Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Background: Pathology testing and diagnostic imaging together contribute 9% of healthcare's carbon footprint. Whilst the carbon footprint of pathology testing has been undertaken, to date, the carbon footprint of the four most common imaging modalities is unclear. Methods: e) emissions. Findings: e emissions were 17·5 kg/scan for MRI; 9·2 kg/scan for CT; 0·8 kg/scan for CXR; 0·5 kg/scan for MCXR; and 0·5 kg/scan for US. Emissions from scanners from standby energy were substantial. When expressed as emissions per additional scan (results of consequential analysis) impacts were lower: 1·1 kg/scan for MRI; 1·1 kg/scan for CT; 0·6 kg/scan for CXR; 0·1 kg/scan for MCXR; and 0·1 kg/scan for US, due to emissions from standby power being excluded. Interpretation: Clinicians and administrators can reduce carbon emissions from diagnostic imaging, firstly by reducing the ordering of unnecessary imaging, or by ordering low-impact imaging (X-ray and US) in place of high-impact MRI and CT when clinically appropriate to do so. Secondly, whenever possible, scanners should be turned off to reduce emissions from standby power. Thirdly, ensuring high utilisation rates for scanners both reduces the time they spend in standby, and apportions the impacts of the reduced standby power of a greater number of scans. This therefore reduces the impact on any individual scan, maximising resource efficiency. Funding: Healthy Urban Environments (HUE) Collaboratory of the Maridulu Budyari Gumal Sydney Partnership for Health, Education, Research and Enterprise MBG SPHERE. The National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) PhD scholarship.
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
Scott McAlister
Melbourne Health
Forbes McGain
The University of Sydney
Matilde Breth‐Petersen
The University of Sydney
The Lancet Regional Health - Western Pacific
The University of Melbourne
The University of Sydney
St George Hospital
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
McAlister et al. (Tue,) studied this question.
synapsesocial.com/papers/6a002206831589f3542dbe75 — DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lanwpc.2022.100459
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: