Search

Objectives. This study aimed to better understand the carbon emission impact of haemodialysis (HD) throughout Australia by determining its carbon footprint, the relative contributions of various sectors to this footprint, and how contributions from electricity and water consumption are affected by local factors. Methods. Activity data associated with HD provision at a 6-chair suburban satellite HD unit in Victoria in 2011 was collected and converted to a common measurement unit of tonnes of CO2 equivalents (t CO2-eq) via established emissions factors. For electricity and water consumption, emissions factors for other Australian locations were applied to assess the impact of local factors on these footprint contributors. Results. In Victoria, the annual per-patient carbon footprint of satellite HD was calculated to be 10.2 t CO2-eq. The largest contributors were pharmaceuticals (35.7%) and medical equipment (23.4%). Throughout Australia, the emissions percentage attributable to electricity consumption ranged from 5.2% to 18.6%, while the emissions percentage attributable to water use ranged from 4.0% to 11.6%. Conclusions. 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 7.1 t 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 10.2 t 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective. The aim of the present study was to quantify hospital steam steriliser resource consumption to provide baseline environmental data and identify possible efficiency gains. We sought to find the amount of steriliser electricity and water used for active cycles and for idling (standby), and the relationship between the electricity and water consumption and the mass and type of items sterilised. Methods. Welogged a hospital steam steriliser's electricity and water meters every 5 min for up to 1 year. We obtained details of all active cycles (standard 1348C and accessory or 'test' cycles), recording item masses and types. Relationships were investigated for both the weight and type of items sterilised with electricity and water consumption. Results. Over 304 days there were 2173 active cycles, including 1343 standard 1348C cycles that had an average load mass of 21.2 kg, with 32% of cycles <15 kg. Electricity used for active cycles was 32 652 kWh (60% of total), whereas the water used was 1 243 495 L (79%). Standby used 21 457 kWh (40%) electricity and 329 200 L (21%) water. Total electricity and water consumption per mass sterilised was 1.9 kWh kg-1 and 58 L kg-1, respectively. The linear regression model predicting electricity use was: kWh = 15.7+ 0.14 × mass (in kg; R² = 0.58, P < 0.01). Models for water and item type were poor. Electricity and water use fell from 3 kWh kg-1 and 200 L kg-1, respectively, for 5-kg loads to 0.5 kWh kg-1 and 20 L kg-1, respectively, for 40-kg loads. Conclusions. Considerable electricity and water use occurred during standby, load mass was only moderately predictive of electricity consumption and light loads were common yet inefficient. The findings of the present study are a baseline for steam sterilisation's environmental footprint and identify areas to improve efficiencies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]