• Energy Research

AbstractIn order to reduce the transmission of pathogens, and COVID-19, WHO and NHS England recommend hand washing (HW) and/or the use of hand sanitizer (HS). The planetary health consequences of these different methods of hand hygiene have not been quantified. A comparative life cycle assessment (LCA) was carried out to compare the environmental impact of the UK population practising increased levels of hand hygiene during the COVID-19 pandemic for 1 year. Washing hands with soap and water was compared to using hand sanitizer (both ethanol and isopropanol based sanitizers were studied). The isopropanol-based HS had the lowest environmental impact in 14 out of the 16 impact categories used in this study. For climate change, hand hygiene using isopropanol HS produced the equivalent of 1060 million kg CO2, compared to 1460 million for ethanol HS, 2300 million for bar soap HW, and 4240 million for liquid soap HW. For both the ethanol and isopropanol HS, the active ingredient was the greatest overall contributing factor to the environmental impact (83.24% and 68.68% respectively). For HW with liquid soap and bar soap, there were additional contributing factors other than the soap itself: for example tap water use (28.12% and 48.68% respectively) and the laundering of a hand towel to dry the hands (10.17% and 17.92% respectively). All forms of hand hygiene have an environmental cost, and this needs to be weighed up against the health benefits of preventing disease transmission. When comparing hand sanitizers to handwashing with soap and water, this study found that using isopropanol based hand sanitizer is better for planetary health. However, no method of hand hygiene was ideal; isopropanol had a greater fossil fuel resource use than ethanol based hand sanitizer. More research is needed to find hand hygiene sources which do not diminish planetary health, and environmental impact is a consideration for public health campaigns around hand hygiene.

The purpose of this Consensus Statement is to provide a global, collaborative, representative and inclusive vision for educating an interprofessional healthcare workforce that can deliver sustainable healthcare and promote planetary health. It is intended to inform national and global accreditation standards, planning and action at the institutional level as well as highlight the role of individuals in transforming health professions education. Many countries have agreed to ‘rapid, far-reaching and unprecedented changes’ to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 45% within 10 years and achieve carbon neutrality by 2050, including in healthcare. Currently, however, health professions graduates are not prepared for their roles in achieving these changes. Thus, to reduce emissions and meet the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), health professions education must equip undergraduates, and those already qualified, with the knowledge, skills, values, competence and confidence they need to sustainably promote the health, human rights and well-being of current and future generations, while protecting the health of the planet. The current imperative for action on environmental issues such as climate change requires health professionals to mobilize politically as they have before, becoming strong advocates for major environmental, social and economic change. A truly ethical relationship with people and the planet that we inhabit so precariously, and to guarantee a future for the generations which follow, demands nothing less of all health professionals. This Consensus Statement outlines the changes required in health professions education, approaches to achieve these changes and a timeline for action linked to the internationally agreed SDGs. It represents the collective vision of health professionals, educators and students from various health professions, geographic locations and cultures. ‘Consensus’ implies broad agreement amongst all individuals engaged in discussion on a specific issue, which in this instance, is agreement by all signatories of this Statement developed under the auspices of the Association for Medical Education in Europe (AMEE). To ensure a shared understanding and to accurately convey information, we outline key terms in a glossary which accompanies this Consensus Statement (Supplementary Appendix 1). We acknowledge, however, that terms evolve and that different terms resonate variably depending on factors such as setting and audience. We define education for sustainable healthcare as the process of equipping current and future health professionals with the knowledge, values, confidence and capacity to provide environmentally sustainable services through health professions education. We define a health professional as a person who has gained a professional qualification for work in the health system, whether in healthcare delivery, public health or a management or supporting role and education as ‘the system comprising structures, curricula, faculty and activities contributing to a learning process’. This Statement is relevant to the full continuum of training – from undergraduate to postgraduate and continuing professional development.

The European Union (EU)-funded KitNewCare consortium aims to create and manage a comprehensive EU-wide programme focusing on sustainability in Kidney Care. Around 850 million people have chronic kidney disease (CKD) worldwide and by 2030, 6 million will need kidney replacement therapy, mainly haemodialysis. As the world population gets older, projections for the end of the century worsen. From a sustainability perspective, healthcare systems contribute around 5-11% of total carbon emissions. Kidney care is one of the most resource-intensive specialties. In addition to energy, haemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis require transportation of patients and personnel to and from facilities, use large volumes of water and generate significant plastic waste. Overall, current dialysis is not sustainable in the medium term. Primary prevention, early diagnosis and treatment of CKD and transplantation will decrease the need for dialysis, but this will take time and will not prevent the need for dialysis in millions of persons. There is a need to improve knowledge around the environmental and financial cost of kidney care and social and health outcomes of each patient pathway including using holistic tools such as life cycle assessment. This knowledge will allow workflow optimisations, organisational transformations and technological innovations across Europe, learning from different clinical sites. KitNewCare will build a European-wide knowledge base for sustainability in kidney care, develop and introduce a novel 4-factor database for comprehensive impact analysis, implement optimised processes and organisational transformations in four European clinical sites. It will also pilot innovations from small- and medium-sized high-tech enterprises with a focus on kidney care, and establish a network for continuous monitoring, benchmarking, and implementation of sustainable solutions across healthcare sectors. This paper presents the rationale behind selecting kidney disease as a focal point, summarises the current state of knowledge, and outlines the foundational statement underlying KitNewCare's operational framework.

AbstractAimThe aim of this study was to compare the environmental footprint of eight inter‐dental cleaning aids.Materials and MethodsA comparative life cycle analysis was conducted based on an individual person using inter‐dental cleaning aids every day for 5 years. The primary outcome was a life cycle impact assessment. This comprised of 16 discrete measures of environmental sustainability (known as impact categories), for example, greenhouse gas emissions (measured in kilograms of carbon dioxide equivalent, or kg CO2e), ozone layer depletion (measured in kilograms of chloroflurocarbon equivalent, or kg CFCe), and water use (measured in cubic metres). Secondary outcomes included normalized data, disability‐adjusted life years, and contribution analysis.ResultsInter‐dental cleaning using floss picks had the largest environmental footprint in 13 of 16 impact categories. Depending on the environmental impact category measured, the smallest environmental footprint came from daily inter‐dental cleaning with either bamboo inter‐dental brushes (five impact categories, including carbon footprint), replaceable head inter‐dental brushes (four impact categories), regular floss (three impact categories), sponge floss (three impact categories), and bamboo floss (one impact category).ConclusionsDaily cleaning with inter‐dental cleaning aids has an environmental footprint that varies depending on the product used. Clinicians should consider environmental impact alongside clinical need and cost when recommending inter‐dental cleaning aids to patients.

AbstractThe FDI World Dental Federation suggests that “dentistry, as a profession, should integrate Sustainable Development Goals into daily practice and support a shift to a green economy in the pursuit of healthy lives and wellbeing for all, through all stages of life.” This article reports on the recent activity of the Association for Dental Education in Europe Special Interest Group for Sustainability in Dentistry. Following on from the group's previous activities, which explored current educational practice, this work aimed to reach a pan‐European consensus on a number of learning outcomes for environmental sustainability, in order to (i) support institutions in designing and delivering their curriculum, and (ii) to further harmonise the delivery of oral health professional education across Europe. This article presents specific learning outcomes relating to environmental sustainability and recommendations relating to curriculum development, including methods of teaching and assessment.

AbstractIntroductionEvidence concerning the interactions between human health and planetary health has grown extensively in recent years. In turn, the perceived importance of environmental sustainability within higher education is growing at a rapid rate. This paper provides a summary of key elements as they apply to dentistry, and provides an introduction to the reader of an early consensus of how sustainability could be included as part of the dental curriculum.MethodsThe consensus opinion within this paper largely centres around discussion at the ADEE sustainability workshop at the annual conference in Berlin (August 2019). In order to help inform discussions at the workshop, a brief scoping questionnaire was circulated to potential participants regarding their understanding and current teaching practices in sustainability. An infographic was designed to help delegates remember the important elements of sustainable dentistry. Delegates discussed the concept of sustainability alongside the infographic, and how they could link these with the Graduating European Dentist (GED) curriculum.ResultsThe discussions within the workshop largely centred around 4 main themes: Disease prevention and health promotion, Patient education and empowerment, Lean service delivery and Preferential use of strategies with lower environmental impact.DiscussionIt is apparent that there is a widespread need for teaching materials relating to environmental sustainability; this includes specific learning outcomes relating to the 4 educational domains of the Graduating European Dentist curriculum, and methods for teaching and assessing these outcomes.ConclusionThis paper reports consensus on the first phase of a pan‐European working group on Sustainability in dental education.