Green operating theatres
Green operating theatres: tackling clinical waste
An important study, involving the South Tees Hospitals NHS Trust, in the UK, and two other hospitals in Europe, has shed new light on how operating theatres can increase staff safety, improve theatre efficiency and reduce clinical waste.
The South Tees Hospitals NHS Trust operates the James Cook University Hospital in Middlesbrough – a designated major trauma centre that provides a wide range of district general hospital services and specialist services, such as neurosciences, renal medicine, spinal injuries, major trauma, cardiothoracic, vascular surgery and cancer services. At the heart of the hospital is a modern,
central operating suite containing 20 well- equipped theatres, with two recovery areas, which is next to an adult surgical day unit (containing a further three theatres) and the paediatric day unit. There are also two additional theatres for gynaecology and obstetrics, and two more in the ophthalmology day unit. Also overseen by the Trust is the Friarage Hospital in Northallerton, which is the Trust’s main site for planned orthopaedic surgery. One of the area’s fastest growing hospitals, the Trust is investing £35.5 million in new modern operating theatres at the Friarage site, with plans to almost double the number of planned operations it carries out each year, from just over 5,000 to almost 10,000. The Trust takes the welfare of both its patients and staff seriously, so when it identified an opportunity for improvements in safety, while facilitating greener ways of working, the healthcare provider decided to embark on a multi-site study to investigate further. Sarah Baker, Operational Lead for Theatres,
and Kim Clements, Clinical Matron Theatres & Theatres & Anaesthetics, at James Cook University Hospital, had identified potential
benefits of a surgical fluid waste management system (Neptune) and were seeking to roll out the solution across all operating theatres within the Trust, making it the standard of care. The project subsequently gained traction when the potential was further recognised by other stakeholders, including the Director of Estates & Capital Planning, Kevin Oxley; the Director of Nursing, Gill Hunt; and Sustainability Officer, Stephen Bell.
Fluid waste in theatres A key driver to investigate alternative approaches to waste disposal was the fact
The total weight of device-related treated waste products was reduced by 98.5% when using Neptune compared with traditional canisters. The use of Neptune also reduced the total number of disposable device-related products used per procedure by 87.5%.
that surgical fluid waste contains potentially harmful microorganisms putting staff at risk. At the same time, hospitals are also becoming increasingly aware of their need to address their environmental impact. Research suggests that operating theatres generate as much as 70% of the total waste produced in hospitals,1
and a
significant proportion of waste includes fluids captured during surgery – with up to 50L of fluid waste being produced by a single procedure. In fact, studies suggest that a typical operating theatre can generate two tonnes of fluid waste each month.2,3
Furthermore, it is suggested that
40% of infectious waste is attributed to suction canister waste.4 Ineffective surgical fluid waste management
in operating theatres creates a significant environmental burden, reduces theatre efficiency, and adds physical challenges for surgical staff. Therefore, finding safer, more sustainable, ways of managing this waste has been high on the agenda – both in the UK and across Europe – for some time. These challenges and the environmental burden posed by fluid waste disposal, was a driver behind the
December 2024 I
www.clinicalservicesjournal.com 53
bigy9950 -
stock.adobe.com
t
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64
