Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND:Healthcare is a major contributor to global greenhouse gas emissions. Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is one of the most widely used healthcare services in the US, indicated for approximately 134 million adults. Recommended screening options include fecal immunochemical tests (FITs) every year, CT colonographies (CTCs) every 5 years, or colonoscopies every 10 years. We compared the environmental impacts of these tests and identified opportunities for impact reduction. METHODS:We conducted a comparative life cycle assessment of three CRC screening strategies at the University of California, San Francisco. We performed on site audits to document the materials and energy used for each screening test. We used the ReCiPe 2016 method to estimate the environmental impacts of these procedures, measured by global warming potential (GWP) and damage to human health. We estimated the 10-year cumulative impacts of each screening strategy using a Markov reward model. We accounted for model uncertainty using hierarchical Monte Carlo simulations. FINDINGS/RESULTS:FIT-based screening had the lowest environmental impacts, with a roughly 20% margin of superiority over colonoscopies, and this finding was robust in sensitivity analyses. Across tests, the biggest cause of environmental harm was car-based transportation of patients and staff. Prioritizing FITs over screening colonoscopies in the US could enhance population health by roughly 5.2 million disability adjusted life years per decade. Transitioning to electric vehicles could reduce the GWP of all screening tests by 15-20%. INTERPRETATION/CONCLUSIONS:Given the similar efficacy and safety of these tests, payors should prioritize FITs for low-risk patients. Government initiatives to decarbonize transportation, incentivize telehealth, and mandate environmental product declarations will help reduce the environmental impacts of healthcare more generally. Our results call for a closer look at resource-intensive preventative health strategies, which could result in more harm than good if applied to a low-risk population. FUNDING/BACKGROUND:NIH, UCSF.

(1) Background: Healthcare is a major contributor to global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, especially within the surgical suite. Ophthalmologists play a role, since they frequently perform high-volume procedures, such as cataract surgery. This review aims to summarize the current literature on surgical waste and GHG emissions in ophthalmology and proposes a framework to standardize future studies. (2) Methods: Protocol and reporting methods were based on PRISMA guidelines for scoping reviews. Articles that reported any quantitative measurement of waste or GHGs produced from ophthalmic surgeries were eligible for inclusion. Commentaries, opinion papers, reviews and articles in a non-English language were excluded. (3) Results: A total of 713 articles were reviewed, with 10 articles found to meet inclusion criteria. Six studies produced level 3 evidence, two level 4 evidence, and one level 5 evidence. According to studies, most of the GHGs came from procurement of surgical materials, followed by travel emissions and building energy. (4) Conclusions: Research on waste and GHGs produced in ophthalmic surgery is limited, and existing studies utilize varied approaches to quantify this waste. We propose a standardized waste-lifecycle framework for researchers to organize future research. Such standardization will help in comparing studies and may uncover more opportunities to implement impactful waste reduction strategies in ophthalmology.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:There is increasing prevalence of single-use flexible laryngoscopes in Otolaryngology. This study aims to quantify and compare the environmental outcomes of single-use disposable flexible laryngoscopes (SUD-Ls) and reusable flexible laryngoscope (R-Ls). METHODS:-eq) and analyzed using the US EPA's TRACI and SimaPro software. Monte Carlo sensitivity analyses were additionally performed. RESULTS:-eq). Notably 63% of the R-L total GHGs were due to personal protective equipment (PPE) production and disposal used in reprocessing, whereas 79% of SUD-L total GHGs were attributed to scope manufacturing and production. In a break-even analysis, a R-L produces fewer lifespan GHGs than SUD-Ls after 82 uses. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Reusable flexible laryngoscopes pose an environmental benefit over SUD-Ls across several impact categories when used in high frequency. SUD-Ls have significant advantages in various situations: low utilization settings, in-patient/ED consults, and urgent need for sterile instrumentation. Providers should assess laryngoscope use frequency, site of use, and available resources to balance the environmental consequences. Further areas of sustainable optimization include reducing disposable PPE used in R-L reprocessing. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE/METHODS:N/A Laryngoscope, 2024.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:To analyze waste from intraocular lens (IOL) packaging across a variety of brands. SETTING/METHODS:Private clinical practice. DESIGN/METHODS:Prospective weight and composition analysis of all elements of unopened packages of IOLs sold in the US-both preloaded and non-preloaded. METHODS:Samples were collected from multiple IOL companies in 2023. The primary endpoint for comparison was the total weight of each IOL package, because this generally correlates with the carbon footprint. The percentage of total weight contributed by paper, plastic, Tyvek®, foil, sterile saline solution (fluid), metal, or glossy paper material was also calculated. RESULTS:The non-preloaded IOL package weights ranged from 29 g (Zeiss Lucia) to 80 g (RxSIGHT LAL). Most of the weight was attributable to paper, including the box and instructions for use (IFU) pamphlet. The latter was generally the largest component within the box. The weights of preloaded IOL packages were generally higher than those of their non-preloaded counterparts and ranged from 67 g (Hoya iSert) to 116 g (Rayner RayOne Spheric). CONCLUSIONS:Meaningful differences in the IOL packaging weight and waste were noted across different models and manufacturers. Electronic IFU linked to QR codes could replace the need for an IFU pamphlet within every box, significantly reducing the box's size, weight, and carbon footprint. Pairing preloaded IOL cartridges with autoclavable injectors could reduce associated waste. Because of the enormous global volume of IOL implantation, these waste-reducing strategies should be prioritized by IOL manufacturers.

BACKGROUND:The health-care industry is a substantial contributor to global greenhouse gas emissions, yet the specific environmental impact of radiotherapy, a cornerstone of cancer treatment, remains under-explored. We aimed to quantify the emissions associated with the delivery of radiotherapy in the USA and propose a framework for reducing the environmental impact of oncology care. METHODS:e]), ozone depletion, smog formation, acidification, eutrophication, carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic potential, respiratory effects, fossil fuel depletion, and ecotoxicity. Human health effects secondary to these environmental impacts were also estimated as disability-adjusted life years. We also assessed the potential benefits of hypofractionated regimens for breast and genitourinary (ie, prostate and bladder) cancers on US greenhouse gas emissions using an analytic model based on the 2014 US National Cancer Database for fractionation patterns and patient commute distances. FINDINGS/RESULTS:e). Across the other environmental impact categories, most of the environmental impact also stemmed from patient transit and energy use within facilities, with little environmental impact contributed by supplies used. Hypofractionated treatment simulations suggested a substantial reduction in greenhouse gas emissions-by up to 42% for breast and 77% for genitourinary cancer-and environmental impacts more broadly. INTERPRETATION/CONCLUSIONS:This comprehensive lifecycle assessment of EBRT delineates the environmental and secondary health impacts of radiotherapy, and underscores the urgent need for sustainable practices in oncology. The findings serve as a reference for future decarbonisation efforts in cancer care and show the potential environmental benefits of modifying treatment protocols (when clinical equipoise exists). They also highlight strategic opportunities to mitigate the ecological footprint in an era of escalating climate change and increasing cancer prevalence. FUNDING/BACKGROUND:Mount Zion Health Fund.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:Surgical cap attire plays an important role in creating a safe and sterile environment in procedural suites, thus the choice of reusable versus disposable caps has become an issue of much debate. Given the lack of evidence for differences in surgical site infection (SSI) risk between the two, selecting the cap option with a lower carbon footprint may reduce the environmental impact of surgical procedures. However, many institutions continue to recommend the use of disposable bouffant caps. METHODS:e) emissions, water use and health impacts. RESULTS:e) under the base model scenario with a similar reduction seen in disability-adjusted life years. However, cotton caps were found to be more water intensive than bouffant caps (67.56 L versus 12.66 L) with the majority of water use secondary to production or manufacturing. CONCLUSIONS:e emissions compared to disposable bouffant caps across multiple use scenarios. Given the lack of evidence suggesting a superior choice for surgical site infection prevention, guidelines should recommend reusable cotton caps to reduce the environmental impact of surgical procedures.

BACKGROUND:Health care providers worldwide are rapidly adopting electronic medical record (EMR) systems, replacing paper record-keeping systems. Despite numerous benefits to EMRs, the environmental emissions associated with medical record-keeping are unknown. Given the need for urgent climate action, understanding the carbon footprint of EMRs will assist in decarbonizing their adoption and use. OBJECTIVE:We aimed to estimate and compare the environmental emissions associated with paper medical record-keeping and its replacement EMR system at a high-volume eye care facility in southern India. METHODS:We conducted the life cycle assessment methodology per the ISO (International Organization for Standardization) 14040 standard, with primary data supplied by the eye care facility. Data on the paper record-keeping system include the production, use, and disposal of paper and writing utensils in 2016. The EMR system was adopted at this location in 2018. Data on the EMR system include the allocated production and disposal of capital equipment (such as computers and routers); the production, use, and disposal of consumable goods like paper and writing utensils; and the electricity required to run the EMR system. We excluded built infrastructure and cooling loads (eg. buildings and ventilation) from both systems. We used sensitivity analyses to model the effects of practice variation and data uncertainty and Monte Carlo assessments to statistically compare the 2 systems, with and without renewable electricity sources. RESULTS:e per patient), a level comparable to the paper record-keeping system. Energy-efficient EMR equipment (such as computers and monitors) is the next largest factor impacting emissions, followed by equipment life spans. Multimedia Appendix 1 includes other emissions impact categories. CONCLUSIONS:The climate-changing emissions associated with an EMR system are heavily dependent on the sources of electricity. With a decarbonized electricity source, the EMR system's GHG emissions are on par with paper medical record-keeping, and decarbonized grids would likely have a much broader benefit to society. Though we found that the EMR system produced more emissions than a paper record-keeping system, this study does not account for potential expanded environmental gains from EMRs, including expanding access to care while reducing patient travel and operational efficiencies that can reduce unnecessary or redundant care.