Faculty Bibliography

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.

The healthcare industry is a major contributor to greenhouse gas emissions. Assisted reproductive technology is part of the larger healthcare sector, with its own heavy carbon footprint. The social, economic and environmental costs of this collective carbon footprint are becoming clearer, as is the impact on human reproductive health. Alpha Scientists in Reproductive Medicine and the International IVF Initiative collaborated to seek and formulate practical recommendations for sustainability in IVF laboratories. An international panel of experts, enthusiasts and professionals in reproductive medicine, environmental science, architecture, biorepository and law convened to discuss the topics of importance to sustainability. Recommendations were issued on how to build a culture of sustainability in the workplace, implement green design and building, use life cycle analysis to determine the environmental impact, manage cryostorage more sustainably, and understand and manage laboratory waste with prevention as a primary goal. The panel explored whether the industry supporting IVF is sustainable. An example is provided to illustrate the application of green principles to an IVF laboratory through a certification programme. The UK legislative landscape surrounding sustainability is also discussed and a few recommendations on 'Green Conferencing' are offered.

TOPIC/OBJECTIVE:Understanding approaches to sustainability in cataract surgery and their risks and benefits CLINICAL RELEVANCE: In the United States, healthcare is responsible for approximately 8.5% of greenhouse gas (GHG), and cataract surgery is one of the most commonly performed surgical procedures. Ophthalmologists can contribute to reducing GHG emissions, which lead to a steadily increasing list of health concerns ranging from trauma to food instability. METHODS:We conducted a literature review to identify the benefits and risks of sustainability interventions. We then organized these interventions into a decision tree for use by individual surgeons. RESULTS:Identified sustainability interventions fall into the domains of advocacy and education, pharmaceuticals, process, and supplies and waste. Existing literature shows certain interventions may be safe, cost-effective, and environmentally friendly. These include dispensing medications home to patients after surgery, multi-dosing appropriate medications, training staff to properly sort medical waste, reducing the number of supplies used during surgery, and implementing immediate sequential bilateral cataract surgery where clinically appropriate. The literature was lacking on the benefits or risks for some interventions, such as switching specific single use supplies to reusables or implementing a hub-and-spoke style theatre setup. Many of the advocacy and education interventions have inadequate literature specific to ophthalmology but are likely to have minimal risks. CONCLUSIONS:Ophthalmologists can engage in a variety of safe and effective approaches to reduce or eliminate dangerous GHG emissions associated with cataract surgery.

Concern over climate change is growing in the healthcare space, and telemedicine has been rapidly expanding since the start of the COVID19 pandemic. Understanding the various sources of environmental emissions from clinic visits-both virtual and in-person-will help create a more sustainable healthcare system. This study uses a Life Cycle Assessment with retrospective clinical data from Stanford Health Care (SHC) in 2019-2021 to determine the environmental emissions associated with in-person and virtual clinic visits. SHC saw 13% increase in clinic visits, but due to the rise in telemedicine services, the Greenhouse Gas emissions (GHGs) from these visits decreased 36% between 2019 and 2021. Telemedicine (phone and video appointments) helped SHC avoid approximately 17,000 metric tons of GHGs in 2021. Some departments, such as psychiatry and cancer achieved greater GHG reductions, as they were able to perform more virtual visits. Telemedicine is an important component for the reduction of GHGs in healthcare systems; however, telemedicine cannot replace every clinic visit and proper triaging and tracking systems should be in place to avoid duplicative care.

BACKGROUND:Reducing low-value clinical care is an important strategy to mitigate environmental pollution caused by health care. OBJECTIVE:To estimate the environmental impacts associated with prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and prostate biopsy. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS/METHODS:We performed a cradle-to-grave life cycle assessment of prostate biopsy. Data included materials and energy inventory, patient and staff travel contributed by prostate MRI, transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy, and pathology analysis. We compared environmental emissions across five clinical scenarios: multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) of the prostate with targeted and systematic biopsies (baseline), mpMRI with targeted biopsy cores only, systematic biopsy without MRI, mpMRI with systematic biopsy, and biparametric MRI (bpMRI) with targeted and systematic biopsies. We estimated the environmental impacts associated with reducing the overall number and varying the approach of a prostate biopsy by using MRI as a triage strategy or by omitting MRI. The study involved academic medical centers in the USA, outpatient urology clinics, health care facilities, medical staff, and patients. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS/METHODS:e), and equivalents of coal and gasoline burned were measured. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS/CONCLUSIONS:emissions, the equivalent of 700 000 l of gasoline consumed. This analysis was limited to prostate MRI and biopsy, and does not account for downstream clinical management. CONCLUSIONS:A prostate biopsy contributes a calculable environmental footprint. Modifying or reducing the number of biopsies performed through existing evidence-based approaches would decrease health care pollution from the procedure. PATIENT SUMMARY/RESULTS:We estimated that prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with a prostate biopsy procedure emits the equivalent of 80.7 kg of carbon dioxide. Performing fewer unnecessary prostate biopsies or using prostate MRI as a tool to decide which patients should have a prostate biopsy would reduce procedural greenhouse gas emissions and health care pollution.

During the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, shortages of personal protective equipment (PPE) necessitated unprecedented and non-validated approaches to conserve PPE at healthcare facilities, especially in high income countries where single-use disposable PPE was ubiquitous. Our team conducted a systematic literature review to evaluate historic approaches for conserving single-use PPE, expecting that lower-income countries or developing contexts may already be uniquely conserving PPE. However, of the 50 included studies, only 3 originated from middle-income countries and none originated from low-income countries. Data from the included studies suggest PPE remained effective with extended use and with multiple or repeated use in clinical settings, as long as donning and doffing were performed in a standard manner. Multiple decontamination techniques were effective in disinfecting single use PPE for repeated use. These findings can inform healthcare facilities and providers in establishing protocols for safe conservation of PPE supplies and updating existing protocols to improve sustainability and overall resilience. Future studies should evaluate conservation practices in low-resource settings during non-pandemic times to develop strategies for more sustainable and resilient healthcare worldwide.

Waste generated by health care includes harmful emissions and often disproportionately affects already vulnerable communities. Justly restructuring health care waste management involves better understanding key drivers of waste production, using sustainability as an ethical value to guide disposal decisions and practices, and reducing overall disposal quantity. Restructuring can be facilitated by making existing waste audit data transparent, incorporating waste accounting into social responsibility metrics used to evaluate health care organizational performance, and implementing policies that prioritize frontline workers' safety.