Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The carbon footprint of critical care: a systematic review

  • Systematic Review
  • Published:
Intensive Care Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

The provision of healthcare is a substantial global contributor to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Several medical specialties and national health systems have begun evaluating their carbon emission contributions. The aim of this review is to summarise and describe the carbon footprint resulting from the provision of adult, paediatric and neonatal critical care.

Methods

A systematic search of Embase, Cochrane and Web of Science was performed in January 2023. Studies reporting any assessment of the carbon footprint of critical care were included. No language restrictions were applied. GHG emissions from life cycle assessments (LCA) were reported, in addition to waste, electricity and water use. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guideline was followed.

Results

In total, 13 studies assessing and describing the environmental impact of 36 adult or paediatric intensive care units (ICUs) were included. Two studies described full LCAs, seven reported waste only, two provided audits of unused medical supplies, one reported electricity use, and one study described a Material Flow Analysis. The estimated carbon emissions from critical care range between 88 kg CO2e/patient/day and 178 kg CO2e/patient/day. The two predominant sources of carbon emissions in critical care originate from electricity and gas use, as well as consumables. Waste production ranged from 1.1 to 13.7 kg/patient/day in the 6 studies where mean waste could be calculated.

Conclusion

There is a significant carbon footprint that results from intensive care provision. Consumables and waste constitute important, measurable, and modifiable components of anthropogenic emissions. There remains uncertainty due to a lack of literature, several unstudied areas of carbon emissions from critical care units, and within measured areas, measurement and reporting of carbon emissions are inconsistent.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

Data are available upon request.

References

  1. Who WHO (2021) Climate change and health. WHO, World Health Organization

    Google Scholar 

  2. NASA. Last updated June 3, 2010. Global Warming. NASA Earth Observatory. https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/GlobalWarming

  3. Atwoli L, Baqui AH, Benfield T, Bosurgi R, Godlee F, Hancocks S, Horton R, Laybourn-Langton L, Monteiro CA, Norman I, Patrick K, Praities N, Olde Rikkert MGM, Rubin EJ, Sahni P, Smith R, Talley N, Turale S, Vázquez D (2021) Call for emergency action to limit global temperature increases, restore biodiversity, and protect health. N Engl J Med 385:1134–1137

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Rocque RJ, Beaudoin C, Ndjaboue R, Cameron L, Poirier-Bergeron L, Poulin-Rheault R-A, Fallon C, Tricco AC, Witteman HO (2021) Health effects of climate change: an overview of systematic reviews. BMJ Open 11:e046333

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Romanello M, McGushin A, Di Napoli C, Drummond P, Hughes N, Jamart L, Kennard H, Lampard P, Rodriguez BS, Arnell N (2021) The 2021 report of the Lancet Countdown on health and climate change: code red for a healthy future. The Lancet 398:1619–1662

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Health CCA, (2014) Quantitative risk assessment of the effects of climate change on selected causes of death, 2030s and 2050s. World Health Organization: 1–128

  7. United Nations Climate Action (2023). Climate Adaptation. United Nations. https://www.un.org/en/climatechange/climate-adaptation

  8. Rodríguez-Jiménez L, Romero-Martín M, Spruell T, Steley Z, Gómez-Salgado J (2023) The carbon footprint of healthcare settings: a systematic review. J Adv Nurs 79:2830–2844

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. World Resources Institute and World Business Council for Sustainable Development. 2004. The Greenhouse Gas Protocol: Corporate accounting and reporting standard (Revised Edition). Retrieved from https://ghgprotocol.org/sites/default/files/standards/ghg-protocol-revised.pdf

  10. EPA Center for Corporate Climate Leadership. Last updated August 21, 2023. Scope 1 and Scope 2 Inventory Guidance. United States Environmental Protection Agency. https://www.epa.gov/climateleadership/scope-1-and-scope-2-inventory-guidance

  11. EPA Center for Corporate Climate Leadership. Last updated December 15, 2023. Scope 3 Inventory Guidance. United States Environmental Protection Agency. https://www.epa.gov/climateleadership/scope-3-inventory-guidance

  12. International Organization for Standardization (2006). ISO 14040:2006(en) Environmental management — Life cycle assessment — Principles and framework. ISO Online Browsing Platform. https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/en/#iso:std:iso:14040:ed-2:v1:en

  13. McGain F, Burnham JP, Lau R, Aye L, Kollef MH, McAlister S (2018) The carbon footprint of treating patients with septic shock in the intensive care unit. Crit care Resusc 20:304

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Prasad PA, Joshi D, Lighter J, Agins J, Allen R, Collins M, Pena F, Velletri J, Thiel C (2022) Environmental footprint of regular and intensive inpatient care in a large US hospital. Int J Life Cycle Assess 1–12(27):38

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. McGain F, Muret J, Lawson C, Sherman JD (2020) Environmental sustainability in anaesthesia and critical care. Br J Anaesth 125:680–692

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Arzoumanidis I, D’Eusanio M, Raggi A, Petti L (2020) Functional unit definition criteria in life cycle assessment and social life cycle assessment: a discussion. In: Traverso M, Petti L, Zamagni A (eds) Book Functional unit definition criteria in life cycle assessment and social life cycle assessment: a discussion. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 1–10

    Google Scholar 

  17. Brunner PH, Rechberger H (2016) Handbook of material flow analysis: for environmental, resource, and waste engineers. CRC Press

    Book  Google Scholar 

  18. Allesch A, Brunner PH (2015) Material flow analysis as a decision support tool for waste management: a literature review. J Ind Ecol 19:753–764

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Hunfeld N, Diehl JC, 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 Med 49:65–74

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Bein T, Koch S, Schulz C (2021) What’s new in intensive care: environmental sustainability. Intensive Care Med 47:903–905

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Ghersin ZJ, Flaherty MR, Yager P, Cummings BM (2020) Going green: decreasing medical waste in a paediatric intensive care unit in the United States. The New Bioethics 26:98–110

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Vogel L (2019) Canada’s health system is among the least green. Can Med Assoc J 191:E1342

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Bein T, Karagiannidis C, Quintel M (2020) Climate change, global warming, and intensive care. Intensive Care Med 46:485–487

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Wooldridge G, Murthy S (2020) Pediatric critical care and the climate emergency: our responsibilities and a call for change. Front Pediatr 8:472

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Greener NHS (2023). Sustainable Development Unit Archive. NHS England. https://www.england.nhs.uk/greenernhs/whats-already-happening/sustainable-development-unit-archive/

  26. McAlister S, Ou Y, Neff E, Hapgood K, Story D, Mealey P, McGain F (2016) The environmental footprint of morphine: a life cycle assessment from opium poppy farming to the packaged drug. BMJ Open 6:e013302

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Collaboration for Environmental Evidence. Last updated November 14, 2023. Collaboration for Environmental Evidence Critical Appraisal Tool Version 0.3 (Prototype). CEE. https://environmentalevidence.org/cee-critical-appraisal-tool/

  28. Reporting standards for Systematic Evidence Syntheses in environmental research (2017). RepOrting standards for Systematic Evidence Syntheses in environmental research Systematic Review Reporting Standards. ROSES. https://www.roses-reporting.com/

  29. Sampath B, Jensen M, Lenoci-Edwards J, Little K, Singh H, Sherman J, (2022) Reducing healthcare carbon emissions: a primer on measures and actions for healthcare organizations to mitigate climate change. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality

  30. Pollard A, Paddle J, Taylor T, Tillyard A (2014) The carbon footprint of acute care: how energy intensive is critical care? Public Health 128:771–776

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Parvatker AG, Tunceroglu H, Sherman JD, Coish P, Anastas P, Zimmerman JB, Eckelman MJ (2019) Cradle-to-gate greenhouse gas emissions for twenty anesthetic active pharmaceutical ingredients based on process scale-up and process design calculations. ACS Sustain Chem Eng 7:6580–6591

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. McGain F, Hendel S, Story D (2009) An audit of potentially recyclable waste from anaesthetic practice. Anaesth Intensive Care 37:820–823

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Johnston PF, Jumbo-Cueva P, Kurup V, Govindan A, Rao S, Sifri ZC (2019) The RECOVER initiative: supply recovery and donation beyond the operating room. Int J Acad Med 5:62

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Corbin L, Hoff H, Smith A, Owens C, Weisinger K, Philipsborn R (2022) A 24-hour waste audit of the neuro ICU during the COVID-19 pandemic and opportunities for diversion. J Clim Change Health 8:100154

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Furukawa PdO, Cunha ICKO, Pedreira MdLG, Marck PB (2016) Environmental sustainability in medication processes performed in hospital nursing care. Acta Paul de Enferm 29:316–324

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Hames K (2013) Healthcare waste disposal: an analysis of the effect of education on improving waste disposal. Healthc Infect 18:110–114

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Kubicki MA, McGain F, O’Shea CJ, Bates S (2015) Auditing an intensive care unit recycling program. Crit Care Resusc 17:135–140

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Shen MY, Chang CC, Li MY, Lin JH (2017) Decreasing the output of biomedical waste in the intensive care unit. Hu Li Za Zhi 64:81–90

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Simbruner G (1993) Ecological impact of pediatric intensive care. Crit Care Med 21:S399

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. McGain F, Story D, Hendel S (2009) An audit of intensive care unit recyclable waste. Anaesthesia 64:1299–1302

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. World Health Organization. Last updated February 8, 2018. Health-care waste. WHO. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/health-care-waste

    Google Scholar 

  42. Energy and Environment. Last updated July 2023. Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator. United States Environmental Protection Agency. https://www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse-gas-equivalencies-calculator

  43. Society of Critical Care Medicine (2018). Critical Care Statistics. SCCM. https://www.sccm.org/Communications/Critical-Care-Statistics

  44. Khanna AK, Labeau SO, McCartney K, Blot SI, Deschepper M (2022) International variation in length of stay in intensive care units and the impact of patient-to-nurse ratios. Intensive Crit Care Nurs 72:103265

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Eckelman MJ, Sherman JD, MacNeill AJ (2018) Life cycle environmental emissions and health damages from the Canadian healthcare system: an economic-environmental-epidemiological analysis. PLoS Med 15:e1002623

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  46. Rizan C, Steinbach I, Nicholson R, Lillywhite R, Reed M, Bhutta MF (2020) The carbon footprint of surgical operations: a systematic review. Ann Surg 272:986–995

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Alec Y, Iman B (2021) Environmental sustainability in canadian critical care: a nationwide survey study on medical waste management. Healthc Q 23:39–45

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Trent L, Law J, Grimaldi D (2023) Create intensive care green teams, there is no time to waste. Intensive Care Med 49:440–443

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  49. Rizan C, Bhutta MF, Reed M, Lillywhite R (2021) The carbon footprint of waste streams in a UK hospital. J Clean Prod 286:125446

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. NHS England. Last updated December 21, 2023. Carbon reduction plan and net zero commitment requirements for the procurement of NHS goods, services and works (version 2). NHS England. https://www.england.nhs.uk/long-read/carbon-reduction-plan-requirements-for-the-procurement-of-nhs-goods-services-and-works/

  51. Oakes AH, Radomski TR (2021) Reducing low-value care and improving health care value. JAMA 325:1715–1716

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Kampman JM, Sperna Weiland NH (2023) Anaesthesia and environment: impact of a green anaesthesia on economics. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol 36:188–195

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  53. McAlister S, Barratt AL, Bell KJ, McGain F (2020) The carbon footprint of pathology testing. Med J Aust 212:377–382

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. McAlister S, McGain F, Breth-Petersen M, Story D, Charlesworth K, Ison G, Barratt A (2022) The carbon footprint of hospital diagnostic imaging in Australia. Lancet Reg Health-West Pacif 24:100459

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Critical Care, Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

    Melany Gaetani & Christina Maratta

  2. Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

    Melany Gaetani, Camilla Halgren & Christina Maratta

  3. Department of Pediatrics, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

    Melany Gaetani & Christina Maratta

  4. Interdepartmental Division of Critical Care Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

    Melany Gaetani & Christina Maratta

  5. E.M. Uleryk Consulting, Mississauga, Ontario, Canada

    Elizabeth Uleryk

Authors
  1. Melany Gaetani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Elizabeth Uleryk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Camilla Halgren
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Christina Maratta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed to the study conception, design, manuscript review, and editing. Data collection and data analysis were performed by MG and CM. Initial manuscript drafted by MG. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christina Maratta.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

None of the authors have any conflicts of interest to declare.

Ethical approval

Ethics approval was not required for this systematic review.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 532 KB)

Supplementary file2 (DOCX 16 KB)

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gaetani, M., Uleryk, E., Halgren, C. et al. The carbon footprint of critical care: a systematic review. Intensive Care Med 50, 731–745 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-023-07307-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-023-07307-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation