The carbon footprint of acute care: how energy intensive is critical care?

Pollard, Adam; Paddle, Jonathan; Taylor, Tim; Tillyard, Andrew

doi:10.1016/j.puhe.2014.06.015

Cited by 40 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“… Are there trade-offs between the carbon footprint and other environmental effects? Intensive care Known: The carbon footprint of machines for treating 100 ICU patients and the overall ICU footprint. 101 ICU engineering HVAC formed the majority of the carbon footprint.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Pollard and colleagues 100 performed an LCA in the critical care setting, finding that an English ICU's average electricity use for direct patient care and lighting was 15 kW h patient −1 day −1 , similar to that of an average Australian four-person household. However, Pollard and colleagues 100 excluded energy for HVAC, consumables, drugs, and laboratory testing. A 2018 study examined the carbon footprint of treating ICU patients with septic shock in Australia and the USA, including HVAC, drugs, and testing using a hybrid LCA approach.…”

Section: Life Cycle Assessments In Anaesthesia and Critical Carementioning

confidence: 97%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Environmental sustainability in anaesthesia and critical care

McGain

Muret

Lawson

et al. 2020

British Journal of Anaesthesia

240

226

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The detrimental health effects of climate change continue to increase. Although health systems respond to this disease burden, healthcare itself pollutes the atmosphere, land, and waterways. We surveyed the 'state of the art' environmental sustainability research in anaesthesia and critical care, addressing why it matters, what is known, and ideas for future work. Focus is placed upon the atmospheric chemistry of the anaesthetic gases, recent work clarifying their relative global warming potentials, and progress in waste anaesthetic gas treatment. Life cycle assessment (LCA; i.e. 'cradle to grave' analysis) is introduced as the definitive method used to compare and contrast ecological footprints of products, processes, and systems. The number of LCAs within medicine has gone from rare to an established body of knowledge in the past decade that can inform doctors of the relative ecological merits of different techniques. LCAs with practical outcomes are explored, such as the carbon footprint of reusable vs single-use anaesthetic devices (e.g. drug trays, laryngoscope blades, and handles), and the carbon footprint of treating an ICU patient with septic shock. Avoid, reduce, reuse, recycle, and reprocess are then explored. Moving beyond routine clinical care, the vital influences that the source of energy (renewables vs fossil fuels) and energy efficiency have in healthcare's ecological footprint are highlighted. Discussion of the integral roles of research translation, education, and advocacy in driving the perioperative and critical care environmental sustainability agenda completes this review.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Life Cycle Assessments In Anaesthesia and Critical Carementioning

confidence: 97%

Environmental sustainability in anaesthesia and critical care

McGain

Muret

Lawson

et al. 2020

British Journal of Anaesthesia

240

226

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A recent position paper from the American College of Physicians called for ‘the broader health care community throughout the world [to] engage in environmentally sustainable practices that reduce carbon emissions’ [ 13 ], and in 2018 the British Medical Journal published an editorial calling on medical organizations to divest from fossil fuels [ 14 ]. Multiple papers interrogate the environmental impact of laparoscopic surgery, otorhinolaryngology, endoscopic urological procedures, anesthetic equipment, acute care, outpatient care and the operating room and hospitals in general, and discuss techniques to mitigate these effects [ 8 , 9 , [15] , [16] , [17] , [18] , [19] , [20] , [21] , [22] , [23] , [24] ]. The broader scientific community has discussed the environmental implications of conferences [ 1 , 25 , 26 ], and concern regarding the same issue has been raised within the medical community [ 27 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Medical conferences in the era of environmental conscientiousness and a global health crisis: The carbon footprint of presenter flights to pre-COVID pediatric urology conferences and a consideration of future options

Milford

Rickard

Chua

et al. 2021

Journal of Pediatric Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction Medical conferences are integral to academic medicine, with academic posters being a well-established medium for presenting research. However, conferences carry an ecological footprint due to greenhouse gas emissions. Furthermore, traditional conference formats have recently not been possible due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Herein we examine the carbon footprint associated with travel by presenting delegates to the Fall SPU conferences from 2013 to 2019, and the 2015 ESPU conference. Methods Online programs for the targeted SPU Fall meetings and the 2015 ESPU Annual Meeting were retrospectively reviewed. Variables collected included meeting location and presenter home base. Distance traveled by the presenter, and likely CO 2 e of this return trip were estimated using online calculators. Analysis was performed using the Kruskal-Wallis-H test with pairwise comparisons to detect differences in round trip distances and CO 2 e between meeting locations. Results Six Fall SPU conferences and one ESPU conference were reviewed. The majority of presenters were from the region (North America and Europe, respectively), for both SPU and ESPU. The median round trip distance was 2596.34 miles (IQR 1420.96–4438.30), and the median CO 2 e 0.61 metric tons (IQR 0.36–1.02). We found that the distances traveled to conferences in the Western USA and Europe were slightly further than those to conferences in Central Canada and the Southern US. The difference in CO 2 e between these locations did not achieve statistical significance. Conclusion Presenter travel to and from pediatric urological conferences generates an important carbon footprint and may not be possible in the medium-term future due to a global pandemic. We should explore strategies to allow meetings and knowledge exchange to continue whilst reducing the need for travel and the ecological burden of conferences. Level of Evidence Level III: Most comparative level of evidence.

show abstract

“…Significant progress can be made, however, with the implementation of legal targets and political will, as evidenced by the reduction in total health and social care emissions by 18.5% in England over the last decade (21,29). The total emissions per bed day in a critical care unit were calculated to be approximately equivalent to 9 kg of CO 2 (CO 2 e) (not including heating, travel, or procurement) (30). Prior work has demonstrated the daily carbon footprint of treating one adult intensive care patient (178 kg CO 2 e) with septic shock in the United States to be equivalent to the total daily carbon output of 3.5 Americans (31).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Pediatric Critical Care and the Climate Emergency: Our Responsibilities and a Call for Change

Wooldridge

Murthy

2020

Front. Pediatr.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Critical care is perhaps one of the most "climate-intensive" divisions of health care. As greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise, the unprecedented threat of climate change has belatedly prompted an increased awareness of critical care's environmental impact. Within our role as pediatric critical care providers, we have a dual responsibility not only to care for children at their most vulnerable, but also to advocate on their behalf. There are clear, demonstrable effects of our worsening climate on the health of children, with the resultant increased burden of pediatric critical illness and disruption to health care systems. From increasing wildfires and their effect on lung health, to the spread of vector-borne diseases such as dengue, and the increased migration of children due to a changing climate, the effects of a changing climate are here, and we are beginning to see the changing epidemiology of pediatric critical illness. Ensuring that the effects of ongoing changes are minimized, including its future effects on child health, requires a multifaceted approach. As part of this review, we will use the Lancet Countdown on Climate Change indicators to explore the impact of pediatric critical care on climate change and the inevitable influence climate change will have on the future practice of pediatric critical care globally.

show abstract

The carbon footprint of acute care: how energy intensive is critical care?

Cited by 40 publications

References 13 publications

Environmental sustainability in anaesthesia and critical care

Environmental sustainability in anaesthesia and critical care

Medical conferences in the era of environmental conscientiousness and a global health crisis: The carbon footprint of presenter flights to pre-COVID pediatric urology conferences and a consideration of future options

Pediatric Critical Care and the Climate Emergency: Our Responsibilities and a Call for Change

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About