Journals / Sağlık Akademisyenleri Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 13 Sayı: 3

The determinant role of clinical characteristics and care intensity on medical waste generation

Klinik özellikler ve bakım yoğunluğunun tıbbi atık üretimi üzerindeki belirleyici rolü

Elif Baş(KARADENİZ TEKNİK ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0009-0000-9425-3196
Pages
621–634
Publication Date
2026-09-30
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Conclusion: The findings indicate that medical waste generation is influenced not only by institutional workflows but also by the intensity of bedside clinical interventions and procedure-based practices.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objective: In the literature on medical waste management, waste generation is generally discussed in relation to institutional regulations and technical processes.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Materials and Methods: A prospective observational analysis was conducted between July 2023 and August 2025 in four intensive care units and one hemodialysis unit of a public hospital.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Conclusion: The findings indicate that medical waste generation is influenced not only by institutional workflows but also by the intensity of bedside clinical interventions and procedure-based practices.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:2023 Verileri
⚙️Variables:tıbbi atık yönetimi · hasta profili · yoğun bakım

Abstract

Objective: In the literature on medical waste management, waste generation is generally discussed in relation to institutional regulations and technical processes. However, the quantitative contribution of bedside clinical practices to waste production has received relatively limited attention. This study aimed to evaluate the relationship between clinical characteristics and medical waste generation using a patient-centered approach based on intensive care patient-days and hemodialysis sessions. Materials and Methods: A prospective observational analysis was conducted between July 2023 and August 2025 in four intensive care units and one hemodialysis unit of a public hospital. Intensive care patient-days were categorized according to key clinical characteristics, including mechanical ventilation, aspiration frequency, isolation status, drainage, and the presence of pressure injuries. In the hemodialysis unit, the amount of medical waste was calculated per session and assessed according to vascular access type and the intensity of clinical procedures. Mean waste amounts across clinical profiles were compared using appropriate parametric and non-parametric statistical tests together with multivariable modeling approaches. Results: Higher levels of daily medical waste generation were observed in intensive care patient profiles characterized by multiple clinical interventions. Profiles that included mechanical ventilation, frequent aspiration, and drainage were associated with the highest waste production. In the hemodialysis unit, the quantity of waste generated per session varied depending on the type of vascular access and the procedural intensity during treatment. Conclusion: The findings indicate that medical waste generation is influenced not only by institutional workflows but also by the intensity of bedside clinical interventions and procedure-based practices. A patient-profile-based evaluation that incorporates clinical characteristics may therefore provide a more comprehensive framework for understanding variations in medical waste production.

Özet

Giriş ve Amaç: Tıbbi atık yönetimi literatüründe atık üretimi çoğu zaman kurumsal düzenlemeler ve teknik süreçler üzerinden ele alınmaktadır. Buna karşın hasta başında uygulanan klinik girişimlerin atık miktarı üzerindeki nicel etkisi sınırlı sayıda çalışmada incelenmiştir. Bu çalışmada, yoğun bakım hasta-günleri ve hemodiyaliz seansları temel alınarak klinik özelliklerin tıbbi atık üretimi ile ilişkisi hasta merkezli bir yaklaşımla değerlendirilmiştir. Gereç ve Yöntem: Temmuz 2023–Ağustos 2025 tarihleri arasında bir kamu hastanesinde bulunan dört yoğun bakım ünitesi ile bir hemodiyaliz biriminde prospektif gözlemsel bir analiz yürütülmüştür. Yoğun bakım hasta-günleri; mekanik ventilasyon, aspirasyon sıklığı, izolasyon durumu, drenaj varlığı ve bası yarası gibi klinik özelliklere göre sınıflandırılmıştır. Hemodiyaliz biriminde ise tıbbi atık miktarı seans başına hesaplanmış ve damar erişim türü ile işlem yoğunluğu dikkate alınarak değerlendirilmiştir. Klinik profillere göre ortalama atık miktarları karşılaştırılmış, analizlerde uygun parametrik ve non-parametrik testlerin yanı sıra çok değişkenli modelleme yöntemlerinden yararlanılmıştır. Bulgular: Yoğun bakımda birden fazla klinik özelliğin birlikte bulunduğu hasta profillerinde günlük tıbbi atık miktarının daha yüksek olduğu görülmüştür. Özellikle mekanik ventilasyon, sık aspirasyon ve drenajın birlikte bulunduğu profiller en yüksek atık üretimi ile ilişkilidir. Hemodiyaliz biriminde ise seans başına oluşan atık miktarının damar erişim türü ve uygulanan işlemlerin yoğunluğuna göre değiştiği belirlenmiştir. Sonuç: Elde edilen bulgular tıbbi atık üretiminin yalnızca kurumsal süreçlerle değil, hasta başında uygulanan girişimlerin yoğunluğu ve seans bazlı klinik uygulamalarla da yakından ilişkili olduğunu göstermektedir. Klinik özellikleri dikkate alan hasta-profil temelli bir değerlendirme, tıbbi atık miktarındaki değişkenliği açıklamada daha kapsamlı bir çerçeve sunabilir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Baş, E., Kapısız, A. (2026). The determinant role of clinical characteristics and care intensity on medical waste generation. Sağlık Akademisyenleri Dergisi, Cilt: 13 Sayı: 3, 621–634. https://doi.org/10.52880/sagakaderg.1907168

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (26)

  1. Arias-Guillén, M., Martínez Cadenas, R., Gómez, M., Martín Vaquero, N., Pereda, G., Gil, A. J., Portillo, J., Quintela, M., Castaño, I., Luque, A., Maduell, F., Ortiz, A., Duane, B., & Dolores Arenas, M. (2024). Environmental challenges in hemodialysis: Exploring the road to sustainability. Nefrología (English Edition), 44(6), 784–795, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nefroe.2024.11.021.
  2. Askarian, M., Vakili, M., & Kabir, G. (2004). Results of a hospital waste survey in private hospitals in Fars province, Iran. Waste Management, 24(4), 347–352, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2003.09.008.
  3. Barraclough, K. A., & Agar, J. W. M. (2020). Green nephrology. Nature Reviews Nephrology, 16(5), 257–268, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41581-019-0245-1.
  4. Boz, M. K. (2021). Sağlık çalışanlarının tıbbi atık yönetimi bilgi düzeylerinin değerlendirilmesi. Sağlık Akademisyenleri Dergisi, 8(4), 296–303.
  5. Cherian, A., Narayan, A., Joseph, A., Rajesh, R., & Abraham, G. (2022). Trends of biowaste generation in hemodialysis units under the hub-and-spoke model: act and sav. Egyptian Journal of Nephrology and Transplantation, 22(1), 2–7, https://doi.org/10.4103/jesnt.jesnt_47_20.
  6. Dehal, A., Vaidya, A. N., & Kumar, A. R. (2021). Biomedical waste generation and management during COVID-19 pandemic in India: challenges and possible management strategies. Environmental Science and Pollution Research International, 29(10), 14830–14845, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-16736-8.
  7. Droog, L., Van Der Sjip, J., Hoppe, T., Huegel, J., Tariq, L., Horeman, T., & Straten, B. V. (2025). A life cycle assessment of disposing intra-operative collected fluids, a comparative study between the Neptune 3 versus canister drainage. Scientific Reports, 15, 36587, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-20375-1.
  8. Gowda, N. R., Siddharth, V., İnquillabi, K., & Sharma, D. K. (2021). War on Waste: Challenges and Experiences in COVID-19. Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness, 16(6), 2358–2362, https://doi.org/10.1017/dmp.2021.171.
  9. Hunfeld, N., Diehl, J. C., Timmermann, M., van Exter, P., Bouwens, J., Browne-Wilkinson, S., de Planque, N., & Gommers, D. (2023). Circular material flow in the intensive care unit—environmental effects and identification of hotspots. Intensive Care Medicine, 49(1), 65–74. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-022-06940-6.
  10. Iliopoulou, K., Leone, M., Hunfeld, N., Ferrer, R., Baid, H., Ostermann, M., Scaramuzzo, G., Touw, H., Ioan, A. M., Theodorakopoulou, M., Francois, G., & Waele, J. J. (2025). Environmental sustainability in intensive care: An international survey of intensive care professionals’ views, practices and proposals to the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine. Journal of Critical Care, 88, 155079, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrc.2025.155079.
  11. Jamaludin, H. (2025). Evolution of Waste and Circular Economy: Pre- and Post-Covid-19. Circular Economy and Sustainability, 5, 441–459, https://doi.org/10.1007/s43615-024-00420-3.
  12. Kaposi, A., Nagy, A., Gomori, G., & Kocsis, D. (2024). Analysis of healthcare waste and factors affecting the amount of hazardous healthcare waste in a university hospital. Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management, 26, 1169–1180, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10163-024-01890-1.
  13. Kenny, C., & Priyadarshini, A. (2021). Review of current healthcare waste management methods and their effect on global health. Healthcare, 9(3), 284, https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare9030284.
  14. Lee, B. K., Ellenbecker, M. J., & Moure-Eraso, R. (2004). Alternatives for treatment and disposal cost reduction of regulated medical wastes. Waste Management, 24(2), 143–151, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2003.10.008.
  15. Martínez-Cadenas, R., Audije-Gil, J., Arenas, M. D., Martín Vaquero, N., Portillo, J., Larkin, J., Fehintola, A., Ortiz, A., & Duane, B. (2025). Impact of the Type of Dialysate Acid Concentrate Container on the Environmental Footprint of Hemodialysis Centers. American Journal of Kidney Diseases, 86(5), 616–623, https://doi.org/10.1053/j.ajkd.2025.06.009.
  16. Meddick-Dyson, S. A., Cartwright, J., Metaxa, V., & Pattison, N. A. (2024). Environmental impact of palliative and end-of-life care interventions in the intensive care unit. Nursing in Critical Care, 30(1), 86–89, https://doi.org/10.1111/nicc.13139.
  17. Piccoli, G. B., Nazha, M., Ferraresi, M., Vigotti, F. N., Pereno, A., & Barbero, S. (2015). Eco-dialysis: The financial and ecological costs of dialysis waste products: is a ‘cradle-to-cradle’ model feasible for planet-friendly haemodialysis waste management? Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation, 30(6), 1018–1027, https://doi.org/10.1093/ndt/gfv031.
  18. Stilma, W., Esmeijer, A., Paulus, F., Frenzel, T., Touw, H., & Stobernack, T. (2024). Open versus closed suctioning in invasively ventilated critically ill patients for sustainability of ICU care: a life-cycle assessment comparison. Respiratory Care, 69(2), 218–221, https://doi.org/10.4187/respcare.11189.
  19. Taghipour, H., & Mosaferi, M. (2009). Characterization of medical waste from hospitals in Tabriz, Iran. Science of the Total Environment, 407(5), 1527–1535, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2008.11.032.
  20. Tesfahun, E., Kumie, A., & Beyene, A. (2016). Developing models for the prediction of hospital healthcare waste generation rate. Waste Management & Research, 34(1), 75-80, https://doi.org/10.1177/0734242X15607422.
  21. Tolera, S. T., Kebede, K., Muzeyin, M., & Tefera, A. A. (2024). Medical waste generation rate and management practices among government hospitals in Eastern Ethiopia: A descriptive survey. Sage Open Medicine, 12, 1–13, https://doi.org/10.1177/20503121241257145.
  22. Tsakona, M., Anagnostopoulou, E., & Gidarakos, E. (2007). Hospital waste management and generation rates: A case study. Waste Management, 27(7), 912–920, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2006.04.019.
  23. Tudor, T. L., Noonan, C. L., & Jenkin, L. E. (2005). Healthcare waste management: a case study from the National Health Service in Cornwall, United Kingdom. Waste Management, 25(6), 606–615, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2004.10.004.
  24. Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu. (2022). Atık istatistikleri, 2022. https://www.tuik.gov.tr Windfeld, E. S., & Brooks, M. S. (2015). Medical waste management – A review. Journal of Environmental Management, 163, 98–108, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2015.08.013.
  25. World Health Organization. (2014). Safe management of wastes from health-care activities (2nd ed.). World Health Organization. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789241548564.
  26. World Health Organization. (2022). Health-care waste. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/health-care-waste.