You are here

Article Text

Article menu

Download PDFPDF

Electronic Poster Abstracts
E-129 Environmental sustainability in neurointerventional procedures: a waste audit
Free
  1. P Shum1,
  2. H Kok2,3,
  3. J Maingard4,3,
  4. M Schembri5,
  5. M Banez4,
  6. V Van Damme5,
  7. C Barras6,7,
  8. L Slater4,
  9. W Chong4,
  10. R Chandra4,
  11. A Jhamb8,
  12. D Brooks5,9,
  13. H Asadi4,5
  1. 1Monash Health, Clayton, Australia
  2. 2Interventional Radiology Service, Department of Radiology, Northern Health, Epping, Australia
  3. 3School of Medicine, Faculty of Health, Deakin University, Geelong, Australia
  4. 4Interventional Neuroradiology Unit, Monash Imaging, Monash Health, Clayton, Australia
  5. 5Interventional Neuroradiology Service, Department of Radiology, Austin Health, Heidelberg, Australia
  6. 6Royal Adelaide Hospital, Adelaide, Australia
  7. 7South Australian Health and Medical Research Institute, Adelaide, Australia
  8. 8Department of Interventional Radiology, St Vincent’s Hospital, Fitzroy, Australia
  9. 9Florey Institute of Neuroscience and Mental Health – Austin Campus, Heidelberg, Australia

Abstract

Purpose Operating rooms contribute between 20–70% of hospital waste. This study aimed to evaluate the waste burden of neurointerventional procedures performed in a Radiology department, to identify areas for waste reduction and to motivate new greening initiatives.

Materials and Methods We performed a waste audit of 17 neurointerventional procedures at a tertiary-referral centre over a 3 month period (November 2019 to January 2020). Waste was categorised into five streams: general waste, clinical waste, recyclable plastics, recyclable paper and sharps. Our radiology department started recycling soft plastic from 13 December 2019. Hence, an additional recyclable soft plastic waste stream was added. The weight of each waste stream was measured using a digital weighing scale.

Results We measured the waste from seven cerebral digital subtraction angiograms (DSA), six endovascular clot retrievals (ECR), two aneurysm coiling procedures, one coiling with tumour embolisation and one dural arteriovenous fistula embolisation procedure. Seventeen procedures generated 135.3 kg of waste in total: 85.5 kg (63.2%) clinical waste, 28.0 kg (20.7%) general waste, 14.7 kg (10.9%) recyclable paper, 3.5 kg (2.6%) recyclable plastic, 2.2 kg (1.6%) recyclable soft plastic and 1.4 kg (1.0%) of sharps. An average of 8.0 kg of waste was generated per case. Coiling cases produced the greatest waste burden (13.1 kg), followed by embolisation (10.3 kg), ECR (8.8 kg) and DSA procedures (5.1 kg).

Abstract E-129 Figure 1
Abstract E-129 Figure 1

Conclusion Neurointerventional procedures generate a substantial amount of waste. Green practices such as engaging with suppliers to revise procedure packs and reduce packaging, digitising paper instructions, opening devices only when necessary, implementing additional recycling programs and appropriate waste segregation have the potential to reduce the environmental impact of our specialty.

Disclosures P. Shum: None. H. Kok: 2; C; Northern Health. J. Maingard: None. M. Schembri: None. M. Banez: None. V. Van Damme: None. C. Barras: 2; C; Royal Adelaide Hospital. L. Slater: 2; C; Monash Health. W. Chong: 2; C; Monash Health. R. Chandra: 2; C; Monash Health. A. Jhamb: 2; C; St Vincent’s Hospital. D. Brooks: 2; C; Austin Health. H. Asadi: 2; C; Austin Health, Monash Health.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/neurintsurg-2020-SNIS.161

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.