Environmental sustainability resources: Overview

Abstract
Background: Single-use anaesthetic drug trays are used widely in Australia, but their environmental impact is unclear.

Methods: A life cycle assessment was completed for 10 different types of single-use anaesthetic drug trays made of four materials: the synthetic plastics polypropylene and polystyrene, and the natural fibres bagasse (sugarcane pulp) and cellulose pulp.

Results: Carbon emissions per tray from total life cycle with landfill disposal were 33-454 g CO2-eq, which equates to 152-2066 tonnes CO2-eq annually. Recycling mitigates this impact, reducing emissions per tray to 16-294 g CO2-eq. The tray with the least emissions for landfill and recycling was the small polystyrene injection tray. There was a significant linear relationship between the mass of a tray and its carbon emissions. For landfill, recycling, and incineration disposal, Pearson's r value was 0.98, 0.99, and 0.95, respectively. Composting natural fibres can give a carbon benefit over some synthetic plastics under specific disposal scenarios, but this benefit was not seen under all circumstances. There was a strong positive correlation between the increasing mass of a tray and its increasing environmental impacts for water consumption, particulate matter formation, and mineral depletion.

Conclusions: Single-use trays with the lowest mass should be preferentially chosen. Recycling and composting will reduce environmental impacts. Natural fibre does not automatically confer any environmental benefit over plastic and sustainability claims should be carefully examined for accuracy. The practice of using a single-use drug tray for every procedure should be reconsidered.

Abstract
Background: Climate change has emerged as the single biggest global health threat of the twenty-first century. Nitrous oxide accounts for the largest carbon footprint amongst our use of anaesthetic gas. It is a potent greenhouse gas possessing a global warming potential of approximately 265 times that of carbon dioxide. Despite recent curtailment of its use, it remains extensively employed as an analgesic for women in labour.

Objectives: Assessment of the opinions of post-natal women and staff on nitrous oxide use and to investigate whether knowledge of its environmental harm would influence their choice of labour analgesia.

Design: Postnatal women and healthcare staff were invited to participate in a survey of nitrous oxide use as a labour analgesic and knowledge of its effect of the environment.

Setting: A single-centre study in a major obstetric tertiary referral centre in Ireland in 2021.

Main outcome measures: To evaluate the awareness and perceptions of postnatal women and staff regarding the environmental impact of nitrous oxide and if it would affect their decision to use it in the future.

Results: One hundred postnatal women and 50 healthcare staff completed the survey. One hundred and six post-natal women were invited to complete the survey, resulting in a response rate of 94%. Knowledge of nitrous oxide's environmental impact was low. After receiving information, 46% of patients were more inclined to seek epidural or request it earlier (54%) to limit their nitrous oxide use, while 51% would choose an alternative analgesia to avoid nitrous oxide altogether. Overwhelmingly, 99% believed they had the right to know about these harmful effects when choosing an analgesic option.

Conclusions: Patients should be informed of the environmental impact of nitrous oxide antenatally, empowering them to make informed decision on a climate friendly analgesic option if they wish.

Abstract
Background: Education is urgently needed to equip medical students with knowledge, values and skills to promote planetary health. However, the current literature offers little insight into evidence-based approaches and best practices. In response to this pressing need, a novel serious game was introduced into the medical curriculum at Erasmus Medical Center in 2023. The aim of this study was to evaluate the knowledge and attitudes of medical students after they had played a serious game that addresses climate change and health.

Methods: In accordance with a mixed-methods design, quantitative data were collected using pre- and post-intervention surveys. Differences were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test. Focus group discussions were held after the game and thematically analysed.

Results: One hundred forty-five students (38.6% of the entire cohort) played the game, of which 59 students completed the pre- and post-intervention surveys. After the game, self-reported knowledge increased. Regarding objective knowledge, an increase in the proportion of students who answered one of the two questions correctly was observed, while the proportion of correct responses decreased for the other question. Student's responses to two out of five attitude questions were significantly more positive. The proportion of students who recognized the importance of climate change education, to inform patients and society about the health impacts of climate change, increased. Moreover, survey results indicated a significant increase in climate worry subsequent to the game. Eleven students participated in the focus group discussions. Thematic analysis highlighted participants' reflections on the roles and responsibilities in climate change and health, along with their realisation of the tools for action that climate and health co-benefits provide. Another significant aspect was the importance participants placed on learning alongside peers with diverse attitudes. Additionally, participants appreciated the tangible overview of climate change and health provided by the serious game.

Conclusions: Our novel serious game addressed an important gap in the medical curriculum. The game can enable medical students to cultivate the necessary knowledge and attitudes to promote health in times of a climate crisis. The accompanying climate worry needs attention through the empowerment of students' agency to foster change.