Procurement
Sustainability meets safety: rethinking procurement
With NHS Trusts and Integrated Care Boards required to update their Green Plans,1 healthcare leaders find themselves navigating how to meet pressing environmental targets, while continuing to uphold the necessarily uncompromising standards of clinical care. It’s a task that demands more than technical innovation, argues Karen McNamara – it requires a fundamental shift in how the system thinks, acts, and buys.
In many ways, sustainability and safety have historically been seen as two opposing forces in medical product procurement. On one side, there is a clear need to reduce carbon emissions, plastic use, and clinical waste. On the other hand, clinicians face the immovable imperative to ensure hygiene, prevent infection, and preserve patient dignity. But viewed through a strategic lens – that of value-based procurement – it becomes clear these two priorities are not at odds. They are, in fact, mutually reinforcing. At Essity, we believe shifting healthcare’s
approach to procurement can be a catalyst for solving this conundrum. From wound care to continence management, the opportunity exists to make immediate, measurable gains by shifting to smarter purchasing models and evidence-led product choices. This article explores how Trusts can achieve that balance, and why the most realistic and impactful change doesn’t necessarily just come from large capital projects, but from rethinking the everyday items used in clinical care.
Why the issue isn’t clear cut: the sustainability vs safety conundrum The clinical environment is one where hygiene cannot be compromised. Single-use plastics have long been favoured for their sterility, disposability, and perceived safety – and in some cases, they remain non-negotiable in achieving this. The challenge is that this results in the widespread use of items designed for quick disposal after a single use, generating significant waste. However, the sustainability cost is staggering.
Take venous leg ulcers (VLUs) as one example: a condition affecting roughly 1 in 170 UK adults. Treatment commonly involves two or three changes of compression bandages per week, per leg, over many months. Even for a single
patient, the cumulative waste is jaw-dropping. That’s equivalent to the height of two Eiffel Towers in bandage material per six-month episode, per leg.* Yet switching to reusable solutions, such as
JOBST FarrowWrap and UlcerCare compression garments, shows that safety and sustainability can coexist in the right circumstances. These garments are washable, rewearable, and, in many cases, can be applied by patients themselves or lower-band healthcare assistants. That can mean freeing up clinical time, fewer errors in application, and vastly reduced landfill output - all while maintaining therapeutic efficacy. In continence care, however, the line between
reusable and single use becomes more nuanced. While light incontinence can often be managed with washable garments, moderate to heavy incontinence still necessitates
disposables to maintain hygiene and protect skin integrity. This is why the sustainability vs safety
narrative must move beyond binary thinking. Instead of seeking one-size-fits-all solutions, healthcare providers must adopt a case-by-case approach rooted in clinical appropriateness – with patient safety the number one priority. That’s where the principles of value-based procurement can make all the difference.
The scale of the waste problem and a new way forward The NHS generates over 150,000 tonnes2
of
clinical waste each year - a substantial portion of which is tied to single-use wound care and continence products. And this isn’t just an environmental problem – it’s a financial one too. Waste disposal costs, driven by incineration or special treatment requirements, are spiralling.
September 2025 I
www.clinicalservicesjournal.com 53
Stephen -
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 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80
