The carbon footprint of an Australian satellite haemodialysis unit

Abstract

State-by-state contributions of energy and water use to the carbon footprint of satellite HD appear to vary significantly. Performing emissions planning and target setting at the state level may be more appropriate in the Australian context. What is known about the topic? Healthcare provision carries a significant environmental footprint. In particular, conventional HD uses substantial amounts of electricity and water. In the UK, provision of HD and peritoneal dialysis was found to have an annual per-patient carbon footprint of 7.1t CO2-eq. What does this paper add? This is the first carbon-footprinting study of HD in Australia. In Victoria, the annual per-patient carbon footprint of satellite conventional HD is 10.2t CO2-eq. Notably, the contributions of electricity and water consumption to the carbon footprint varies significantly throughout Australia when local factors are taken into account. What are the implications for practitioners? We recommend that healthcare providers consider local factors when planning emissions reduction strategies, and target setting should be performed at the state, as opposed to national, level. There is a need for more comprehensive and current emissions data to enable healthcare providers to do so.

Green dialysis survey: Establishing a baseline for environmental sustainability across dialysis facilities in Victoria, Australia

“…The majority of dialysis patients in Australia receive facility based HD, which mandates thrice weekly travel to and from their local healthcare facility. Thus, unsurprisingly travel contributes significantly to the CFP of dialysis in Australia . The survey suggested that few dialysis services are actively attempting to address transport‐related emissions.…”

“…Similarly, an Australian study from Barwon Health, Victoria, estimated that procurement accounted for 61.6% of the CFP of a satellite dialysis unit, in contrast to 18.6% for electricity usage, 8.8% for patient and staff travel and 7.6% for water usage (see Fig. ) . Meaningful efforts to reduce the dialysis sector CFP must therefore address procurement.…”

“…Dialysis programmes have a particularly large carbon footprint (CFP), with a recurrent, per capita resource consumption and waste generation profile that appears disproportionally high compared to most other medical therapies . One Australian study has estimated the per‐patient annual CFP of conventional haemodialysis (HD) at approximately 10.2 tonnes CO 2 ‐equivalents (t CO 2 ‐eq) – more than 20 times the mean per patient CFP in UK healthcare of 0.426 t CO 2 ‐eq . The financial cost of treating end‐stage kidney disease over the period 2009 to 2020 has been estimated at $12 billion to the Australian Government…”

Climate change and us: What nephrologists should know

“…One Australian study has looked more comprehensively at the combined environmental impact of these and other components of haemodialysis therapy, taking into account the relative contributions of procurement of pharmaceuticals/consumables, medical equipment, energy usage, travel and transport, water usage and waste. The annual per‐patient haemodialysis‐generated carbon footprint was calculated to be 10.2 tonnes CO2‐equivalents, which was more than half the Australian mean annual per capita CO2 emission estimate of 18.8 tonnes CO2‐equivalents …”

Dialysis and the environment: Seeking a more sustainable future

“…Carbon footprint studies in nephrology are scarce. Only two studies from the United Kingdom and one study from Australia have attempted to calculate the carbon cost of HD, while only one study from China has documented the carbon footprint of PD . Despite this, all are limited in scope and the full carbon impact of dialysis remains a largely unknown quantity.…”