Urology research & practice · 2024
Uncovering the Evidence for Sustainability in Urology: A Scoping Review.
СтатьяScoping ReviewНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Abdulrasheed Habeeb, Adenipekun Ayokunle, Elsayed Waleed, Mohsin Mohamed S, Madarshahian Daniel, Almedej Humood, Osman Banan
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: This article focuses on the environmental impact of urology devices and procedures in hospitals and identifies practices that can reduce greenhouse gas emissions associated with urology services.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A scoping review following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines was conducted using MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Google Scholar to find studies on the carbon footprint of urologic procedures and sustainable practices.
RESULTS: We identified 14 studies, 6 of which used life cycle assessments to compare the environmental impact of single-use and reusable urology devices. Three studies favored single-use devices, 2 favored reusable ones, and 1 found no significant difference, with the sterilization of reusable devices being a major carbon contributor. To enhance sustainability in urology, 8 articles suggested measures including day-case procedures, minimizing low-value care, drapeless cystoscopy, fluid management systems, using quick response (QR) codes in documentation, telehealth initiatives, and low-emission anesthetics.
CONCLUSION: Promoting sustainability in healthcare requires more than just using reusable equipment; it necessitates a comprehensive approach from manufacturing to disposal, including the carbon footprint of sterilization. Encouraging low-emission anesthetics, QR codes, and telemedicine can significantly reduce emissions in urology.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A scoping review following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines was conducted using MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Google Scholar to find studies on the carbon footprint of urologic procedures and sustainable practices.
RESULTS: We identified 14 studies, 6 of which used life cycle assessments to compare the environmental impact of single-use and reusable urology devices. Three studies favored single-use devices, 2 favored reusable ones, and 1 found no significant difference, with the sterilization of reusable devices being a major carbon contributor. To enhance sustainability in urology, 8 articles suggested measures including day-case procedures, minimizing low-value care, drapeless cystoscopy, fluid management systems, using quick response (QR) codes in documentation, telehealth initiatives, and low-emission anesthetics.
CONCLUSION: Promoting sustainability in healthcare requires more than just using reusable equipment; it necessitates a comprehensive approach from manufacturing to disposal, including the carbon footprint of sterilization. Encouraging low-emission anesthetics, QR codes, and telemedicine can significantly reduce emissions in urology.