The carbon footprint of group and save in elective and emergency surgery.

Abstract

Introduction: Climate change is a significant threat to human health, and surgical care is a major contributor to the carbon footprint of hospital medicine. There is wide variation in perioperative group and save (G&S) blood testing that lacks an evidence base. Eliminating low-value clinical investigations in surgical pathways such as the G&S could lead to significant carbon and cost savings.

Methods: All operations within the trust over a 6-month period and all packed red cell requests made within the same timeframe were analysed retrospectively. Patients were categorised by operation and cross-referenced with transfusion data to determine the transfusion rate of each procedure. The carbon footprint (g CO₂e) of a single G&S was calculated using a bottom-up approach.

Results: Overall, 15,293 operations and 637 red cell requests were included for analysis. Most transfusions across all operation types occurred after the operation day, and only 36 elective cases required intraoperative transfusions. The carbon footprint of the G&S was calculated at 0.43kg CO₂e for an inpatient sample, and 7kg CO₂e for an outpatient sample. Eliminating the second G&S in elective cases with a transfusion rate <1% could save 9 tonnes of CO₂e per year, the equivalent of 24,000 miles in a passenger vehicle.

Conclusions: Transfusion requirements vary significantly for different operation types. Guidelines surrounding perioperative G&S testing should reflect this, which could save avoidable carbon emissions, cost and resources.