Search

Healthcare’s environmental sustainability is increasingly an area of research and advocacy focus. The Australian and New Zealand College of Anaesthetists (ANZCA) has produced a professional document, PS64, Statement on Environmental Sustainability in Anaesthesia and Pain Medicine Practice, and a background paper, PS64 BP. The purpose of the statement is to affirm ANZCA’s commitment to environmental sustainability and support anaesthetists in promoting environmentally sustainable work practices. This article presents the main features of PS64 and its background paper, and the associated supporting evidence. The healthcare sector is highly interconnected with activities that emit pollution to air, water and soils, considerably adding to humanity’s collective ecological footprint. As anaesthetists, we are uniquely high-carbon doctors due to our work anaesthetising with greenhouse gases (particularly desflurane and nitrous oxide) and our exposure and contribution to large amounts of resource and energy use and waste generation in operating theatres. Discussion is made of the improving research base of anaesthetic life-cycle assessments—that is, cradle-to-grave studies of how much energy, water and so on a product or process requires throughout its entire life. Thereafter, reducing, reusing and recycling as well as water use are examined. Ongoing research efforts within environmentally sustainable anaesthesia are highlighted. Environmentally sustainable anaesthesia requires scholarship, health advocacy, leadership, communication and collaboration. The focus is placed on practical initiatives within PS64 and the background paper that can be achieved by all anaesthetists striving towards more sustainable healthcare practices that reduce waste, reap financial benefits and improve health.

Strategies to reduce the adverse environmental costs of anaesthesia include choice of agent and fresh gas flows. The current preferences of Australian and New Zealand anaesthetists are unknown. We conducted a survey of Australian and New Zealand anaesthetists to determine the use of volatiles, nitrous oxide and intravenous anaesthesia, lowest fresh gas flow rates, automated end-tidal volatile control, and the rationales for these choices. The survey was answered by 359/1000 (36%), although not all questions and multiple responses within single questions were answered by all respondents. Sevoflurane was preferred by 246/342 (72%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 67%–77%), followed by propofol, 54/340 (16%, 95% CI 12%–20%), desflurane 39/339 (12%, 95% CI 8%–16%) and isoflurane 3/338(1%, 95% CI 0–3%). When asked about all anaesthetics, low-risk clinical profile was the most common reason given for using sevoflurane (129/301 (43%, 95% CI 37%–49%)), reduced postoperative nausea for propofol (297/318 (93%, 95% CI 90%–96%)) and faster induction/awakening times for desflurane (46/313 (79%, 95% CI 74%–83%)). Two-thirds (226/340 (66%, 95% CI 61%–71%)) of respondents used nitrous oxide in 0–20% of general anaesthetics. Low fresh gas flow rates for sevoflurane were used by 310/333 (93%, 95% CI 90%–95%) and for 262/268 (98%, 95% CI 95%–99%) for desflurane. Automated end-tidal control was used by 196/333 (59%, 95% CI 53%–64%). The majority of respondents (>70%) preferred sevoflurane at low flows. These data allow anaesthetists to consider further whether changes are required to the choices of anaesthetic agents for environmental, financial, or any other reasons.

We sought to estimate the proportion of patients admitted to a metropolitan intensive care unit (ICU) who were current smokers, and the relationships between ICU survivors who smoked and smoking cessation and/or reduction six months post–ICU discharge. We conducted a prospective cohort study at a metropolitan level III ICU in Melbourne, Victoria. One hundred consecutive patients who met the inclusion criteria were included in the study. Inclusion criteria consisted of patients who were smokers at time of ICU admission, had an ICU length of stay greater than one day, survived to ICU discharge, and provided written informed consent. A purpose-designed questionnaire which included the Fagerstrom test for nicotine dependence and evaluation of patients’ attitude towards smoking cessation was completed by participants following ICU discharge and prior to hospital discharge. Participants were re-interviewed over the phone at six months post–ICU discharge. Of the 1,062 patients admitted to ICU, 253 (23%) were current smokers and 100 were enrolled. Six months post–ICU discharge, 28 (33%) of the 86 participants who were alive and contactable had quit smoking and 35 (41%) had reduced smoking. The median number of reported cigarettes smoked per day reduced by 40%. Participants who initially believed their ICU admission was smoking-related were more likely to have quit six months post–ICU discharge (odds ratio 2.98; 95% confidence intervals 1.07, 8.26; P=0.036). Six months post–ICU discharge, 63/86 (74%) of participants had quit or reduced their smoking. Further research into targeted smoking cessation counselling for ICU survivors is indicated.