Does reusable mean green? Comparison of the environmental impact of reusable operating room bed covers and lift sheets versus single-use.

INTRODUCTION: As hospitals strive to reduce their environmental footprint, there is an ongoing debate over the environmental implications of reusable versus disposable linens in operating rooms (ORs). This research aimed to compare the environmental impact of reusable versus single-use OR bed covers and lift sheets using life cycle assessment (LCA) methodology. METHODS: LCA is an established tool with rigorous methodology that uses science-based processes to measure environmental impact. This study compared the impacts of three independent system scenarios at a single large academic hospital: reusable bed covers with 50 laundry cycles and subsequent landfill disposal (System 1), single-use bed covers with waste landfill disposal (System 2), and single-use bed covers with waste disposal using incineration (System 3). RESULTS: The total carbon footprint of System 1 for 50 uses was 19.83 â€‹kg carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2-eq). System 2 generated 64.99 â€‹kg CO2-eq. For System 3, the total carbon footprint was 108.98 â€‹kg CO2-eq. The raw material extraction for all the material to produce an equivalent 50 single-use OR bed cover kits was tenfold more carbon-intensive than the reusable bed cover. Laundering one reusable OR bed cover 50 times was more carbon intensive (12.12 â€‹kg CO2-eq) than landfill disposal of 50 single-use OR bed covers (2.52 â€‹kg CO2-eq). DISCUSSION: Our analysis demonstrates that one reusable fabric-based OR bed cover laundered 50 times, despite the carbon and water-intensive laundering process, exhibits a markedly lower carbon footprint than its single-use counterparts. The net difference is 45.16 â€‹kg CO2-eq, equivalent to driving 115 miles in an average gasoline-powered passenger vehicle. This stark contrast underscores the efficacy of adopting reusable solutions to mitigate environmental impact within healthcare facilities.

No-Show Rates in a Urogynecology Clinic.

IMPORTANCE: No-show appointments, or scheduled appointments that patients do not attend without giving notice of cancellation, are a prevalent problem in the outpatient setting. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to compare the proportion of patients by decades of life who "no-show" to their urogynecology appointments. STUDY DESIGN: This retrospective cohort included women 20 years and older who did not show to their urogynecologic clinical encounters at an academic practice between January 1, 2022, and December 31, 2022. Demographics and visit history were recorded. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients by decade of age who were a "no-show" to their appointments. All decades were compared with women in their 70s, the decade with the most patients seen. Secondary outcomes included descriptive data of patients. Descriptive statistics and χ2 analyses were used. RESULTS: The cohort of 450 no-show encounters (composed of 391 patients), out of 6729 encounters, demonstrated an overall no-show rate of 6.7%. Baseline demographics of "no-show" patients were 67.3% White and 27.4% Black. The odds of women in their 20s-50s who no-show was 2-3 times higher than women in their 70s (P < 0.01). The highest no-show rates occurred in 20s (12.6%) and 40s (11.8%). Forty-six patients missed multiple appointments. The odds of a Black patient having multiple no-shows was 3.15 times higher than the odds of a White patient. CONCLUSIONS: No-show rates are low in this urogynecology practice. Younger women are more likely to no-show. This knowledge can facilitate potential double bookings necessary for urgent appointments and to maximize resource utilization.