First step to environmentally sustainable endoscopy practice: a prospective study of minimizing multiple device use during screening colonoscopy at a large tertiary center

Abstract

Background

The healthcare sector generates 8% of greenhouse gas emissions in the USA, of which gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy is the third largest contributor. Single-use tools are a major contributor to modifiable waste generation during GI endoscopy. Through a quality improvement initiative, we aimed to reduce endoscopy waste by urging gastroenterologists to be mindful of tools used during polypectomies by avoiding using multiple tools.

Methods

We discussed green endoscopy initiatives in monthly journal club and business meetings. Over 14 weeks, 210 patients were included in the pre-intervention group and 112 in the post-intervention group.

Results

At baseline, 34% of colonoscopies required no intervention, 32% required one tool (either biopsy forceps or a snare), and 33% required multiple tools. After the intervention, the use of just one tool increased (17 percentage point increase; P=0.003) and the use of multiple tools decreased significantly (16 percentage point decrease; P=0.002). The odds ratio for use of a single tool compared with multiple tools after the intervention was 3.0 (95%CI 1.6 to 5.5; P=0.005).

Conclusion

This single-center quality improvement study noted a significant change in practice patterns favoring the use of a single tool over multiple tools during colonoscopies after an environmentally conscious practice intervention was applied. This intervention can be readily applied to reduce endoscopy-related waste.

Publication History

Received: 04 May 2024

Accepted after revision: 14 October 2024

Accepted Manuscript online:
14 October 2024

Article published online:
27 November 2024

• References

• 1 Rodríguez-Jiménez L, Romero-Martín M, Spruell T. et al. The carbon footprint of healthcare settings: A systematic review. J Adv Nurs 2023; 79: 2830-2844
• 2 Pichler P-P, Jaccard IS, Weisz U. et al. International comparison of health care carbon footprints. Environ Res Lett 2019; 14: 064004
• 3 Vaccari M, Tudor T, Perteghella A. Costs associated with the management of waste from healthcare facilities: An analysis at national and site level. Waste Manag Res 2018; 36: 39-47
• 4 Pohl H, de Latour R, Reuben A. et al. GI Multisociety Strategic Plan on environmental sustainability. Gastroenterology 2022; 163: 1695-1701.e2
• 5 Sebastian S, Dhar A, Baddeley R. et al. Green endoscopy: British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG), Joint Accreditation Group (JAG) and Centre for Sustainable Health (CSH) joint consensus on practical measures for environmental sustainability in endoscopy. Gut 2023; 72: 12-26
• 6 Rex DK, Gallagher JA, Lahr RE. et al. One-device colonoscopy: feasibility, cost savings, and plastic waste reduction by procedure indication, when performed by a high detecting colonoscopist. Endoscopy 2024; 56: 102-107
• 7 López-Muñoz P, Martín-Cabezuelo R, Lorenzo-Zúñiga V. et al. Life cycle assessment of routinely used endoscopic instruments and simple intervention to reduce our environmental impact. Gut 2023; 72: 1692-1697
• 8 Henniger D, Windsheimer M, Beck H. et al. Assessment of the yearly carbon emission of a gastrointestinal endoscopy unit. Gut 2023; 72: 1816
• 9 Lacroute J, Marcantoni J, Petitot S. et al. The carbon footprint of ambulatory gastrointestinal endoscopy. Endoscopy 2023; 55: 918-926
• 10 Donnelly L. Green endoscopy: practical implementation. Frontline Gastroenterol 2022; 13: e7-e12
• 11 Bortoluzzi F, Sorge A, Vassallo R. et al. Sustainability in gastroenterology and digestive endoscopy: Position Paper from the Italian Association of Hospital Gastroenterologists and Digestive Endoscopists (AIGO). Dig Liver Dis 2022; 54: 1623-1629
• 12 Patrun J, Okreša L, Iveković H. et al. Diagnostic accuracy of NICE classification system for optical recognition of predictive morphology of colorectal polyps. Gastroenterol Res Pract 2018; 2018: 7531368
• 13 Ferlitsch M, Moss A, Hassan C. et al. Colorectal polypectomy and endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR): European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Clinical Guideline. Endoscopy 2017; 49: 270-297
• 14 Neves JAC, Santiago ER de, Pohl H. et al. Perspectives and awareness of endoscopy healthcare professionals on sustainable practices in gastrointestinal endoscopy: results of the LEAFGREEN survey. Endoscopy 2024; 56: 355-363
• 15 Rodríguez De Santiago E, Dinis-Ribeiro M, Pohl H. et al. Reducing the environmental footprint of gastrointestinal endoscopy: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and European Society of Gastroenterology and Endoscopy Nurses and Associates (ESGENA) Position Statement. Endoscopy 2022; 54: 797-826