Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
Title: Financial and environmental costs of reusable and single-use anaesthetic equipment.
Austin Authors: McGain, F;Story, David A ;Lim, T;McAlister, S
Affiliation: Department of Anaesthesia and Department of Intensive Care, Western Health, Gordon Street, Footscray, VIC 3011, Australia
Department of Anaesthesia, Austin Health, Heidelberg, Victoria, Australia
Ecoquantum Consulting Suite 43A Crisp Avenue, Brunswick, VIC 3056, Australia
Issue Date: 1-Jun-2017
Publication information: British journal of anaesthesia 2017; 118(6): 862-869
Abstract: An innovative approach to choosing hospital equipment is to consider the environmental costs in addition to other costs and benefits. We used life cycle assessment to model the environmental and financial costs of different scenarios of replacing reusable anaesthetic equipment with single-use variants. The primary environmental costs were CO 2 emissions (in CO 2 equivalents) and water use (in litres). We compared energy source mixes between Australia, the UK/Europe, and the USA. For an Australian hospital with six operating rooms, the annual financial cost of converting from single-use equipment to reusable anaesthetic equipment would be an AUD$32 033 (£19 220), 46% decrease. In Australia, converting from single-use to reusable equipment would result in an increase of CO 2 emissions from 5095 (95% CI: 4614-5658) to 5575 kg CO 2 eq (95% CI: 5542-5608), a 480 kg CO 2 eq (9%) increase. Using the UK/European power mix, converting from single-use (5575 kg CO 2 eq) to reusable anaesthetic equipment (802 kg CO 2 eq) would result in an 84% reduction (4873 kg CO 2 eq) in CO 2 emissions, whilst in the USA converting to reusables would have led to a 2427 kg CO 2 eq (48%) reduction. In Australia, converting from single-use to reusable equipment would more than double water use from 34.4 to 90.6 kilolitres. For an Australian hospital with six operating rooms, converting from single-use to reusable anaesthetic equipment saved more than AUD$30 000 (£18 000) per annum, but increased the CO 2 emissions by almost 10%. The CO 2 offset is highly dependent on the power source mix, while water consumption is greater for reusable equipment.
DOI: 10.1093/bja/aex098
ORCID: 0000-0002-6479-1310
Journal: British journal of anaesthesia
PubMed URL: 28505289
Type: Journal Article
Subjects: anaesthesia
health economics
life cycle assessment
Appears in Collections:Journal articles

Show full item record

Page view(s)

checked on Jul 18, 2024

Google ScholarTM


Items in AHRO are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.