The EAHP Board, elected for three-year terms, oversees the association’s activities. Comprising directors responsible for core functions, it meets regularly to implement strategic goals. Supported by EAHP staff, the Board controls finances, coordinates congress organization, and ensures compliance with statutes and codes of conduct.
Making a green and lean choice: evaluating the environmental and economic impacts of reprocessable and single-use medical devices in hospital settings
European Statement
Selection, Procurement and Distribution
Author(s)
Samantha HUYNH, Olivia MAZZASCHI, Valérie TALON, Emilie MOREAU
Why was it done?
Healthcare systems face a growing need to balance patient care with environmental responsibility. This approach was initiated at the request of surgeons and was proposed during institutional committees addressing environmental issues.
What was done?
Our aim was to perform a comprehensive analysis of the potential benefits and challenges associated with the substitution of single-use medical devices (SUDs) with reprocessable medical devices (RMDs) within a hospital setting.
How was it done?
We evaluated environmental, economic and organizational impact of this transition by comparing the carbon footprints and costs associated with the substitution of SUDs (suture and antiseptic trays) with RMDs as well as their acceptance by healthcare professionals.
Environmental impact was evaluated by considering manufacturing origin, transportation, and material composition, calculating carbon equivalence based on weight. The energy and water consumption during the sterilization process of RMDs was also included in the carbon footprint quantification.
Economic considerations included SUDs purchasing and management costs as well as acquisition and sterilization costs for RMDs.
Observational audits (n=30) and user satisfaction surveys (n=7) were conducted to evaluate the acceptance of RMDs.
What has been achieved?
RMDs led to a significant reduction in the carbon footprint for both devices. The carbon equivalence for suture trays was reduced from 7.1 kg eqCO2 for SUDs to 4.0 kg eqCO2 for RMDs; for antiseptic trays, SUDs generated 2.2 kg eqCO2 while RMDs 1.1 kg eqCO2. The potential annual reduction of CO2 emissions is 5.2 tonnes per year.
The economic analysis showed that the initial investment in RMDs could be recovered within a remarkably short timeframe (10 months for antiseptic trays, 5 years for suture trays) making it a viable long-term cost-saving strategy.
User feedback showed a preference for RMDs despite slight inconveniences, with 71% of respondents supporting the reduction of SUDs and 83% perceiving RMDs as of superior quality.
What next?
Our findings underscore the feasibility and benefits of transitioning to RMDs, with a significant reduction in carbon footprint and economic viability. While complete elimination of SUDs presents challenges, a balanced approach prioritizing sustainability without compromising quality of care is possible. We believe that this approach can be replicated in diverse healthcare settings, contributing to a more sustainable future management.