Journals / Journal of Health Sciences and Medicine / 2023 / Cilt: 6 Sayı: 5

Examining the influence of sample rejection rates on the carbon footprint of clinical laboratories: a retrospective analysis

Pages
993–997
Publication Date
2023-09-28
DOI
—
🏛️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)

Reducing sample rejections not only improves patient safety and laboratory efficiency but also aligns with the larger goal of creating environmentally conscious and sustainable healthcare practices.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Aims: Clinical laboratories play a vital role in healthcare, yet their operations contribute to resource consumption, waste generation, and greenhouse gas emissions.
📊
Key Findings & Data:This study aims to assess the impact of sample rejection rates (SRRs) on laboratory sustainability by calculating the carbon footprint and medical waste generated due to rejected samples.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Reducing sample rejections not only improves patient safety and laboratory efficiency but also aligns with the larger goal of creating environmentally conscious and sustainable healthcare practices.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2021 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Clinical laboratories · sustainability · environmental impact

Abstract

Aims: Clinical laboratories play a vital role in healthcare, yet their operations contribute to resource consumption, waste generation, and greenhouse gas emissions. The need for sustainable practices in laboratories has led to guidelines for reducing their carbon footprint. This study aims to assess the impact of sample rejection rates (SRRs) on laboratory sustainability by calculating the carbon footprint and medical waste generated due to rejected samples. Methods: This retrospective, single-center study obtained data from the Hospital Information Management System for two years (2021 and 2022). SRRs were calculated for different sample tube types. The carbon footprint caused by rejected samples was calculated using CO2 emission (CO2e) conversion factors. The weight of medical waste generated due to rejected samples was evaluated. Statistical analysis was performed using appropriate tests. Results: In 2021 and 2022, SRRs for different sample tubes were calculated, with statistically significant differences observed. The total CO2e value resulting from rejected samples over two years was 12.3 tons, and the medical waste generated was 3.7 tons. The highest SRR was observed in Blue top tubes, while yellow top tubes showed a significant reduction in SRR in 2022. Conclusion: This study highlights the impact of SRRs on laboratory sustainability. The calculated CO2e and medical waste values underscore the need to minimize sample rejections. While these values seem minor compared to global emissions, they reflect only a portion of the potential environmental impact. Reducing sample rejections not only improves patient safety and laboratory efficiency but also aligns with the larger goal of creating environmentally conscious and sustainable healthcare practices.

🔖

Cite This Article

UÇAR, K. T. (2023). Examining the influence of sample rejection rates on the carbon footprint of clinical laboratories: a retrospective analysis. Journal of Health Sciences and Medicine, Cilt: 6 Sayı: 5, 993–997. https://ajindex.com/articles/964492

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (3)

  1. Plebani M, Laposata M, Lippi G. Driving the route of laboratory medicine: a manifesto for the future. Intern Emerg Med. 2019;14(3):337-340. doi:10.1007/s11739-019-02053-z EFLM. EFLM guidelines for green and sustainable laboratories, 1st ed. Belgium: The European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine; 2022. Accessed April 4, 2023. https://www.eflm.eu/upload/docs/eflm-greenlab-booklet.pdf. Plebani M. Errors in clinical laboratories or errors in laboratory medicine? Clin Chem Lab Med. 2006;44(6):750-759. doi:10.1515/CCLM.2006.123 Carraro P, Servidio G, Plebani M. Hemolyzed specimens: a reason for rejection or a clinical challenge? Clin Chem. 2000;46(2):306-307. doi:10.1093/clinchem/46.2.306 Gunnur Dikmen Z, Pinar A, Akbiyik F. Specimen rejection in laboratory medicine: necessary for patient safety? Biochem Med (Zagreb). 2015;25(3):377-385. doi:10.11613/BM.2015.037 ISO 14001:2015. Environmental management systems - Requirements with guidance for use. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization (ISO); 2015.
  2. Carraro P, Plebani M. Errors in a stat laboratory: types and frequencies 10 years later. Clin Chem. 2007;53(7):1338-1342. doi:10.1373/clinchem.2007.088344 Atay A, Demir L, Cuhadar S, et al. Clinical biochemistry laboratory rejection rates due to various types of preanalytical errors. Biochem Med (Zagreb). 2014;24(3):376-382. doi:10.11613/BM.2014.040 Endris S, Tamir Z, Sisay A. Medical laboratory waste generation rate, management practices and associated factors in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. PLoS One. 2022;17(4):e0266888. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0266888 McAlister S, Barratt AL, Bell KJ, McGain F. The carbon footprint of pathology testing. Med J Aust. 2020;212(8):377-382. doi:10.5694/mja2.50583 McAlister S, Grant T, McGain F. An LCA of hospital pathology testing. Int J Life Cycle Assess. 2021;26(9):1753-1763. doi:10.1007/s11367-021-01959-1 TURKSTAT Greenhouse gas emissions statistics. Accessed April 5, 2023. https://data.tuik.gov.tr/Bulten/Index?p=Greenhouse-Gas-Emissions-Statistics-1990-2021-49672&dil=2#:~:text=TURKSTAT%20Corporate&text=The%20greenhouse%20gas%20inventory%20results,4%20tonnes%20CO2%20eq.
  3. Crippa M, Guizzardi D, Banja M, et al. CO2 emissions of all world countries - JRC/IEA/PBL 2022 report, EUR 31182 EN, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2022, doi:10.2760/730164 Nicolet J, Mueller Y, Paruta P, Boucher J, Senn N. What is the carbon footprint of primary care practices? A retrospective life-cycle anal