Survey reveals gaps in sustainability practices among Swiss gastroenterologists, suggesting enhanced coordination for better environmental outcomes.
Gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy is a daily procedure in clinical practice but contributes substantially to healthcare’s environmental footprint. Data on sustainability policies in Switzerland, however, remain scarce. This study aimed to assess the implementation of sustainability practices among members of the Swiss Society of Gastroenterology (SGG-SSG). We conducted a web-based cross-sectional survey between September 2023 and January 2024, targeting all 463 practicing Swiss gastroenterologists listed in the latest SGG-SSG roster. The survey comprised eleven questions covering four domains: respondent demographics; waste and single-use device management and procurement; digitalization; and work–life balance. A total of 161 respondents participated (response rate: 34.8%). Less than half (45.1%) reported waste sorting, while policies for single-use device reduction (23.5%) and waste minimization initiatives (27.8%) were even less common. Nearly half (48.8%) reported including sustainability considerations in procurement policies. In contrast, 52.8% reported having policies to promote work–life balance, and 88.2% reported policies requiring the use of electronic health records, reflecting significant progress in digitalization. While procurement and digitalization efforts are more widely implemented, further coordinated action is needed. Future research should investigate professional attitudes, institutional barriers, and strategies to enhance the adoption of environmentally responsible practices in GI endoscopy. Furthermore, professional societies (particularly SGG-SSG), hospital administrators, and cantonal health authorities must coordinate to establish national standards, integrate sustainability into accreditation, and implement incentives and accountability to reduce the environmental impact of GI endoscopy without compromising quality of care.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Stoffel et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: