A carbon calculator: the development of a user-friendly greenhouse gas measuring tool for general dental practice (Part 2).

The need to reduce carbon emissions and limit global warming to 1.5 °C has spurred various sectors towards net-zero emission goals. This paper introduces a specialised carbon calculator for dental practices to compute and monitor their carbon footprints (CFPs). The carbon calculator is developed using recent carbon modelling, utilising methodologies and data from estimating the average NHS dental practice's CFP. It employs both spend-based and activity-based carbon accounting methods, simplifying carbon emission estimation. It offers dental practices a user-friendly, rudimentary, cost-free tool to determine their baseline CFP and track sustainability progress. It includes conversion factors for patient travel, procurement and waste management, enabling practices to input data and generate personalised CFP charts. It also acknowledges assumptions and uncertainties related to procurement and waste management, emphasising the availability of personalised consultancy services for more precise carbon footprinting. This carbon calculator supports environmental sustainability in dental practices as an accessible starting point. By raising awareness of their CFP, it encourages progress in 'green dentistry' and promotes environmental responsibility in oral healthcare. The calculator is freely downloadable and part of a broader 'green dentistry' initiative. Continuous carbon emission measurement and monitoring are crucial for a sustainable future, with this tool aiding dental practitioners in their environmental contributions.

What is the environmental footprint of a dental practice? A life cycle analysis (Part 1).

Introduction Growing awareness of environmental sustainability is essential. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's report stresses urgent carbon reductions to limit global warming to 1.5 °C. The NHS in all four countries of the UK aims to be net zero. Dental practices must prioritise sustainability for public health. This paper uses life cycle analysis (LCA) where possible to study a dental practice's environmental footprint.Methodology LCA methodology was used where possible to calculate the carbon footprint (CFP) of a full-time dental clinic operating 220 days/year. The Ecoinvent database and OpenLCA software were used to calculate greenhouse gas emissions, normalised factors and disability-adjusted life years. Attributional and spend-based approaches were used to analyse procurement items.Results Compared with our 2015 paper, the 2023 CFP, which used more current impact factors, shows reduced water use emissions and increased total waste emissions. Staff travel and patient travel continues to significantly impact the CFP.Discussion Addressing waste and promoting low-carbon transport within the dental practice is crucial. Procurement's impact requires detailed analysis. Normalised scores highlight the environmental impact compared to an average person.Conclusion The CFP of a dental practice was updated using more current impact factors to reinforce the high contribution of travel within the dental CFP, with an increase in the CFP of waste and a reduction in the CFP of water.

Green endoscopy: British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG), Joint Accreditation Group (JAG) and Centre for Sustainable Health (CSH) joint consensus on practical measures for environmental sustainability in endoscopy.

GI endoscopy is highly resource-intensive with a significant contribution to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and waste generation. Sustainable endoscopy in the context of climate change is now the focus of mainstream discussions between endoscopy providers, units and professional societies. In addition to broader global challenges, there are some specific measures relevant to endoscopy units and their practices, which could significantly reduce environmental impact. Awareness of these issues and guidance on practical interventions to mitigate the carbon footprint of GI endoscopy are lacking. In this consensus, we discuss practical measures to reduce the impact of endoscopy on the environment applicable to endoscopy units and practitioners. Adoption of these measures will facilitate and promote new practices and the evolution of a more sustainable specialty.

Improving productivity, costs and environmental impact in International Eye Health Services: using the 'Eyefficiency' cataract surgical services auditing tool to assess the value of cataract surgical services.

OBJECTIVE: Though one of the most common surgeries, there is limited information on variability of practices in cataract surgeries. 'Eyefficiency' is a cataract surgical services auditing tool to help global units improve their surgical productivity and reduce their costs, waste generation and carbon footprint. The aim of the present research is to identify variability and efficiency opportunities in cataract surgical practices globally. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: 9 global cataract surgical facilities used the Eyefficiency tool to collect facility-level data (staffing, pathway steps, costs of supplies and energy use), and live time-and-motion data. A point person from each site gathered and reported data on 1 week or 30 consecutive cataract surgeries. Environmental life cycle assessment and descriptive statistics were used to quantify productivity, costs and carbon footprint. The main outcomes were estimates of productivity, costs, greenhouse gas emissions, and solid waste generation per-case at each site. RESULTS: Nine participating sites recorded 475 cataract extractions (a mix of phacoemulsification and manual small incision). Cases per hour ranged from 1.7 to 4.48 at single-bed sites and 1.47 to 4.25 at dual-bed sites. Average per-case expenditures ranged between £31.55 and £399.34, with a majority of costs attributable to medical equipment and supplies. Average solid waste ranged between 0.19 kg and 4.27 kg per phacoemulsification, and greenhouse gases ranged from 41 kg carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e) to 130 kg CO2e per phacoemulsification. CONCLUSION: Results demonstrate the global diversity of cataract surgical services and non-clinical metrics. Eyefficiency supports local decision-making for resource efficiency and could help identify regional or global best practices for optimising productivity, costs and environmental impact of cataract surgery.

The Carbon Footprint of Surgical Operations: A Systematic Review.

OF BACKGROUND DATA AND OBJECTIVES: Operating theatres are typically the most resource-intensive area of a hospital, 3-6 times more energy-intensive than the rest of the hospital and a major contributor of waste. The primary objective of this systematic review was to evaluate existing literature calculating the carbon footprint of surgical operations, determining opportunities for improving the environmental impact of surgery. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. The Cochrane Database, Embase, Ovid MEDLINE, and PubMed were searched and inclusion criteria applied. The study endpoints were extracted and compared, with the risk of bias determined. RESULTS: A total of 4604 records were identified, and 8 were eligible for inclusion. This review found that the carbon footprint of a single operation ranged 6-814 kg carbon dioxide equivalents. The studies found that major carbon hotspots within the examined operating theatres were electricity use, and procurement of consumables. It was possible to reduce the carbon footprint of surgery through improving energy-efficiency of theatres, using reusable or reprocessed surgical devices and streamlining processes. There were significant methodological limitations within included studies. CONCLUSIONS: Future research should focus on optimizing the carbon footprint of operating theatres through streamlining operations, expanding assessments to other surgical contexts, and determining ways to reduce the footprint through targeting carbon hotspots.

Costs of switching to low global warming potential inhalers. An economic and carbon footprint analysis of NHS prescription data in England.

OBJECTIVES: Metered-dose inhalers (MDIs) contain propellants which are potent greenhouse gases. Many agencies propose a switch to alternative, low global warming potential (GWP) inhalers, such as dry powder inhalers (DPIs). We aimed to analyse the impact on greenhouse gas emissions and drug costs of making this switch. SETTING: We studied National Health Service prescription data from England in 2017 and collated carbon footprint data on inhalers commonly used in England. DESIGN: Inhalers were separated into different categories according to their mechanisms of action (eg, short-acting beta-agonist). Within each category we identified low and high GWP inhalers and calculated the cost and carbon impact of changing to low GWP inhalers. We modelled scenarios for swapping proportionally according to the current market share of each equivalent DPI (model 1) and switching to the lowest cost pharmaceutically equivalent DPI (model 2). We also reviewed available data on the carbon footprint of inhalers from scientific publications, independently certified reports and patents to provide more accurate carbon footprint information on different types of inhalers. RESULTS: If MDIs using HFA propellant are replaced with the cheapest equivalent DPI, then for every 10% of MDIs changed to DPIs, drug costs decrease by £8.2M annually. However if the brands of DPIs stay the same as 2017 prescribing patterns, for every 10% of MDIs changed to DPIs, drug costs increase by £12.7M annually. Most potential savings are due to less expensive long-acting beta-agonist (LABA)/inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) inhalers. Some reliever inhalers (eg, Ventolin) have a carbon footprint over 25 kg CO2e per inhaler, while others use far less 1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane (HFA134a) (eg, Salamol) with a carbon footprint of <10 kg CO2e per inhaler. 1,1,1,2,3,3,3-Heptafluoropropane (HFA227ea) LABA/ICS inhalers (eg, Flutiform) have a carbon footprint over 36 kg CO2e, compared with an equivalent HFA134a combination inhaler (eg, Fostair) at <20 kg CO2e. For every 10% of MDIs changed to DPIs, 58 kt CO2e could be saved annually in England. CONCLUSIONS: Switching to DPIs would result in large carbon savings and can be achieved alongside reduced drug costs by using less expensive brands. Substantial carbon savings can be made by using small volume HFA134a MDIs, in preference to large volume HFA134a MDIs, or those containing HFA227ea as a propellant.