What is the carbon footprint of primary care practices? A retrospective life-cycle analysis in Switzerland.

John Nicolet, Yolanda Mueller, Paola Paruta, Julien Boucher, Nicolas Senn
{"title":"What is the carbon footprint of primary care practices? A retrospective life-cycle analysis in Switzerland.","authors":"John Nicolet,&nbsp;Yolanda Mueller,&nbsp;Paola Paruta,&nbsp;Julien Boucher,&nbsp;Nicolas Senn","doi":"10.1186/s12940-021-00814-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The medical field causes significant environmental impact. Reduction of the primary care practice carbon footprint could contribute to decreasing global carbon emissions. This study aims to quantify the average carbon footprint of a primary care consultation, describe differences between primary care practices (best, worst and average performing) in western Switzerland and identify opportunities for mitigation.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a retrospective carbon footprint analysis of ten private practices over the year 2018. We used life-cycle analysis to estimate carbon emissions of each sector, from manufacture to disposal, expressing results as CO<sub>2</sub> equivalents per average consultation and practice. We then modelled an average and theoretical best- case and worst-case practices. Collected data included invoices, medical and furniture inventories, heating and power supply, staff and patient transport, laboratory analyses (in/out-house) waste quantities and management costs.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>An average medical consultation generated 4.8 kg of CO<sub>2</sub>eq and overall, an average practice produced 30 tons of CO<sub>2</sub>eq per year, with 45.7% for staff and patient transport and 29.8% for heating. Medical consumables produced 5.5% of CO<sub>2</sub>eq emissions, while in-house laboratory and X-rays contributed less than 1% each. Emergency analyses requiring courier transport caused 5.8% of all emissions. Support activities generated 82.6% of the total CO<sub>2</sub>eq. Simulation of best- and worst-case scenarios resulted in a ten-fold variation in CO<sub>2</sub>eq emissions.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Optimizing structural and organisational aspects of practice work could have a major impact on the carbon footprint of primary care practices without large-scale changes in medical activities.</p>","PeriodicalId":520610,"journal":{"name":"Environmental health : a global access science source","volume":" ","pages":"3"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8723904/pdf/","citationCount":"17","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Environmental health : a global access science source","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12940-021-00814-y","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 17

Abstract

Background: The medical field causes significant environmental impact. Reduction of the primary care practice carbon footprint could contribute to decreasing global carbon emissions. This study aims to quantify the average carbon footprint of a primary care consultation, describe differences between primary care practices (best, worst and average performing) in western Switzerland and identify opportunities for mitigation.

Methods: We conducted a retrospective carbon footprint analysis of ten private practices over the year 2018. We used life-cycle analysis to estimate carbon emissions of each sector, from manufacture to disposal, expressing results as CO2 equivalents per average consultation and practice. We then modelled an average and theoretical best- case and worst-case practices. Collected data included invoices, medical and furniture inventories, heating and power supply, staff and patient transport, laboratory analyses (in/out-house) waste quantities and management costs.

Results: An average medical consultation generated 4.8 kg of CO2eq and overall, an average practice produced 30 tons of CO2eq per year, with 45.7% for staff and patient transport and 29.8% for heating. Medical consumables produced 5.5% of CO2eq emissions, while in-house laboratory and X-rays contributed less than 1% each. Emergency analyses requiring courier transport caused 5.8% of all emissions. Support activities generated 82.6% of the total CO2eq. Simulation of best- and worst-case scenarios resulted in a ten-fold variation in CO2eq emissions.

Conclusion: Optimizing structural and organisational aspects of practice work could have a major impact on the carbon footprint of primary care practices without large-scale changes in medical activities.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

初级保健实践的碳足迹是什么?瑞士的回顾性生命周期分析。
背景:医学领域对环境造成重大影响。减少初级保健实践的碳足迹可能有助于减少全球碳排放。本研究旨在量化初级保健咨询的平均碳足迹,描述瑞士西部初级保健做法(最佳、最差和平均表现)之间的差异,并确定缓解的机会。方法:我们对2018年的10家私人诊所进行了回顾性碳足迹分析。我们使用生命周期分析来估计每个部门的碳排放量,从制造到处置,将结果表示为每次平均咨询和实践的二氧化碳当量。然后,我们建立了一个平均和理论上的最佳情况和最坏情况的模型。收集的数据包括发票、医疗和家具库存、供暖和供电、工作人员和病人运输、实验室分析(室内/室外)废物数量和管理费用。结果:平均一次医疗咨询产生4.8千克二氧化碳当量,总体而言,平均每年产生30吨二氧化碳当量,其中45.7%用于工作人员和患者的运输,29.8%用于供暖。医疗耗材产生的二氧化碳当量排放量占5.5%,而内部实验室和x射线的排放量各不到1%。需要快递运输的紧急分析造成了5.8%的总排放量。支持活动产生的二氧化碳占总二氧化碳当量的82.6%。对最佳和最坏情况的模拟结果是二氧化碳当量排放量的10倍变化。结论:优化实践工作的结构和组织方面可以对初级保健实践的碳足迹产生重大影响,而无需大规模改变医疗活动。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信