Faculty Bibliography

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.

Background: Delivering healthcare requires significant resources and creates waste that pollutes the environment, contributes to the climate crisis, and harms human health. Prior studies have generally shown durable, reusable medical devices to be environmentally superior to disposables, but this has not been investigated for pulse oximetry probes. Objective: Our goal was to compare the daily carbon footprint of single-use and reusable pulse oximeters in the emergency department (ED). Methods: Using a Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), we analyzed greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from pulse oximeter use in an urban, tertiary care ED, that sees approximately 150 patients per day. Low (387 uses), moderate (474 uses), and high use (561 uses), as well as cleaning scenarios, were modelled for the reusable oximeters and compared to the daily use of single-use oximeters (150 uses). We calculated GHG emissions, measured in kilograms of carbon dioxide equivalents (kgCO2e), across all life cycle stages using life-cycle assessment software and the ecoinvent database. We also carried out an uncertainty analysis using Monte Carlo methodology and calculated the break-even point for reusable oximeters. Results: Per day of use, reusable oximeters produced fewer greenhouse gases in low-, moderate-, and high-use scenarios compared to disposable oximeters: 3.9 kgCO2e, 4.9 kgCO2e, 5.7 kgCO2e vs 23.4 kgCO2e, respectively). An uncertainty analysis showed there was no overlap in emissions, and a sensitivity analysis found reusable oximeters only need to be used 2.3 times before they match the emissions created by a single disposable oximeter. Use phases associated with the greatest emissions varied between oximeters, with the cleaning phase of reusables responsible for the majority of its GHG emissions (99%) compared to the production phases of the single-use oximeter (74%). Conclusion: Reusable pulse oximeters generated fewer greenhouse gas emissions per day of use than their disposable counterparts. Given that the pulse oximeter is an ubiquitous piece of medical equipment used in emergency care globally, carbon emissions could be significantly reduced if EDs used reusable rather than single-use, disposable oximeters.

Concurrent increases in global cancer burden and the climate crisis pose an unprecedented threat to public health and human well-being. Today, the health care sector greatly contributes to greenhouse gas emissions, with the future demand for health care services expected to rise. Life cycle assessment (LCA) is an internationally standardized tool that analyzes the inputs and outputs of products, processes, and systems to quantify associated environmental impacts. This critical review explains the use of LCA methodology and outlines its application to external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) with the aim of providing a robust methodology to quantify the environmental impact of radiation therapy care practices today. The steps of an LCA are outlined and explained as defined by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO 14040 and 14044) guidelines: (1) definition of the goal and scope of the LCA, (2) inventory analysis, (3) impact assessment, and (4) interpretation. The existing LCA framework and its methodology is described and applied to the field of radiation oncology. The goal and scope of its application to EBRT is the evaluation of the environmental impact of a single EBRT treatment course within a radiation oncology department. The methodology for data collection via mapping of the resources used (inputs) and the end-of-life processes (outputs) associated with EBRT is explained, with subsequent explanation of the LCA analysis steps. Finally, the importance of appropriate sensitivity analysis and the interpretations that can be drawn from LCA results are reviewed. This critical review of LCA protocol provides and evaluates a methodological framework to scientifically establish baseline environmental performance measurements within a health care setting and assists in identifying targets for emissions mitigation. Future LCAs in the field of radiation oncology and across medical specialties will be crucial in informing best practices for equitable and sustainable care in a changing climate.

BACKGROUND/UNASSIGNED:Delivering healthcare requires significant resources and creates waste that pollutes the environment, contributes to the climate crisis, and harms human health. Prior studies have generally shown durable, reusable medical devices to be environmentally superior to disposables, but this has not been investigated for pulse oximetry probes. OBJECTIVE/UNASSIGNED:Our goal was to compare the daily carbon footprint of single-use and reusable pulse oximeters in the emergency department (ED). METHODS/UNASSIGNED:e), across all life cycle stages using life-cycle assessment software and the ecoinvent database. We also carried out an uncertainty analysis using Monte Carlo methodology and calculated the break-even point for reusable oximeters. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:e, respectively). An uncertainty analysis showed there was no overlap in emissions, and a sensitivity analysis found reusable oximeters only need to be used 2.3 times before they match the emissions created by a single disposable oximeter. Use phases associated with the greatest emissions varied between oximeters, with the cleaning phase of reusables responsible for the majority of its GHG emissions (99%) compared to the production phases of the single-use oximeter (74%). CONCLUSION/UNASSIGNED:Reusable pulse oximeters generated fewer greenhouse gas emissions per day of use than their disposable counterparts. Given that the pulse oximeter is an ubiquitous piece of medical equipment used in emergency care globally, carbon emissions could be significantly reduced if EDs used reusable rather than single-use, disposable oximeters.