Faculty Bibliography

Healthcare is a critical service sector with a sizable environmental footprint from both direct activities and the indirect emissions of related products and infrastructure. As in all other sectors, the "inside-out" environmental impacts of healthcare (e.g., from greenhouse gas emissions, smog-forming emissions, and acidifying emissions) are harmful to public health. The environmental footprint of healthcare is subject to upward pressure from several factors, including the expansion of healthcare services in developing economies, global population growth, and aging demographics. These factors are compounded by the deployment of increasingly sophisticated medical procedures, equipment, and technologies that are energy- and resource-intensive. From an "outside-in" perspective, on the other hand, healthcare systems are increasingly susceptible to the effects of climate change, limited resource access, and other external influences. We conducted a comprehensive scoping review of the existing literature on environmental issues and other sustainability aspects in healthcare, based on a representative sample from over 1,700 articles published between 1987 and 2017. To guide our review of this fragmented literature, and to build a conceptual foundation for future research, we developed an industrial ecology framework for healthcare sustainability. Our framework conceptualizes the healthcare sector as comprising "foreground systems" of healthcare service delivery that are dependent on "background product systems." By mapping the existing literature onto our framework, we highlight largely untapped opportunities for the industrial ecology community to use "top-down" and "bottom-up" approaches to build an evidence base for healthcare sustainability.

Purpose/UNASSIGNED:We measured waste from glaucoma surgeries at an eye care facility in Southern India and compared these results to a community hospital in the United States. Methods/UNASSIGNED:The waste produced in the glaucoma operating room at Aravind Eye Hospital, Madurai, India from June 22 to July 15, 2015 was weighed and compared to the waste produced in the glaucoma surgical clinic in a Baltimore-area community hospital from one day of surgeries in August 2015. Results/UNASSIGNED:The average waste produced per trabeculectomy at Aravind was 0.5 ± 0.2 kg, compared to an average of 1.4 ± 0.4 kg per trabeculectomy (p < 0.05) at the Baltimore-area hospital. Waste from device surgeries and trabeculectomy with phacoemulsification was also quantified at Aravind, with averages of 0.4 ± 0.2 kg and 0.7 ± 0.2 kg respectively. Conclusions and importance/UNASSIGNED:The amount of waste per trabeculectomy at the Aravind Eye Hospital was significantly lower than the waste per trabeculectomy in the Baltimore-area hospital, even though the used and the apparent complication rates between Aravind and American eye hospital are comparable. Given efforts to decrease the environmental impact of health care, it is necessary to examine the waste produced from surgeries to determine if policy and legal changes in the United States could decrease surgical waste while not affecting the surgical complication rate.

Our study assesses the differences between regional average- and marginal-electricity generation mixes as well as the variability between predicted and observed energy consumption of a "conventional green" Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) building and a Net-Zero Energy Living Building (NZEB). The aim of our study was to evaluate the importance of using temporally resolved building-level data while capturing the dynamic effects a changing electrical grid has on the life cycle impacts of buildings. Two static and four dynamic life cycle assessment (LCA) models were evaluated for both buildings. Both buildings' results show that the most appropriate models ( hybrid consequential for the LEED Gold building, hourly consequential for the NZEB) significantly modified the use-phase global warming potential (GWP) impacts relative to the design static LCA (49% greater impact for the LEED Gold building; 45% greater reduction for the NZEB). In other words, a "standard" LCA would underestimate the use phase impacts of the LEED Gold building and the benefits of the NZEB in the GWP category. Although the results in this paper are specific to two case study buildings, the methods developed are scalable and can be implemented more widely to improve building life cycle impact estimates.

OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:To determine the carbon footprint of various sustainability interventions used for laparoscopic hysterectomy. METHODS:We designed interventions for laparoscopic hysterectomy from approaches that sustainable health care organizations advocate. We used a hybrid environmental life cycle assessment framework to estimate greenhouse gas emissions from the proposed interventions. We conducted the study from September 2015 to December 2016 at the University of Pittsburgh (Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania). RESULTS:The largest carbon footprint savings came from selecting specific anesthetic gases and minimizing the materials used in surgery. Energy-related interventions resulted in a 10% reduction in carbon footprint per case but would result in larger savings for the whole facility. Commonly implemented approaches, such as recycling surgical waste, resulted in less than a 5% reduction in greenhouse gases. CONCLUSIONS:To reduce the environmental emissions of surgeries, health care providers need to implement a combination of approaches, including minimizing materials, moving away from certain heat-trapping anesthetic gases, maximizing instrument reuse or single-use device reprocessing, and reducing off-hour energy use in the operating room. These strategies can reduce the carbon footprint of an average laparoscopic hysterectomy by up to 80%. Recycling alone does very little to reduce environmental footprint. Public Health Implications. Health care services are a major source of environmental emissions and reducing their carbon footprint would improve environmental and human health. Facilities seeking to reduce environmental footprint should take a comprehensive systems approach to find safe and effective interventions and should identify and address policy barriers to implementing more sustainable practices.

BACKGROUND:The US health care sector has substantial financial and environmental footprints. As literature continues to study the differences between wide-awake hand surgery (WAHS) and the more traditional hand surgery with sedation & local anesthesia, we sought to explore the opportunities to enhance the sustainability of WAHS through analysis of the respective costs and waste generation of the 2 techniques. METHODS:We created a "minimal" custom pack of disposable surgical supplies expressly for small hand surgery procedures and then measured the waste from 178 small hand surgeries performed using either the "minimal pack" or the "standard pack," depending on physician pack choice. Patients were also asked to complete a postoperative survey on their experience. Data were analyzed using 1- and 2-way ANOVAs, 2-sample t tests, and Fisher exact tests. RESULTS:As expected, WAHS with the minimal pack produced 0.3 kg (13%) less waste and cost $125 (55%) less in supplies per case than sedation & local with the standard pack. Pack size was found to be the driving factor in waste generation. Patients who underwent WAHS reported slightly greater pain and anxiety levels during their surgery, but also reported greater satisfaction with their anesthetic choice, which could be tied to the enthusiasm of the physician performing WAHS. CONCLUSIONS:Surgical waste and spending can be reduced by minimizing the materials brought into the operating room in disposable packs. WAHS, as a nascent technique, may provide an opportunity to drive sustainability by paring back what is considered necessary in these packs. Moreover, despite some initial anxiety, many patients report greater satisfaction with WAHS. All told, our study suggests a potentially broader role for WAHS, with its concomitant emphases on patient satisfaction and the efficient use of time and resources.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:To measure the waste generation and lifecycle environmental emissions from cataract surgery via phacoemulsification in a recognized resource-efficient setting. SETTING/METHODS:Two tertiary care centers of the Aravind Eye Care System in southern India. DESIGN/METHODS:Observational case series. METHODS:Manual waste audits, purchasing data, and interviews with Aravind staff were used in a hybrid environmental lifecycle assessment framework to quantify the environmental emissions associated with cataract surgery. Kilograms of solid waste generated and midpoint emissions in a variety of impact categories (eg, kilograms of carbon dioxide equivalents). RESULTS:Aravind generates 250 grams of waste per phacoemulsification and nearly 6 kilograms of carbon dioxide-equivalents in greenhouse gases. This is approximately 5% of the United Kingdom's phaco carbon footprint with comparable outcomes. A majority of Aravind's lifecycle environmental emissions occur in the sterilization process of reusable instruments because their surgical system uses largely reusable instruments and materials. Electricity use in the operating room and the Central Sterile Services Department (CSSD) accounts for 10% to 25% of most environmental emissions. CONCLUSIONS:Surgical systems in most developed countries and, in particular their use of materials, are unsustainable. Results show that ophthalmologists and other medical specialists can reduce material use and emissions in medical procedures using the system described here.

Aging water infrastructure and increased water scarcity have resulted in higher interest in water reuse and decentralization. Rating systems for high-performance buildings implicitly promote the use of building-scale, decentralized water supply and treatment technologies. It is important to recognize the potential benefits and trade-offs of decentralized and centralized water systems in the context of high-performance buildings. For this reason and to fill a gap in the current literature, we completed a life cycle assessment (LCA) of the decentralized water system of a high-performance, net-zero energy, net-zero water building (NZB) that received multiple green building certifications and compared the results with two modeled buildings (conventional and water efficient) using centralized water systems. We investigated the NZB's impacts over varying lifetimes, conducted a break-even analysis, and included Monte Carlo uncertainty analysis. The results show that, although the NZB performs better in most categories than the conventional building, the water efficient building generally outperforms the NZB. The lifetime of the NZB, septic tank aeration, and use of solar energy have been found to be important factors in the NZB's impacts. While these findings are specific to the case study building, location, and treatment technologies, the framework for comparison of water and wastewater impacts of various buildings can be applied during building design to aid decision making. As we design and operate high-performance buildings, the potential trade-offs of advanced decentralized water treatment systems should be considered.

Objectives Global warming (or climate change) is a major public health issue, and health services are one of the largest contributors to greenhouse gas emissions in high-income countries. Despite the scale of the health care sector's resource consumption, little is known about the attitude of physicians and their willingness to participate in efforts to reduce the environmental impact of health services. Methods A survey of 236 obstetricians and gynaecologists at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center in Western Pennsylvania, USA. Survey responses were compared to Gallup poll data from the general population using a one-sample test of proportions, Fisher's exact tests, Chi-square test, and logistic regression. Results Physicians in obstetrics and gynaecology were more likely than the public (84% vs. 54%; p<0.001) to believe that global warming is occurring, that media portrayal of its seriousness is accurate, and that it is caused by human activities. Two-thirds of physicians felt the amount of surgical waste generated is excessive and increasing. The majority (95%) would support efforts to reduce waste, with 66% favouring the use of reusable surgical tools over disposable where clinically equivalent. Despite their preference for reusable surgical instruments, only 20% preferred the reusable devices available to them. Conclusions Health care providers engaging in sustainability efforts may encounter significant support from physicians and may benefit from including physician leaders in their efforts.