Behavioural change interventions encouraging clinicians to reduce carbon emissions in clinical activity: a systematic review

Clinician and health service interventions to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions generated by healthcare: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To synthesise the available evidence on the effects of interventions designed to improve the delivery of healthcare that reduces the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of healthcare.

DESIGN

Systematic review and structured synthesis.

SEARCH SOURCES

Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, Web of Science and Embase from inception to 3 May 2023.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised, quasi-randomised and non-randomised controlled trials, interrupted time series and controlled or uncontrolled before-after studies that assessed interventions primarily designed to improve the delivery of healthcare that reduces the GHG emissions of healthcare initiated by clinicians or healthcare services within any setting.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Primary outcome was GHG emissions. Secondary outcomes were financial costs, effectiveness, harms, patient-relevant outcomes, engagement and acceptability.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Paired authors independently selected studies for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias using a modified checklist for observational studies and the certainty of the evidence using Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation. Data could not be pooled because of clinical and methodological heterogeneity, so we synthesised results in a structured summary of intervention effects with vote counting based on direction of effect.

RESULTS

21 observational studies were included. Interventions targeted delivery of anaesthesia (12 of 21), waste/recycling (5 of 21), unnecessary test requests (3 of 21) and energy (1 of 21). The primary intervention type was clinician education. Most (20 of 21) studies were judged at unclear or high risk of bias for at least one criterion. Most studies reported effect estimates favouring the intervention (GHG emissions 17 of 18, costs 13 of 15, effectiveness 18 of 20, harms 1 of 1 and staff acceptability 1 of 1 studies), but the evidence is very uncertain for all outcomes (downgraded predominantly for observational study design and risk of bias). No studies reported patient-relevant outcomes other than death or engagement with the intervention.

CONCLUSIONS

Interventions designed to improve the delivery of healthcare that reduces GHG emissions may reduce GHG emissions and costs, reduce anaesthesia use, waste and unnecessary testing, be acceptable to staff and have little to no effect on energy use or unintended harms, but the evidence is very uncertain. Rigorous studies that measure GHG emissions using gold-standard life cycle assessment are needed as well as studies in more diverse areas of healthcare. It is also important that future interventions to reduce GHG emissions evaluate the effect on beneficial and harmful patient outcomes.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42022309428.

Diagnostic Excellence in the Context of Climate Change: A Review

Climate change is leading to a rise in heat-related illnesses, vector-borne diseases, and numerous negative impacts on patients' physical and mental health outcomes. Concurrently, healthcare contributes about 4.6% of global greenhouse gas emissions. Low-value care, such as overtesting and overdiagnosis, contributes to unnecessary emissions. In this review, we describe diagnostic excellence in the context of climate change and focus on two topics. First, climate change is affecting health, leading to the emergence of certain diseases, some of which are new, while others are increasing in prevalence and/or becoming more widespread. These conditions will require timely and accurate diagnosis by clinicians who may not be used to diagnosing them. Second, diagnostic quality issues, such as overtesting and overdiagnosis, contribute to climate change through unnecessary emissions and waste and should be targeted for interventions. We also highlight implications for clinical practice, research, and policy. Our findings call for efforts to engage healthcare professionals and policymakers in understanding the urgent implications for diagnosis in the context of climate change and reducing global greenhouse gas emissions to enhance both patient and planetary outcomes.

Defining Roles and Responsibilities of the Health Workforce to Respond to the Climate Crisis

Importance

The adverse effects of climate change are now apparent, disproportionately affecting marginalized and vulnerable populations and resulting in urgent worldwide calls to action. Health professionals occupy a critical position in the response to climate change, including in climate mitigation and adaptation, and their professional expertise and roles as health messengers are currently underused in the society-wide response to this crisis.

Observations

Clinical and public health professionals have important roles and responsibilities, some of which are shared, that they must fill for society to successfully mitigate the root causes of climate change and build a health system that can reduce morbidity and mortality impacts from climate-related hazards. When viewed through a preventive framework, the unique and synergizing roles and responsibilities provide a blueprint for investment in climate change-related prevention (primary, secondary, and tertiary), capacity building, education, and training of the health workforce. Substantial investment in increasing the competence and collaboration of health professionals is required, which must be undertaken in an urgent, coordinated, and deliberate manner.

Conclusions and Relevance

Exceptional collaboration, knowledge sharing, and workforce capacity building are essential to tackle the complex ways in which climate change threatens health. This framework serves as a guide for health system leaders, education institutions, policy planners, and others seeking to create a more resilient and just health system.

Exploring anaesthetists' views on the carbon footprint of anaesthesia and identifying opportunities and challenges for reducing its impact on the environment

A shift in practice by anaesthetists away from anaesthetic gases with high global warming potential towards lower emission techniques (e.g. total intravenous anaesthesia) could result in significant carbon savings for the health system. The purpose of this qualitative interview study was to understand anaesthetists' perspectives on the carbon footprint of anaesthesia, and views on shifting practice towards more environmentally sustainable options. Anaesthetists were recruited from four hospitals in Western Sydney, Australia. Data were organised according to the capability-opportunity-motivation model of behaviour change. Twenty-eight anaesthetists were interviewed (July-September 2021). Participants' age ranged from 29 to 62 years (mean 43 years), 39% were female, and half had completed their anaesthesia training between 2010 and 2019. Challenges to the wider use of greener anaesthetic agents were identified across all components of the capability-opportunity-motivation model: capability (gaps in clinician skills and experience, uncertainty regarding research evidence); opportunity (norms, time, and resource pressures); and motivation (beliefs, habits, responsibility and guilt). Suggestions for encouraging a shift to more environmentally friendly anaesthesia included access to education and training, implementing guidelines and audit/feedback models, environmental restructuring, improving resource availability, reducing low value care, and building the research evidence base on the safety of alternative agents and their impacts on patient outcomes. We identified opportunities and challenges to reducing the carbon footprint of anaesthesia in Australian hospitals by way of system-level and individual behavioural change. Our findings will be used to inform the development of communication and behavioural interventions aiming to mitigate carbon emissions of healthcare.

Barriers and facilitators to sustainable operating theatres: a systematic review using the Theoretical Domains Framework

BACKGROUND

The health sector contributes significantly to the climate crisis. Operating theatres (OTs) in particular are a major contributor of greenhouse gas emissions and waste, and while there are several evidence-based guidelines to reduce this impact, these are often not followed. The authors systematically reviewed the literature to identify barriers and facilitators of sustainable behaviour in OTs, categorising these using the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Medline, Embase, PsychInfo, and Global Health databases were searched for articles published between January 2000 and June 2023, using the concepts: barriers and facilitators, sustainability, and surgery. Two reviewers screened abstracts from identified studies, evaluated quality, and extracted data. Identified determinants were mapped to TDF domains and further themes as required. The results were reported in line with PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) and AMSTAR (A MeaSurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews) guidelines.

RESULTS

Twenty-one studies were selected for analysis and assessment (17 surveys and four interview studies) comprising 8286 participants, including surgeons, nurses, and anaesthetists. Eighteen themes across 10 TDF domains were identified. The most common barriers to adoption of green behaviours in OTs were in domains of: 'knowledge' ( N =18), for example knowledge of sustainable practices; 'environmental context and resources' ( N =16) for example personnel shortage and workload and inadequate recycling facilities; 'social influences' ( N =9) for example lack of leadership/organisational mandate or support; 'beliefs about consequences' ( N =9) for example concerns regarding safety. Intention was the most common facilitator, with 11 studies citing it.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite intentions to adopt sustainable practices in OTs, this review identified several barriers to doing so. Interventions should focus on mitigating these, especially by improving staff's knowledge of sustainability practices and working within the environmental context and time pressures. Furthermore, institutional change programmes and policies are needed to prioritise sustainability at the hospital and trust level. Additional qualitative work should also be conducted using behavioural frameworks, to more comprehensively investigate barriers and determinants to decarbonise OTs.

Improving environmental sustainability of intensive care units: A mini-review

The carbon footprint of healthcare is significantly impacted by intensive care units, which has implications for climate change and planetary health. Considering this, it is crucial to implement widespread efforts to promote environmental sustainability in these units. A literature search for publications relevant to environmental sustainability of intensive care units was done using PubMed. This mini-review seeks to equip intensive care unit practitioners and managers with the knowledge necessary to measure and mitigate the carbon cost of healthcare for critically ill patients. It will also provide an overview of the current progress in this field and its future direction.