Rethinking Water Use in Endoscopy for Sustainability

Planetary health means that our well-being is closely linked to the health of the Environment. As doctors, we have a duty not just to care for our patients but also to think about the health of future generations. This means we need to take a good look at how we do things now and find ways to reduce our impact on the environment while still ensuring patient safety. It turns out that the healthcare industry makes a pretty big mess, contributing to greenhouse gases and a ton of waste, especially from single-use plastics.

In the United States, the healthcare system is responsible for about 8-10% of all emissions, while in Australia it's 7%, and in Canada, it's about 5%. Worldwide, healthcare activities contribute to roughly 5% of environmental harm. If we want to protect human health from climate change, we need to make some changes.

#The Waste Problem in Gastroenterology

Gastroenterology is a field that uses a lot of resources and produces a lot of waste. In fact, studies show it is the third-highest source of waste in healthcare, mainly due to procedures like endoscopy. These procedures are energy-intensive and generate waste because they require cleaning, use a ton of one-time-use items, and tend to be performed frequently.

A surprising fact is that a single Endoscopic procedure can use up to 55 liters of sterile water. Now, here's the kicker: the gastrointestinal tract that these procedures access is not sterile. We drink non-sterile water every day, so why do we need to use sterile water during these procedures? This has led many doctors to question the necessity of using sterile water during endoscopies.

#Surveying the Opinions of Endoscopists

Recently, some researchers checked in with endoscopists to see what they thought about being more eco-friendly. A 2024 survey found that almost 85% of the healthcare providers involved in this field believed that Sustainability should be a priority.

Despite many organizations suggesting the use of sterile water in these procedures, there’s not much evidence showing that it leads to safer outcomes for patients. A few studies have shown no real difference between using sterile and regular tap water, especially in areas where clean tap water is available. Interestingly, tap water is already used safely in some procedures, such as enemas.

While some articles encourage the use of tap water because there is little evidence of harm and it's better for the environment, we still don’t know how all doctors feel about this idea. The guidelines from respected organizations suggest there’s room to investigate alternative options to sterile water.

#The Environmental Impact of Sterile Water

Using sterile water comes with a hefty environmental price tag due to the processes involved in sterilizing, packaging, and transporting it—all this adds to energy consumption and waste. A study estimated that endoscopy in the U.S. emits about 85,768 metric tons of CO2 each year, which is the same as burning 94 million pounds of coal. Just by switching from sterile water in plastic containers to good old tap water, we could make a significant impact.

In developed countries, clean water is readily available in homes and hospitals, so the shift to tap water could greatly reduce waste and energy use.

#Getting Opinions from Endoscopists

Before making any changes, it's crucial to understand what endoscopists think about this tap water idea. We need to gauge their feelings on environmental factors, Costs, and any obstacles to making sustainable changes in their practices.

#Study Group Details

We reached out to doctors and endoscopy nurses to get their thoughts on water usage in endoscopic procedures. We gathered data between June and November 2024.

We contacted qualified individuals directly and through professional organizations. This helped us ensure that we were reaching the appropriate audience. We did not use social media for distribution to keep the data strong.

#Key Findings

Our main goal was to find out how endoscopists felt about tap water versus sterile water in their work. We designed survey questions to evaluate their general feelings, environmental concerns, cost issues, and the impact of policy.

We managed to gather 88 complete responses. This included a mix of endoscopy-performing consultants, nurses, medical residents, and other doctors. The majority of respondents were from Europe and the UK.

#General Attitudes and Perceptions

The feedback on using tap water was mostly positive. Endoscopy consultants showed stronger agreement compared to other respondents.

• Comfort Level: Many felt either comfortable or very comfortable using tap water for procedures.
• Viability: A good number thought that tap water was a suitable alternative to sterile water.
• Interest in Change: There was a solid interest in implementing tap water in their practices, although the topic wasn't often discussed in their workplaces.

#Environmental Considerations

When it comes to being eco-friendly, most respondents felt that minimizing the environmental footprint was important. Many suggested that environmental factors played a significant role in their choice of water.

#Cost Considerations

Understanding costs was another area where respondents generally found agreement. Notably, many were aware of the cost differences between tap and sterile water and believed that switching would save money.

#Policy Impact

The lack of clear Policies around tap water was seen as a barrier by many respondents, which hampers the adoption of tap water practices. However, a majority expressed willingness to advocate for policy changes regarding tap water use.

#The Bottom Line

In this study, we examined how doctors and nurses involved in endoscopy viewed the environmental effects, costs, and policies surrounding the use of tap water. Most respondents, particularly endoscopy consultants, were comfortable with the idea of using tap water, viewed it as a viable option, and were interested in switching.

There is a strong desire among healthcare professionals to address environmental impacts in their work, aligning with the global push towards sustainability. Our findings indicate that many are ready to support the use of tap water in endoscopy, which could lead to practical changes in medical practices.

However, there’s still a divide in opinions about changing the practice without randomized control trials, even when there’s no evidence of harm. Encouraging doctors to advocate for sustainable options is key, as they are trusted voices in society.

Moreover, most respondents were aware of the cost differences, supporting the idea that switching to tap water could save money. This aligns with the push for measuring how medical practices affect the environment and finding ways to minimize this impact.

There are some limitations to our study, including the focus on participants from a specific region and the potential bias toward those interested in sustainability. Future research could look deeper into why some physicians might not be keen on using tap water.

In summary, our work emphasizes the need for further studies and a push towards sustainable practices in healthcare. Exploring how medical practices impact the environment is crucial, and tapping into the potential of simple changes like using tap water could lead to a brighter, greener future for medical procedures.