Search

Background An innovative approach to choosing hospital equipment is to consider the environmental costs in addition to other costs and benefits. Methods We used life cycle assessment to model the environmental and financial costs of different scenarios of replacing reusable anaesthetic equipment with single-use variants. The primary environmental costs were CO2 emissions (in CO2 equivalents) and water use (in litres). We compared energy source mixes between Australia, the UK/Europe, and the USA. Results For an Australian hospital with six operating rooms, the annual financial cost of converting from single-use equipment to reusable anaesthetic equipment would be an AUD$32 033 (£19 220), 46% decrease. In Australia, converting from single-use to reusable equipment would result in an increase of CO2 emissions from 5095 (95% CI: 4614–5658) to 5575 kg CO2 eq (95% CI: 5542–5608), a 480 kg CO2 eq (9%) increase. Using the UK/European power mix, converting from single-use (5575 kg CO2 eq) to reusable anaesthetic equipment (802 kg CO2 eq) would result in an 84% reduction (4873 kg CO2 eq) in CO2 emissions, whilst in the USA converting to reusables would have led to a 2427 kg CO2 eq (48%) reduction. In Australia, converting from single-use to reusable equipment would more than double water use from 34.4 to 90.6 kilolitres. Conclusions For an Australian hospital with six operating rooms, converting from single-use to reusable anaesthetic equipment saved more than AUD$30 000 (£18 000) per annum, but increased the CO2 emissions by almost 10%. The CO2 offset is highly dependent on the power source mix, while water consumption is greater for reusable equipment.