What is the carbon footprint of primary care practices? A retrospective life-cycle analysis in Switzerland.
Détails
Etat: Public
Version: Final published version
Licence: CC BY 4.0
ID Serval
serval:BIB_542566BFE96A
Type
Article: article d'un périodique ou d'un magazine.
Collection
Publications
Institution
Titre
What is the carbon footprint of primary care practices? A retrospective life-cycle analysis in Switzerland.
Périodique
Environmental health
ISSN
1476-069X (Electronic)
ISSN-L
1476-069X
Statut éditorial
Publié
Date de publication
04/01/2022
Peer-reviewed
Oui
Volume
21
Numéro
1
Pages
3
Langue
anglais
Notes
Publication types: Journal Article
Publication Status: epublish
Publication Status: epublish
Résumé
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Mots-clé
Carbon footprint, Climate change, Practices, Primary care, Public health
Pubmed
Web of science
Open Access
Oui
Création de la notice
11/01/2022 14:48
Dernière modification de la notice
21/07/2022 7:10