The Environmental Impacts of Electronic Medical Records Versus Paper Records at a Large Eye Hospital in India: Life Cycle Assessment Study.

carbon emissions electronic health records electronic medical records environmental impact greenhouse gases life cycle assessment low middle income country medical records paper medical records sustainability

Journal

Journal of medical Internet research
ISSN: 1438-8871
Titre abrégé: J Med Internet Res
Pays: Canada
ID NLM: 100959882

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
06 Feb 2024
Historique:
received: 13 09 2022
accepted: 19 04 2023
revised: 22 03 2023
medline: 6 2 2024
pubmed: 6 2 2024
entrez: 6 2 2024
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Health care providers worldwide are rapidly adopting electronic medical record (EMR) systems, replacing paper record-keeping systems. Despite numerous benefits to EMRs, the environmental emissions associated with medical record-keeping are unknown. Given the need for urgent climate action, understanding the carbon footprint of EMRs will assist in decarbonizing their adoption and use. We aimed to estimate and compare the environmental emissions associated with paper medical record-keeping and its replacement EMR system at a high-volume eye care facility in southern India. We conducted the life cycle assessment methodology per the ISO (International Organization for Standardization) 14040 standard, with primary data supplied by the eye care facility. Data on the paper record-keeping system include the production, use, and disposal of paper and writing utensils in 2016. The EMR system was adopted at this location in 2018. Data on the EMR system include the allocated production and disposal of capital equipment (such as computers and routers); the production, use, and disposal of consumable goods like paper and writing utensils; and the electricity required to run the EMR system. We excluded built infrastructure and cooling loads (eg. buildings and ventilation) from both systems. We used sensitivity analyses to model the effects of practice variation and data uncertainty and Monte Carlo assessments to statistically compare the 2 systems, with and without renewable electricity sources. This location's EMR system was found to emit substantially more greenhouse gases (GHGs) than their paper medical record system (195,000 kg carbon dioxide equivalents [CO The climate-changing emissions associated with an EMR system are heavily dependent on the sources of electricity. With a decarbonized electricity source, the EMR system's GHG emissions are on par with paper medical record-keeping, and decarbonized grids would likely have a much broader benefit to society. Though we found that the EMR system produced more emissions than a paper record-keeping system, this study does not account for potential expanded environmental gains from EMRs, including expanding access to care while reducing patient travel and operational efficiencies that can reduce unnecessary or redundant care.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
Health care providers worldwide are rapidly adopting electronic medical record (EMR) systems, replacing paper record-keeping systems. Despite numerous benefits to EMRs, the environmental emissions associated with medical record-keeping are unknown. Given the need for urgent climate action, understanding the carbon footprint of EMRs will assist in decarbonizing their adoption and use.
OBJECTIVE OBJECTIVE
We aimed to estimate and compare the environmental emissions associated with paper medical record-keeping and its replacement EMR system at a high-volume eye care facility in southern India.
METHODS METHODS
We conducted the life cycle assessment methodology per the ISO (International Organization for Standardization) 14040 standard, with primary data supplied by the eye care facility. Data on the paper record-keeping system include the production, use, and disposal of paper and writing utensils in 2016. The EMR system was adopted at this location in 2018. Data on the EMR system include the allocated production and disposal of capital equipment (such as computers and routers); the production, use, and disposal of consumable goods like paper and writing utensils; and the electricity required to run the EMR system. We excluded built infrastructure and cooling loads (eg. buildings and ventilation) from both systems. We used sensitivity analyses to model the effects of practice variation and data uncertainty and Monte Carlo assessments to statistically compare the 2 systems, with and without renewable electricity sources.
RESULTS RESULTS
This location's EMR system was found to emit substantially more greenhouse gases (GHGs) than their paper medical record system (195,000 kg carbon dioxide equivalents [CO
CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS
The climate-changing emissions associated with an EMR system are heavily dependent on the sources of electricity. With a decarbonized electricity source, the EMR system's GHG emissions are on par with paper medical record-keeping, and decarbonized grids would likely have a much broader benefit to society. Though we found that the EMR system produced more emissions than a paper record-keeping system, this study does not account for potential expanded environmental gains from EMRs, including expanding access to care while reducing patient travel and operational efficiencies that can reduce unnecessary or redundant care.

Identifiants

pubmed: 38319701
pii: v26i1e42140
doi: 10.2196/42140
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

e42140

Informations de copyright

©Cordelia Kwon, Lernik Essayei, Michael Spencer, Tom Etheridge, Rengaraj Venkatesh, Natrajan Vengadesan, Cassandra L Thiel. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (https://www.jmir.org), 06.02.2024.

Auteurs

Cordelia Kwon (C)

Department of Population Health, NYU Langone Health, New York, NY, United States.

Lernik Essayei (L)

NYU Wagner School of Public Service, New York, NY, United States.

Michael Spencer (M)

Rausser College of Natural Resources, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, United States.

Tom Etheridge (T)

EarthShift Global, Corvallis, OR, United States.

Rengaraj Venkatesh (R)

Aravind Eye Care System, Pondicherry, India.

Natrajan Vengadesan (N)

Aravind Eye Care System, Pondicherry, India.

Cassandra L Thiel (CL)

Center for Healthcare Innovation and Delivery Science, Department of Population Health, NYU Langone Health, New York, NY, United States.
Department of Ophthalmology, NYU Langone Health, New York, NY, United States.

Classifications MeSH