Katherine A Barraclough1,2, Alice Gleeson2, Stephen G Holt1,2, John Wm Agar3. 1. Department of Nephrology, Royal Melbourne Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. 2. Department of Health and Human Services, Victorian Renal Clinical Network, Safer Care Victoria, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. 3. Department of Renal Medicine, University Hospital Geelong, Barwon Health, Geelong, Victoria, Australia.
Abstract
AIM: The Green Dialysis Survey aimed to (i) establish a baseline for environmental sustainability (ES) across Victorian dialysis facilities; and (ii) guide future initiatives to reduce the environmental impact of dialysis delivery. METHODS: Nurse unit managers of all Victorian public dialysis facilities received an online link to the survey, which asked 107 questions relevant to the ES of dialysis services. RESULTS: Responses were received from 71/83 dialysis facilities in Victoria (86%), representing 628/660 dialysis chairs (95%). Low energy lighting was present in 13 facilities (18%), 18 (25%) recycled reverse osmosis water and seven (10%) reported use of renewable energy. Fifty-six facilities (79%) performed comingled recycling but only 27 (38%) recycled polyvinyl chloride plastic. A minority educated staff in appropriate waste management (n = 30;42%) or formally audited waste generation and segregation (n = 19;27%). Forty-four (62%) provided secure bicycle parking but only 33 (46%) provided shower and changing facilities. There was limited use of tele- or video-conferencing to replace staff meetings (n = 19;27%) or patient clinic visits (n = 13;18%). A minority considered ES in procurement decisions (n = 28;39%) and there was minimal preparedness to cope with climate change. Only 39 services (49%) confirmed an ES policy and few had ever formed a green group (n = 14; 20%) or were currently undertaking a green project (n = 8;11%). Only 15 facilities (21%) made formal efforts to raise awareness of ES. CONCLUSION: This survey provides a baseline for practices that potentially impact the environmental sustainability of dialysis units in Victoria, Australia. It also identifies achievable targets for attention.
AIM: The Green Dialysis Survey aimed to (i) establish a baseline for environmental sustainability (ES) across Victorian dialysis facilities; and (ii) guide future initiatives to reduce the environmental impact of dialysis delivery. METHODS: Nurse unit managers of all Victorian public dialysis facilities received an online link to the survey, which asked 107 questions relevant to the ES of dialysis services. RESULTS: Responses were received from 71/83 dialysis facilities in Victoria (86%), representing 628/660 dialysis chairs (95%). Low energy lighting was present in 13 facilities (18%), 18 (25%) recycled reverse osmosis water and seven (10%) reported use of renewable energy. Fifty-six facilities (79%) performed comingled recycling but only 27 (38%) recycled polyvinyl chloride plastic. A minority educated staff in appropriate waste management (n = 30;42%) or formally audited waste generation and segregation (n = 19;27%). Forty-four (62%) provided secure bicycle parking but only 33 (46%) provided shower and changing facilities. There was limited use of tele- or video-conferencing to replace staff meetings (n = 19;27%) or patient clinic visits (n = 13;18%). A minority considered ES in procurement decisions (n = 28;39%) and there was minimal preparedness to cope with climate change. Only 39 services (49%) confirmed an ES policy and few had ever formed a green group (n = 14; 20%) or were currently undertaking a green project (n = 8;11%). Only 15 facilities (21%) made formal efforts to raise awareness of ES. CONCLUSION: This survey provides a baseline for practices that potentially impact the environmental sustainability of dialysis units in Victoria, Australia. It also identifies achievable targets for attention.