Development of an Environmental Audit Tool for Hospital Pharmacy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Health care contributes significantly to greenhouse gas emissions, and pharmacy departments have many opportunities to reduce their emissions. Objective: To describe the development and implementation of an environmental audit tool for hospital pharmacy departments. Methods: A pharmacy environmental audit tool was developed by modifying a generic workplace audit tool to include pharmacy-specific content. The audit tool contained 22 categories, with scoring on a 4-point scale (from 0 to 3). Members of a volunteer committee completed the audit by observing practice areas. The lowest-scoring categories were then prioritized for action. Results: Overall, the 4 main pharmacy sites in Regina, Saskatchewan, scored 23/66 (35%). Areas of strength identified in the audit included reuse of packaging materials, carpooling, and paperless meetings. Areas for improvement prioritized by the committee included paper use, plastic use, and recycling. Conclusions: The pharmacy environmental audit tool described here can facilitate reflection on current practice, benchmarking, and goal setting. Pharmacy professionals have a role in leading change for the benefit of planetary health. Keywords: hospital, pharmacy, environmental sustainability, audit tool, planetary health RÉSUMÉ Contexte : Le secteur des soins de santé contribue de manière significative aux émissions de gaz à effet de serre et les départements de pharmacie ont de nombreuses occasions de réduire leurs émissions. Objectif : Décrire l’élaboration et la mise en œuvre d’un outil de vérification de l’impact environnemental pour les départements de pharmacie hospitalière. Méthodologie : Un outil de vérification de l’impact environnemental des pharmacies a été mis au point en modifiant un outil de vérification générique pour les lieux de travail existant. Un contenu spécifique aux pharmacies y a été inclus. Cet outil comprenait 22 catégories avec une notation sur une échelle de 4 points (de 0 à 3). Des membres d’un comité bénévole ont réalisé la vérification en observant les domaines de pratique. Les catégories ayant obtenu les notes les plus basses ont ensuite été classées comme étant prioritaires. Résultats : Les 4 principaux sites de pharmacies de Regina, en Saskatchewan, ont obtenu un score global de 23/66 (35 %) à l’aide de l’outil de vérification. Les forces dégagées comprenaient la réutilisation des matériaux d’emballage, le covoiturage et les réunions sans papier. Les domaines d’amélioration prioritaires définis par le comité comprenaient l’utilisation du papier, l’utilisation du plastique et le recyclage. Conclusions : L’outil de vérification de l’impact environnemental des pharmacies décrit ici peut faciliter la réflexion sur les pratiques actuelles, l’analyse comparative et la définition d’objectifs. Les professionnels de la pharmacie ont un rôle à jouer dans la conduite du changement pour le bien de la santé de la planète. Mots-clés : hôpital, pharmacie, durabilité environnementale, outil de vérification, santé de la planète
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.045 | 0.104 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".