RESUMO
BACKGROUND: The healthcare industry is a major contributor to greenhouse gas emissions. Within the hospital, operating rooms are responsible for the largest proportion of emissions due to high resource utilization and waste generation. Our aim was to generate estimates of greenhouse gas emissions avoided and cost implications following implementation of a recycling program across operating rooms at our freestanding children's hospital. METHODS: Data were collected from three commonly performed pediatric surgical procedures: circumcision, laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair, and laparoscopic gastrostomy tube placement. Five cases of each procedure were observed. Recyclable paper and plastic waste was weighed. Emission equivalencies were determined using the Environmental Protection Agency Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator. Institutional cost of waste disposal was $66.25 United States Dollars (USD)/ton for recyclable waste and $67.00 USD/ton for solid waste. RESULTS: The proportion of recyclable waste ranged from 23.3% for circumcision to 29.5% for laparoscopic gastrostomy tube placement. The amount of waste redirected from landfill to a recycling stream could result in annual avoidance of 58,500 to 91,500 kg carbon dioxide equivalent emissions, or 6583 to 10,296 gallons of gasoline. Establishing a recycling program would not require additional cost and could lead to modest cost savings (range $15 to 24 USD/year). CONCLUSIONS: Incorporation of recycling into operating rooms has the potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions without increased cost. Clinicians and hospital administrators should consider operating room recycling programs as they work towards improved environmental stewardship. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level VI - evidence form a single descriptive or qualitative study.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Operating rooms are major contributors to a hospital's carbon footprint due to the large volumes of resources consumed and waste produced. The objective of this study was to identify quality improvement initiatives that aimed to reduce the environmental impact of the operating room while decreasing costs. STUDY DESIGN: A literature search was performed using PubMed, Scopus, CINAHL, and Google Scholar and included broad terms for "operating room," "costs," and "environment" or "sustainability." The "triple bottom line" framework, which considers the environmental, financial, and social impacts of interventions to guide decision making, was used to inform data extraction. The studies were then categorized using the 5 "Rs" of sustainability-refuse, reduce, reuse, repurpose, and recycle-and the impacts were discussed using the triple bottom line framework. RESULTS: A total of 23 unique quality improvement initiatives describing 28 interventions were included. Interventions were categorized as "refuse" (n = 11; 39.3%), "reduce" (n = 8; 28.6%), "reuse" (n = 3; 10.7%), and "recycle" (n = 6; 21.4%). While methods of measuring environmental impact and cost savings varied greatly among studies, potential annual cost savings ranged from $873 (intervention: education on diverting recyclable materials from sharps containers; environmental impact: 11.4 kg sharps waste diverted per month) to $694,141 (intervention: education to reduce regulated medical waste; environmental impact: 30% reduction in regulated medical waste). CONCLUSIONS: Quality improvement initiatives that reduce both cost and environmental impact have been successfully implemented across a variety of centers both nationally and globally. Surgeons, healthcare practitioners, and administrators interested in environmental stewardship and working toward a culture of sustainability may consider similar interventions in their institutions.