skip to main content
Language:
Search Limited to: Search Limited to: Resource type Show Results with: Show Results with: Search type Index

P186 Carbon footprint analysis of the salford lung study (asthma): A SusQI analysis

Thorax, 2021-02, Vol.76 (Suppl 1), p.A190-A190 [Peer Reviewed Journal]

Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ. ;2021 Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ. ;ISSN: 0040-6376 ;EISSN: 1468-3296 ;DOI: 10.1136/thorax-2020-BTSabstracts.331

Full text available

Citations Cited by
  • Title:
    P186 Carbon footprint analysis of the salford lung study (asthma): A SusQI analysis
  • Author: Hunt, FJN ; Wilkinson, A
  • Subjects: Asthma ; Carbon footprint ; Cost control ; Inhalers
  • Is Part Of: Thorax, 2021-02, Vol.76 (Suppl 1), p.A190-A190
  • Description: The UK is aiming for net zero carbon emissions by 2050 and the NHS makes up roughly 5% of the total carbon footprint. Inhaler therapies have high potential for carbon savings. Metered dose inhalers (MDI) have a very high carbon footprint as they contain hydrofluoroalkane propellants which are potent greenhouse gases. Dry powder inhalers (DPI), have a much smaller footprint and make up only 30% of inhaler usage in the UK (far lower than other European countries).The Salford lung study (SLS) was a randomised control trial assessing a single combined DPI, Fluticasone Furoate/Vilanterol (FF/VI), against usual care in asthma management across a 12-month period.1Patient health outcomes, cost-effectiveness and employment outcomes have previously been reported. The Sustainable quality improvement (SusQI) framework assesses projects using a ‘triple bottom line’ of environmental, social and economic costs and is used to motivate healthcare workers to bring about positive change.2 We used SusQI methodology and NHS Sustainable development data to calculate the carbon footprint of the two treatment arms. Additionally, the carbon footprint of healthcare visits and hospital stays were calculated.We calculated a saving of 141 kg CO2e per patient per year in the FF/VI arm. Prior to randomisation, 70% of patients were using MDI maintenance therapy. The majority of the greenhouse gas savings (129 kg CO2e) derived from switching from MDI to DPI maintenance treatment. The carbon footprint of salbutamol therapy was slightly lower in the treatment arm; 156 kg in FF/VI group vs 137 kg CO2e in the usual care arm. Usual care and FF/VI had little difference in carbon footprint of healthcare visits, 73 kg and 79 kg CO2e respectively.Patients randomised to FF/VI had a significant saving in their carbon footprint compared to standard care, alongside improvements in clinical outcomes. Future clinical trials should consider including not just patients’ health outcomes, but also the triple bottom line of the environmental, social and financial costs.Abstract P186 Figure 1Chart showing the mean carbon footprint per person of the three measured outcomes and as a totalReferencesWoodcock, et al. The Salford Lung Study protocol: a pragmatic, randomised phase III real-world effectiveness trial in asthma. BMC Pulmonary Medicine 2015;15(1).Mortimer, Wilkinson, et al. Sustainability in quality improvement: redefining value. Future Healthcare Journal 2018;5(2):88–93.
  • Publisher: London: BMJ Publishing Group LTD
  • Language: English
  • Identifier: ISSN: 0040-6376
    EISSN: 1468-3296
    DOI: 10.1136/thorax-2020-BTSabstracts.331
  • Source: Alma/SFX Local Collection
    ProQuest Central
Back to results list
INSPIRE LIBRARY - TON DUC THANG UNIVERSITY (84-028) 37 755 057 Feedback
19 Nguyen Huu Tho St. Dist.7, HCM thuvien@tdtu.edu.vn

Copyright © 2017 INSPIRE LIBRARY - TON DUC THANG UNIVERSITY

Searching Remote Databases, Please Wait