Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Quality improvement study shows reduced energy usage and emissions in CT imaging, highlighting financial and environmental benefits.
Medical imaging has been identified as a carbon hotspot in health care, and demand for imaging services is increasing. This study investigated switching off a surplus computerised tomography (CT) scanner when not clinically required as a possible simple and scalable intervention to reduce healthcare emissions. This before-after quality improvement study introduced a 'Switch it off' intervention where radiography staff switched off the power to a surplus CT scanner after hours (17:00-08:00) for 7 days ('intervention period': 07/7/2023-13/07/2023). Using a power data logger, power consumption (kilowatt hours, KWh) during the intervention period was compared to 7 days without the switch-off practice ('control period': 24/07/2023-31/07/2023). Financial and carbon emission impacts were calculated based on energy consumption. All CT radiographers working in the department were invited to undertake a pre and post intervention survey. Differences in quantitative data pre- and postintervention were analysed using chi-squared test for independent proportions. Free text survey responses were summarised into themes. Compared with energy use in the control period (433.96 kWh), there was a reduction in 139.79 kWh during the intervention period (294.17 kWh): 32% relative reduction. Extrapolation to 12 months found potential savings of 7280 kWh in energy use, $1381 to the hospital budget, and 5.5 T CO2e to the carbon budget. Of the 22 CT radiographers invited, 10 (45%) completed the survey, reporting no or trivial clinical impacts from switching off. The proportion of radiographers reporting switching off the scanner when not in use increased by 70% (95% CI: 39%, 100%; p = 0.002) from 10% (1/10) pre- to 80% (8/10) postintervention. Identifying and switching off surplus CT scanners in low use times is a simple and scalable intervention that can achieve significant power, financial and carbon savings with little to no impact on clinical workflow.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Marks et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: