A comparison of the carbon footprint of alternative sampling approaches for cervical screening in the UK: A descriptive study.

OBJECTIVE: To understand whether self-sampling can reduce carbon emissions (CO2 e) from the NHS cervical screening programme (NHSCSP) by comparing the carbon footprint of three sampling strategies: routine cervical sampling, vaginal self-sampling and first-void (FV) urine collection. DESIGN: Descriptive study. SETTING: National Health Service (NHS), United Kingdom (UK). POPULATION OR SAMPLE: Patients aged 25-64 years eligible for cervical screening in the UK. METHODS: A carbon footprint analysis was undertaken for three cervical screening sampling approaches, from point of invitation to screening through to preparation for transport to the laboratory for HPV testing. A combination of primary and secondary data were used, with a bottom-up approach applied to collection of primary data. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: We report CO2 e per sampling approach, which is the unit used to express carbon footprint and harmonise the contributions of greenhouse gases with different global warming potentials. RESULTS: The total carbon footprint of routine cervical sampling is 3670 g CO2 e. By comparison, vaginal self-sampling had a total carbon footprint of 423 g CO2 e, and FV urine sampling 570 g CO2 e. The largest share of emissions for routine sampling was attributable to the carbon footprint associated with an appointment in a primary care setting, which totalled 2768 g CO2 e. CONCLUSIONS: Routine cervical sampling is up to 8.7-fold more carbon-intensive than self-sampling approaches with equivalent effectiveness. We found negligible differences in the carbon footprint of alternative self-sampling methods, supporting the need for an informed choice of screening options for participants, which includes sharing information on their environmental impacts.

Tertiary survey by trauma nurse specialist at a paediatric trauma centre.

INTRODUCTION: Tertiary surveys aim to detect injuries missed in the initial assessment of trauma. We introduced a process by which the trauma nurse specialist performed a number of the tertiary surveys (NTSs) at our paediatric trauma centre. METHODS: Data from the first six months following introduction of the NTS were compared to retrospective data from the six months prior to NTS implementation (pre-NTS), when trauma surveys were completed by medical staff. RESULTS: Over the 12-month period, 130 children met the criteria for a tertiary survey. Pre-NTS, 57/62 eligible patients received a tertiary survey, compared to 61/68 during NTS (p=0.77). There were significantly more road traffic crash patients in the NTS group (p=0.008) but no significant differences by demographics, injury pattern, injury severity score or outcomes. New injuries were found in three patients pre-NTS compared to five patients during NTS (odds ratio 1.3 (95%CI 1.3-2.0, p=0.73)). CONCLUSION: This study conservatively supports the hypothesis that, with training and support, a trauma nurse specialist can perform tertiary surveys as effectively as doctors. A larger study is required to confirm these findings.