Annually, over 300 million surgeries occur globally, requiring numerous surgical instruments. However, many instruments on the tray are returned to the central sterile supply department (CSSD) unused, creating an unsustainable pattern of unnecessary consumption. To address this, we developed a method for optimising surgical instrument trays (SITs) that is straightforward to implement in other hospitals. This optimisation aims to enhance patient safety and sustainability and to improve working conditions and reduce costs. We identified actual instrument usage (IU) in the operating room (OR) and obtained expert recommendations (ERs). Data from both methods were combined in a computer model (CM) to adjust the SITs. The performance of the adjusted SITs was assessed over a year. IU of three different SITs was collected during 16 procedures (mean = 28.4%, SD = 6.4%). Combining IU and ERs resulted in a 36.7% reduction in instruments and a 31.3% weight reduction. These measures contribute to reducing the carbon footprint and enhancing sustainability. During the evaluation of the new SIT contents (n = 7 procedures), mean IU increased from 28.4% (SD = 6.4%) to 46.5% (SD = 11.0%), with no missing instruments during surgery. A one-year follow-up showed no need for further alterations. Combining both methods yields better results than using them individually, efficiently reducing unnecessary items in SITs without compromising patient safety.@en

Highlights: What are the main findings? Using the HSMEA, it is possible to systematically reduce operating room waste. The HSMEA identifies carbon hotspots of surgical waste based on waste stream analysis. Solutions for improvement are found by applying the six Rs of waste management. What is the implication of the main finding? A reproducible efficient approach to improve operating room sustainability. A structured and practical tool to reduce the environmental impact of surgical solid waste. The purpose of this study was to describe a new method to effectively improve the environmental impact of operating rooms through a systematic approach. A proven successful prospective risk analysis tool to improve the safety of complex healthcare processes (Healthcare Failure Mode and Effect Analysis) was adapted to reduce the environmental impact of surgical waste. For this novel method, named the Healthcare Sustainability Mode and Effect Analysis (HSMEA), a multidisciplinary team, using a structured step-by-step approach, systematically inventories surgical waste, quantifies its environmental impacts, identifies hotspots, and provides solutions for improvement. The five steps of the HSMEA are described (definition of the topic, team assembly, flowchart creation, hazard analysis, actions and outcome measures) and the surgical procedure of a caesarean section was used as a case study to assess the applicability of this method to improve its environmental impact. Applying the HSMEA to caesarean sections resulted in a 22% volume reduction and a 22% carbon footprint reduction in surgical waste. This was achieved by revising the disposable custom pack in order to reduce the overage that was present, and by intensifying waste stream segregation for plastic and paper recycling. The HSMEA is a practical work floor tool to aid in the reduction of the environmental impact of surgical waste that is applicable to all types of operations. It is reproducible, and because it identifies carbon hotspots, it enables an efficient approach to the issue of operating room pollution.

@en

The widespread use of single-use polypropylene packaging for sterilization of surgical instruments (blue wrap) results in enormous environmental pollution and plastic waste, estimated at 115 million kilograms on a yearly basis in the United States alone. Rigid sterilization containers (RSCs) are a well-known alternative in terms of quality and price. This paper deals with two research questions investigating the following aspects: (A) the environmental advantage of RCS for high volumes (5000 use cycles) in big hospitals, and (B) the environmental break-even point of use-cycles for small hospitals. An in-depth life cycle assessment was used to benchmark the two sys-tems. As such a benchmark is influenced by the indicator system, three indicator systems were ap-plied: (a) carbon footprint, (b) ReCiPe, and (c) eco-costs. The results are as follows: (1) the analyzed RSC has 85% less environmental impact in carbon footprint, 52% in ReCiPe, and 84.5% in eco-costs; and (2) an ecological advantage already occurs after 98, 228, and 67 out of 5000 use cycles, respec-tively. Given these two alternative packaging systems with comparable costs and quality, our results show that there are potentially large environmental gains to be made when RSC is preferred to blue wrap as a packaging system for sterile surgical instruments on a global scale.

@en