Environmental impact of your clinic – debunk the myths! (part 1 )
Once a clinician picks up an instrument (single use or reusable), there is an environmental impact. Single Use instruments are often regarded as being the worse of the two options for the environment. The waste from the use of single use instruments is visible. The user sees the sharps bin fill and will pay for its disposal. However, it is worth bearing in mind that reusable instruments and their disinfection also has an environmental impact though not so readily visible.
Taking the manufactured instruments, their path and environmental impact can be tracked through the clinic.
|
Process |
Single Use |
Reusable |
|
Packaging |
Yes |
Yes (pouch) |
|
Post-treatment clean |
No |
Yes |
|
Disinfection |
No |
Yes |
|
Lubrication |
No |
Yes |
|
Autoclave |
No |
Yes |
The less visible environmental impact of using reusable instruments include;
! any disinfection fluid used post-treatment
! the electricity used if using an ultrasonic cleaner
! the processed water needed to autoclave the tool
! the electricity needed to run the autoclave (and the autoclave needs to be built in the first place)
! the need for repair/servicing of an autoclave (does an engineer drive to your clinic)
! any lubricating oil used on the instruments with joints.
! And of course, the autoclave has to be manufactured in the first place using a variety of metals, rubber and plastics.
In conclusion, there is an environmental impact when using any instrument. The clinician can choose to utilise the time-saving single use packs or go for the more traditional method of sterilising reusable instruments.
In the end, the question is do you purchase one instrument and sterilise it repeatedly, or do you buy single use?
For both types of instruments, the technology exists to recycle all surgical instruments.