- 【Updated on May 12, 2025】 Integration of CiNii Dissertations and CiNii Books into CiNii Research
- Trial version of CiNii Research Knowledge Graph Search feature is available on CiNii Labs
- Suspension and deletion of data provided by Nikkei BP
- Regarding the recording of “Research Data” and “Evidence Data”
Green dialysis survey: Establishing a baseline for environmental sustainability across dialysis facilities in Victoria, Australia
-
- Katherine A Barraclough
- Department of Nephrology Royal Melbourne Hospital Melbourne Victoria Australia
-
- Alice Gleeson
- Department of Health and Human Services Victorian Renal Clinical Network, Safer Care Victoria Melbourne Victoria Australia
-
- Stephen G Holt
- Department of Nephrology Royal Melbourne Hospital Melbourne Victoria Australia
-
- John WM Agar
- Department of Renal Medicine University Hospital Geelong, Barwon Health Geelong Victoria Australia
Search this article
Description
<jats:title>ABSTRACT</jats:title><jats:sec><jats:title>Aim</jats:title><jats:p>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.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Methods</jats:title><jats:p>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<jats:bold>.</jats:bold></jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Results</jats:title><jats:p>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 (<jats:italic>n =</jats:italic> 30;42%) or formally audited waste generation and segregation (<jats:italic>n =</jats:italic> 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 (<jats:italic>n =</jats:italic> 19;27%) or patient clinic visits (<jats:italic>n =</jats:italic> 13;18%). A minority considered ES in procurement decisions (<jats:italic>n =</jats:italic> 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 (<jats:italic>n =</jats:italic> 14; 20%) or were currently undertaking a green project (<jats:italic>n =</jats:italic> 8;11%). Only 15 facilities (21%) made formal efforts to raise awareness of ES.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Conclusion</jats:title><jats:p>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.</jats:p></jats:sec>
Journal
-
- Nephrology
-
Nephrology 24 (1), 88-93, 2018-12-16
Wiley
- Tweet
Details 詳細情報について
-
- CRID
- 1363388845050817280
-
- ISSN
- 14401797
- 13205358
-
- Data Source
-
- Crossref