The carbon footprint of pathology testing

Yen, Tina; Badrick, Tony

doi:10.5694/mja2.50826

To the Editor: The recently published article by McAlister and colleagues1 highlights the importance of health care organisations becoming aware of their environmental impact. However, there are several misconceptions inherent in the analysis.

1 Saint George Hospital, Sydney, NSW
2 Royal College of Pathologists of Australasia Quality Assurance Programs, Sydney, NSW

Correspondence: tina.yen@health.nsw.gov.au

Competing interests:

No relevant disclosures.

1. McAlister S, Barratt AL, Bell KJ, McGain F. The carbon footprint of pathology testing. Med J Aust 2020; 212: 377–382. https://www.mja.com.au/journal/2020/212/8/carbon-footprint-pathology-testing
2. Lopez JB, Badrick T; ad hoc IFCC Panel on the Environmental Responsibility of Clinical Laboratories; APFCB Laboratory Management Committee. Proposals for the mitigation of the environmental impact of clinical laboratories. Clin Chem Lab Med 2012; 50: 1559–1564.
3. Tennison I. Indicative carbon emissions per unit of healthcare activity [briefing No. 23]. Cambridge: Eastern Region Public Health Observatory, NHS Sustainable Development Unit; 2010. https://www.sduhealth.org.uk/documents/publications/Bed_Days1.pdf (viewed May 2020).
4. Zhi M, Ding EL, Theisen‐Toupal J, et al. The landscape of inappropriate laboratory testing: a 15‐year meta‐analysis. PLoS ONE 2013; 8: e78962.
5. O'Sullivan JW, Albasri A, Nicholson BD, et al. Overtesting and undertesting in primary care: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. BMJ Open 2018; 8: e018557.

Online responses are no longer available. Please refer to our instructions for authors page for more information.