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.

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.

COVID-19 Outbreak and Hospital Air Quality: A Systematic Review of Evidence on Air Filtration and Recirculation.

The outbreak of SARS-CoV-2 has made us all think critically about hospital indoor air quality and the approaches to remove, dilute, and disinfect pathogenic organisms from the hospital environment. While specific aspects of the coronavirus infectivity, spread, and routes of transmission are still under rigorous investigation, it seems that a recollection of knowledge from the literature can provide useful lessons to cope with this new situation. As a result, a systematic literature review was conducted on the safety of air filtration and air recirculation in healthcare premises. This review targeted a wide range of evidence from codes and regulations, to peer-reviewed publications, and best practice standards. The literature search resulted in 394 publications, of which 109 documents were included in the final review. Overall, even though solid evidence to support current practice is very scarce, proper filtration remains one important approach to maintain the cleanliness of indoor air in hospitals. Given the rather large physical footprint of the filtration system, a range of short-term and long-term solutions from the literature are collected. Nonetheless, there is a need for a rigorous and feasible line of research in the area of air filtration and recirculation in healthcare facilities. Such efforts can enhance the performance of healthcare facilities under normal conditions or during a pandemic. Past innovations can be adopted for the new outbreak at low-to-minimal cost.

Environmental sustainability in anaesthesia and critical care.

The detrimental health effects of climate change continue to increase. Although health systems respond to this disease burden, healthcare itself pollutes the atmosphere, land, and waterways. We surveyed the 'state of the art' environmental sustainability research in anaesthesia and critical care, addressing why it matters, what is known, and ideas for future work. Focus is placed upon the atmospheric chemistry of the anaesthetic gases, recent work clarifying their relative global warming potentials, and progress in waste anaesthetic gas treatment. Life cycle assessment (LCA; i.e. 'cradle to grave' analysis) is introduced as the definitive method used to compare and contrast ecological footprints of products, processes, and systems. The number of LCAs within medicine has gone from rare to an established body of knowledge in the past decade that can inform doctors of the relative ecological merits of different techniques. LCAs with practical outcomes are explored, such as the carbon footprint of reusable vs single-use anaesthetic devices (e.g. drug trays, laryngoscope blades, and handles), and the carbon footprint of treating an ICU patient with septic shock. Avoid, reduce, reuse, recycle, and reprocess are then explored. Moving beyond routine clinical care, the vital influences that the source of energy (renewables vs fossil fuels) and energy efficiency have in healthcare's ecological footprint are highlighted. Discussion of the integral roles of research translation, education, and advocacy in driving the perioperative and critical care environmental sustainability agenda completes this review.

Medical, nursing, and physician assistant student knowledge and attitudes toward climate change, pollution, and resource conservation in health care.

BACKGROUND: Climate change and pollution generated by the health care sector impose significant public health burdens. This study aimed to assess medical, nursing and physician assistant student knowledge and attitudes regarding climate change, pollution from the health care sector, and responsibility for resource conservation within professional practice. METHODS: In February-March, 2018, medical, nursing, and physician assistant students at Yale University (1011 potential respondents) were sent a 17-question online Qualtrics survey. Data analysis included descriptive statistics, as well as Fisher's exact test and logistic regression to assess associations between variables of interest and the personal characteristics of gender, age, geographic place of origin, school, and year in school (among medical students). RESULTS: The response rate was 28% (280 respondents). 90% felt that physicians, nurses, and physician assistants have a responsibility to conserve resources and prevent pollution within their professional practice. 63% agreed or strongly agreed that the relationship between pollution, climate change, and health should be covered in the classroom and should be reinforced in the clinical setting. 57% preferred or strongly preferred reusable devices. 91% felt lack of time and production pressure, and 85% believed that lack of education on disease burden stemming from health care pollution, were barriers to taking responsibility for resource conservation and pollution prevention. Women and physician assistant students exhibited a greater commitment than men and medical students, respectively, to address pollution, climate change, and resource conservation in patient care and professional practice. CONCLUSION: We found that health professional students are engaged with the concept of environmental stewardship in clinical practice and would like to see pollution, climate change, and health covered in their curriculum. In order for this education to be most impactful, more research and industry transparency regarding the environmental footprint of health care materials and specific clinician resource consumption patterns will be required.

Life cycle environmental emissions and health damages from the Canadian healthcare system: An economic-environmental-epidemiological analysis.

BACKGROUND: Human health is dependent upon environmental health. Air pollution is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally, and climate change has been identified as the single greatest public health threat of the 21st century. As a large, resource-intensive sector of the Canadian economy, healthcare itself contributes to pollutant emissions, both directly from facility and vehicle emissions and indirectly through the purchase of emissions-intensive goods and services. Together these are termed life cycle emissions. Here, we estimate the extent of healthcare-associated life cycle emissions as well as the public health damages they cause. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We use a linked economic-environmental-epidemiological modeling framework to quantify pollutant emissions and their implications for public health, based on Canadian national healthcare expenditures over the period 2009-2015. Expenditures gathered by the Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI) are matched to sectors in a national environmentally extended input-output (EEIO) model to estimate emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs) and >300 other pollutants. Damages to human health are then calculated using the IMPACT2002+ life cycle impact assessment model, considering uncertainty in the damage factors used. On a life cycle basis, Canada's healthcare system was responsible for 33 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e), or 4.6% of the national total, as well as >200,000 tonnes of other pollutants. We link these emissions to a median estimate of 23,000 disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) lost annually from direct exposures to hazardous pollutants and from environmental changes caused by pollution, with an uncertainty range of 4,500-610,000 DALYs lost annually. A limitation of this national-level study is the use of aggregated data and multiple modeling steps to link healthcare expenditures to emissions to health damages. While informative on a national level, the applicability of these findings to guide decision-making at individual institutions is limited. Uncertainties related to national economic and environmental accounts, model representativeness, and classification of healthcare expenditures are discussed. CONCLUSIONS: Our results for GHG emissions corroborate similar estimates for the United Kingdom, Australia, and the United States, with emissions from hospitals and pharmaceuticals being the most significant expenditure categories. Non-GHG emissions are responsible for the majority of health damages, predominantly related to particulate matter (PM). This work can guide efforts by Canadian healthcare professionals toward more sustainable practices.

Estimated Global Disease Burden From US Health Care Sector Greenhouse Gas Emissions.

OBJECTIVES: To quantify the increased disease burden caused by US health care sector life cycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of 614 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents in 2013. METHODS: We screened for health damage factors that linked GHG emissions to disease burdens. We selected 5 factors, based on appropriate temporal modeling scales, which reflect a range of possible GHG emissions scenarios. We applied these factors to health care sector emissions. RESULTS: We projected that annual GHG emissions associated with health care in the United States would cause 123 000 to 381 000 disability-adjusted life-years in future health damages, with malnutrition being the largest damage category. CONCLUSIONS: Through their contribution to global climate change, GHG emissions will negatively affect public health because of an increased prevalence of extreme weather, flooding, vector-borne disease, and other effects. As the stewards of global health, it is important for health care professionals to recognize the magnitude of GHG emissions associated with health care itself, and the severity of associated health damages.

Life Cycle Assessment and Costing Methods for Device Procurement: Comparing Reusable and Single-Use Disposable Laryngoscopes.

BACKGROUND: Traditional medical device procurement criteria include efficacy and safety, ease of use and handling, and procurement costs. However, little information is available about life cycle environmental impacts of the production, use, and disposal of medical devices, or about costs incurred after purchase. Reusable and disposable laryngoscopes are of current interest to anesthesiologists. Facing mounting pressure to quickly meet or exceed conflicting infection prevention guidelines and oversight body recommendations, many institutions may be electively switching to single-use disposable (SUD) rigid laryngoscopes or overcleaning reusables, potentially increasing both costs and waste generation. This study provides quantitative comparisons of environmental impacts and total cost of ownership among laryngoscope options, which can aid procurement decision making to benefit facilities and public health. METHODS: We describe cradle-to-grave life cycle assessment (LCA) and life cycle costing (LCC) methods and apply these to reusable and SUD metal and plastic laryngoscope handles and tongue blade alternatives at Yale-New Haven Hospital (YNHH). The US Environmental Protection Agency's Tool for the Reduction and Assessment of Chemical and other environmental Impacts (TRACI) life cycle impact assessment method was used to model environmental impacts of greenhouse gases and other pollutant emissions. RESULTS: The SUD plastic handle generates an estimated 16-18 times more life cycle carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2-eq) than traditional low-level disinfection of the reusable steel handle. The SUD plastic tongue blade generates an estimated 5-6 times more CO2-eq than the reusable steel blade treated with high-level disinfection. SUD metal components generated much higher emissions than all alternatives. Both the SUD handle and SUD blade increased life cycle costs compared to the various reusable cleaning scenarios at YNHH. When extrapolated over 1 year (60,000 intubations), estimated costs increased between $495,000 and $604,000 for SUD handles and between $180,000 and $265,000 for SUD blades, compared to reusables, depending on cleaning scenario and assuming 4000 (rated) uses. Considering device attrition, reusable handles would be more economical than SUDs if they last through 4-5 uses, and reusable blades 5-7 uses, before loss. CONCLUSIONS: LCA and LCC are feasible methods to ease interpretation of environmental impacts and facility costs when weighing device procurement options. While management practices vary between institutions, all standard methods of cleaning were evaluated and sensitivity analyses performed so that results are widely applicable. For YNHH, the reusable options presented a considerable cost advantage, in addition to offering a better option environmentally. Avoiding overcleaning reusable laryngoscope handles and blades is desirable from an environmental perspective. Costs may vary between facilities, and LCC methodology demonstrates the importance of time-motion labor analysis when comparing reusable and disposable device options.

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.

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.