Reuse and environmental sustainability in Colombian urological practice

Reuse and environmental sustainability in Colombian urological practice

Adriana P. Cristancho-Rojas 1, 2 , Wilfredo Donoso-Donoso 1, 2 , Juan P. Álzate-Granados 2, 3 , David A. Castañeda-Millán 4, 5, 6

1 Unidad de Urología, Departamento de Cirugía, Facultad de Medicina, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Bogotá, Colombia; 2 Grupo de Investigación e Innovación en Urología, Facultad de Medicina, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Bogotá, Colombia; 3 Instituto de Investigaciones Clínicas, Facultad de Medicina, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Bogotá, Colombia; 4 Unidad de Urología, Departamento de Cirugía, Facultad de Medicina, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, ogotá, Colombia; 5 Grupo de Investigación e Innovación en Urología, Facultad de Medicina, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, ogotá, Colombia; 6 Oficina de Investigación, Sociedad Colombiana de Urología, Bogotá, Colombia

*Correspondence: David A. Castañeda-Millán. Email: dacastanedam@unal.edu.co

Abstract

Objective: To characterize the perceptions of the Colombian urological community regarding the environmental impact of professional practice and the reuse/reprocessing practices of medical devices. Method: A descriptive observational study based on a survey conducted among members of the Colombian Society of Urology, exploring environmental perceptions and practices related to the reuse of non-critical medical devices in professional practice. Results: A total of 82 responses were obtained. 78% of respondents reported being aware of the environmental impact of their professional practice, while 82.9% consider the environmental impact of urology to be moderate to high. Most participants had not received training in environmental sustainability, and more than half do not take measures to reduce waste production in their clinical practice. 14.6% never reuse medical devices, while 95% of respondents support reuse in controlled surgical settings. 52.4% of participants are not in favor of reusing catheters for intermittent catheterization. Cost reduction and difficulty in obtaining supplies are the primary motivations for reuse. The devices most frequently reused are ureteral access guides and sheaths. Conclusions: There is significant interest within the Colombian urological community regarding the environmental impact of their clinical practice. Reuse of medical devices is widespread in our local context, revealing an opportunity to develop guidelines for safe reuse and move toward a more environmentally sustainable urological practice.

Keywords: Climate change. Equipment and supplies. Urology.

Contents

⇄ Versión en Español
DOI not available
Add to Mendeley

    PERMANYER

    Mallorca, 310
    08037 Barcelona (España)

    Arquímedes, 190 – Colonia Polanco
    Delegación Miguel Hidalgo
    11560 Ciudad de México (México)

    RECURRING LINKS
    CLOCKSS is a dak archive that ensures the long-term survival of web-based scholary publications, governed by and for its stakeholders.

    This journal adheres to the principles established by the Committee on Publication Ethics

    English versión
    DOI not available

    Editorial times

    The editorial process consists of 6 stages:

    1. Reception of the manuscript (indeterminate, depending on whether the author meets the requirements): its objective is to verify that the manuscript complies with the specifications of these instructions for authors and that the submitted documentation is complete.

    2. Initial editorial review (maximum 5 business days): its objective is to corroborate the relevance, timeliness, originality, and scientific contribution of the manuscript, as well as the methodological and statistical soundness of the study. At this time, it will be submitted to an electronic plagiarism detection system. Derived from this, a rejected opinion may be obtained, or it will be sent for review by peer researchers.

    3. Review by peer researchers (maximum 30 business days): the opinion of at least two experts in the area in question will be obtained, who will evaluate the technical and methodological aspects of the investigation.

    4. Editorial review (maximum 7 business days): its objective is to make a decision based on the opinion of peer reviewers. The opinion can be rejected, major changes, minor changes or accepted. In the case of major or minor changes, it will be submitted again for evaluation by the initial peer reviewers.

    5. Final edition (6 weeks): its objective is the technical and linguistic edition (and translation), layout of galleys, DOI assignment, and correction by the author.

    6. Advanced publication: All manuscripts will be published ahead of print on the journal’s website as soon as they complete the editing process, until they are incorporated into a final issue of the journal.