of the larger healthcare sector, with its own heavy carbon footprint. The social, economic and environmental costs of this collective carbon footprint are becoming clearer, as is the impact on human reproductive health. Alpha Scientists in Reproductive Medicine and the International IVF Initiative collaborated to seek and formulate practical recommendations for sustainability in IVF laboratories. An international panel of experts, enthusiasts and professionals in reproductive medicine, environmental science, architecture, biorepository and law convened to discuss the topics of importance to sustainability. Recommendations were issued on how to build a culture of sustainability in the workplace, implement green design and building, use life cycle analysis to determine the environmental impact, manage cryostorage more sustainably, and understand and manage laboratory waste with prevention as a primary goal. The panel explored whether the industry supporting IVF is sustainable. An example is provided to illustrate the application of green principles to an IVF laboratory through a certification programme. The UK legislative landscape surrounding sustainability is also discussed and a few recommendations on 'Green Conferencing' are offered.

Telemedicine and the environment: life cycle environmental emissions from in-person and virtual clinic visits.

Concern over climate change is growing in the healthcare space, and telemedicine has been rapidly expanding since the start of the COVID19 pandemic. Understanding the various sources of environmental emissions from clinic visits-both virtual and in-person-will help create a more sustainable healthcare system. This study uses a Life Cycle Assessment with retrospective clinical data from Stanford Health Care (SHC) in 2019-2021 to determine the environmental emissions associated with in-person and virtual clinic visits. SHC saw 13% increase in clinic visits, but due to the rise in telemedicine services, the Greenhouse Gas emissions (GHGs) from these visits decreased 36% between 2019 and 2021. Telemedicine (phone and video appointments) helped SHC avoid approximately 17,000 metric tons of GHGs in 2021. Some departments, such as psychiatry and cancer achieved greater GHG reductions, as they were able to perform more virtual visits. Telemedicine is an important component for the reduction of GHGs in healthcare systems; however, telemedicine cannot replace every clinic visit and proper triaging and tracking systems should be in place to avoid duplicative care.

Evaluating the Environmental Impact of Radiation Therapy Using Life Cycle Assessments: A Critical Review.

Concurrent increases in global cancer burden and the climate crisis pose an unprecedented threat to public health and human well-being. Today, the health care sector greatly contributes to greenhouse gas emissions, with the future demand for health care services expected to rise. Life cycle assessment (LCA) is an internationally standardized tool that analyzes the inputs and outputs of products, processes, and systems to quantify associated environmental impacts. This critical review explains the use of LCA methodology and outlines its application to external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) with the aim of providing a robust methodology to quantify the environmental impact of radiation therapy care practices today. The steps of an LCA are outlined and explained as defined by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO 14040 and 14044) guidelines: (1) definition of the goal and scope of the LCA, (2) inventory analysis, (3) impact assessment, and (4) interpretation. The existing LCA framework and its methodology is described and applied to the field of radiation oncology. The goal and scope of its application to EBRT is the evaluation of the environmental impact of a single EBRT treatment course within a radiation oncology department. The methodology for data collection via mapping of the resources used (inputs) and the end-of-life processes (outputs) associated with EBRT is explained, with subsequent explanation of the LCA analysis steps. Finally, the importance of appropriate sensitivity analysis and the interpretations that can be drawn from LCA results are reviewed. This critical review of LCA protocol provides and evaluates a methodological framework to scientifically establish baseline environmental performance measurements within a health care setting and assists in identifying targets for emissions mitigation. Future LCAs in the field of radiation oncology and across medical specialties will be crucial in informing best practices for equitable and sustainable care in a changing climate.

How Ophthalmologists Can Decarbonize Eye Care: A Review of Existing Sustainability Strategies and Steps Ophthalmologists Can Take.

TOPIC: Understanding approaches to sustainability in cataract surgery and their risks and benefits. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: In the United States, health care is responsible for approximately 8.5% of greenhouse gas (GHG), and cataract surgery is one of the most commonly performed surgical procedures. Ophthalmologists can contribute to reducing GHG emissions, which lead to a steadily increasing list of health concerns ranging from trauma to food instability. METHODS: We conducted a literature review to identify the benefits and risks of sustainability interventions. We then organized these interventions into a decision tree for use by individual surgeons. RESULTS: Identified sustainability interventions fall into the domains of advocacy and education, pharmaceuticals, process, and supplies and waste. Existing literature shows certain interventions may be safe, cost-effective, and environmentally friendly. These include dispensing medications at home to patients after surgery, multi-dosing appropriate medications, training staff to properly sort medical waste, reducing the number of supplies used during surgery, and implementing immediate sequential bilateral cataract surgery where clinically appropriate. The literature was lacking on the benefits or risks for some interventions, such as switching specific single-use supplies to reusables or implementing a hub-and-spoke-style operating room setup. Many of the advocacy and education interventions have inadequate literature specific to ophthalmology but are likely to have minimal risks. CONCLUSIONS: Ophthalmologists can engage in a variety of safe and effective approaches to reduce or eliminate dangerous GHG emissions associated with cataract surgery. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE(S): Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found after the references.

Conservation Practices for Personal Protective Equipment: A Systematic Review with Focus on Lower-Income Countries.

During the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, shortages of personal protective equipment (PPE) necessitated unprecedented and non-validated approaches to conserve PPE at healthcare facilities, especially in high income countries where single-use disposable PPE was ubiquitous. Our team conducted a systematic literature review to evaluate historic approaches for conserving single-use PPE, expecting that lower-income countries or developing contexts may already be uniquely conserving PPE. However, of the 50 included studies, only 3 originated from middle-income countries and none originated from low-income countries. Data from the included studies suggest PPE remained effective with extended use and with multiple or repeated use in clinical settings, as long as donning and doffing were performed in a standard manner. Multiple decontamination techniques were effective in disinfecting single use PPE for repeated use. These findings can inform healthcare facilities and providers in establishing protocols for safe conservation of PPE supplies and updating existing protocols to improve sustainability and overall resilience. Future studies should evaluate conservation practices in low-resource settings during non-pandemic times to develop strategies for more sustainable and resilient healthcare worldwide.

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.

Waste audits in healthcare: A systematic review and description of best practices.

Healthcare generates large amounts of waste, harming both environmental and human health. Waste audits are the standard method for measuring and characterizing waste. This is a systematic review of healthcare waste audits, describing their methods and informing more standardized auditing and reporting. Using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, we searched MEDLINE, Embase, Inspec, Scopus and Web of Science Core Collection databases for published studies involving direct measurement of waste in medical facilities. We screened 2398 studies, identifying 156 studies for inclusion from 37 countries. Most were conducted to improve local waste sorting policies or practices, with fewer to inform policy development, increase waste diversion or reduce costs. Measurement was quantified mostly by weighing waste, with many also counting items or using interviews or surveys to compile data. Studies spanned single procedures, departments and hospitals, and multiple hospitals or health systems. Waste categories varied, with most including municipal solid waste or biohazardous waste, and others including sharps, recycling and other wastes. There were significant differences in methods and results between high- and low-income countries. The number of healthcare waste audits published has been increasing, with variable quality and general methodologic inconsistency. A greater emphasis on consistent performance and reporting standards would improve the quality, comparability and usefulness of healthcare waste audits.

Sustainable Purchasing Practices: A Comparison of Single-use and Reusable Pulse Oximeters in the Emergency Department.

Background: Delivering healthcare requires significant resources and creates waste that pollutes the environment, contributes to the climate crisis, and harms human health. Prior studies have generally shown durable, reusable medical devices to be environmentally superior to disposables, but this has not been investigated for pulse oximetry probes. Objective: Our goal was to compare the daily carbon footprint of single-use and reusable pulse oximeters in the emergency department (ED). Methods: Using a Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), we analyzed greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from pulse oximeter use in an urban, tertiary care ED, that sees approximately 150 patients per day. Low (387 uses), moderate (474 uses), and high use (561 uses), as well as cleaning scenarios, were modelled for the reusable oximeters and compared to the daily use of single-use oximeters (150 uses). We calculated GHG emissions, measured in kilograms of carbon dioxide equivalents (kgCO2e), across all life cycle stages using life-cycle assessment software and the ecoinvent database. We also carried out an uncertainty analysis using Monte Carlo methodology and calculated the break-even point for reusable oximeters. Results: Per day of use, reusable oximeters produced fewer greenhouse gases in low-, moderate-, and high-use scenarios compared to disposable oximeters: 3.9 kgCO2e, 4.9 kgCO2e, 5.7 kgCO2e vs 23.4 kgCO2e, respectively). An uncertainty analysis showed there was no overlap in emissions, and a sensitivity analysis found reusable oximeters only need to be used 2.3 times before they match the emissions created by a single disposable oximeter. Use phases associated with the greatest emissions varied between oximeters, with the cleaning phase of reusables responsible for the majority of its GHG emissions (99%) compared to the production phases of the single-use oximeter (74%). Conclusion: Reusable pulse oximeters generated fewer greenhouse gas emissions per day of use than their disposable counterparts. Given that the pulse oximeter is an ubiquitous piece of medical equipment used in emergency care globally, carbon emissions could be significantly reduced if EDs used reusable rather than single-use, disposable oximeters.

Life Cycle Assessment in Orthopedics.

Covid-19 has led to an increase in the use of PPE, gowns, masks, sanitizers, air circulators, and much more, all contributing to an increase in medical waste. Waste generation is one issue. Emissions are another. The two are linked because waste and emissions are both indicators of consumption. However, waste is not the biggest driver of environmental emissions for healthcare. It is the production of medical equipment, particularly disposables that have a bigger impact. Energy use during care, including heating and cooling our facilities, is another. Environmental emissions like greenhouse gases may not correlate with waste generation, especially if the waste is plastic. Carbon is stored in plastic. Unless you're burning plastic, you're not emitting carbon. Healthcare has a waste issue and healthcare has an emissions issue. They are not necessarily the same thing, however, the strategies to mitigate each overlap. Life cycle assessment quantifies emissions from the creation to disposal of medical supplies. This allows the medical community to make informed choices with respect to the methods and materials that are used in providing care. As other specialties take the lead in reducing their environmental footprint, so too, must orthopedic surgery.

Addressing the environmental sustainability of eye health-care delivery: a scoping review.

The demand for eye care-the most common medical speciality in some countries-is increasing globally due to both demographic change and the development of eye health-care services in low-income and middle-income countries. This expansion of service provision needs to be environmentally sustainable. We conducted a scoping review to establish the nature and extent of the literature describing the environmental costs of delivering eye-care services, identify interventions to diminish the environmental impact of eye care, and identify key sustainability themes that are not yet being addressed. We identified 16 peer-reviewed articles for analysis, all published since 2009. Despite a paucity of research evidence, there is a need for the measurement of environmental impacts associated with eye care to be standardised along with the methodological tools to assess these impacts. The vastly different environmental costs of delivering clinical services with similar clinical outcomes in different regulatory settings is striking; in one example, a phacoemulsification cataract extraction in a UK hospital produced more than 20 times the greenhouse gas emission of the same procedure in an Indian hospital. The environmental costs must be systematically included when evaluating the risks and benefits of new interventions or policies aimed at promoting safety in high-income countries.

Identifying high-value care for Medicare beneficiaries: a cross-sectional study of acute care hospitals in the USA.

OBJECTIVES: High-value care is providing high quality care at low cost; we sought to define hospital value and identify the characteristics of hospitals which provide high-value care. DESIGN: Retrospective observational study. SETTING: Acute care hospitals in the USA. PARTICIPANTS: All Medicare beneficiaries with claims included in Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services Overall Star Ratings or in publicly available Medicare spending per beneficiary data. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Our primary outcome was value defined as the difference between Star Ratings quality score and Medicare spending; the secondary outcome was classification as a 4 or 5 star hospital with lowest quintile Medicare spending ('high value') or 1 or 2 star hospital with highest quintile spending ('low value'). RESULTS: Two thousand nine hundred and fourteen hospitals had both quality and spending data, and were included. The value score had a mean (SD) of 0.58 (1.79). A total of 286 hospitals were classified as high value; these represented 28.6% of 999 4 and 5 star hospitals and 46.8% of 611 low cost hospitals. A total of 258 hospitals were classified as low value; these represented 26.6% of 970 1 and 2 star hospitals and 49.3% of 523 high cost hospitals. In regression models ownership, non-teaching status, beds, urbanity, nurse to bed ratio, percentage of dual eligible Medicare patients and percentage of disproportionate share hospital payments were associated with the primary value score. CONCLUSIONS: There are high quality hospitals that are not high value, and a number of factors are strongly associated with being low or high value. These findings can inform efforts of policymakers and hospitals to increase the value of care.