Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T19:25:31.319Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Working Towards a Greener NHS: Exploring Psychiatrists’ Attitudes Towards the Climate Crisis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 July 2023

David Hall
Affiliation:
Leeds and York Partnership NHS Foundation Trust, Leeds, United Kingdom
Daniel Romeu
Affiliation:
Leeds and York Partnership NHS Foundation Trust, Leeds, United Kingdom University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom
Hannah O'Donohoe*
Affiliation:
University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom
Gayathri Srinivasaraghavan
Affiliation:
University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom
Sharon Nightingale
Affiliation:
Leeds and York Partnership NHS Foundation Trust, Leeds, United Kingdom
*
*Corresponding author.
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Aims

The primary aim of this project was to explore the attitudes of doctors employed by Leeds and York Partnership NHS Foundation Trust (LYPFT) towards climate change and sustainability issues. Secondary aims were to ascertain psychiatrists’ knowledge of current efforts to mitigate the impact of healthcare on the climate, and to identify barriers to action against the climate crisis.

Methods

This was a cross-sectional study using a self-completed questionnaire designed by the team on an online platform (Survey Monkey, www.surveymonkey.co.uk). It was open from 23 August to 19 September 2022 and shared via email with doctors of all grades employed by LYPFT (n = 211). Likert-scale and multiple-choice responses were analysed using descriptive statistics and two-sided t-tests. Free-text responses were analysed independently by four researchers (DH, DR, HO, GS) using thematic analysis. Participants were required to agree to an online consent statement before proceeding. The study was carried out in accordance with University of Leeds ethical protocols.

Results

66 doctors completed the questionnaire (31.3% response rate) of whom 24 (36.3%) were consultants and 42 (63.6%) were junior doctors. 57 (86.3%) respondents agreed that climate change is harmful to mental and physical health. 42 (63.6%) indicated that the climate emergency was relevant to their role, and 46 (69.7%) felt that climate and sustainability issues should be included in educational curricula for all healthcare professionals. Only 4 (6.1%) were aware of the Trust's strategies to mitigate its impact on the climate, and 7 (10.6%) were familiar with the remit and content of the Greener NHS Plan. There were no statistical differences in responses to these questions between consultants and junior doctors.

The most commonly perceived barriers to reducing the Trust's impact on the climate were a lack of willingness to change current practice (n = 28, 42.4%), poor awareness of the impact of the healthcare industry on the climate (n = 16, 24.2%), and an absence of guidance on sustainable practice (n = 15, 22.7%). Three themes emerged among free-text responses to this question: clinical priorities taking precedent, extensive use of pharmaceuticals and a lack of appropriate infrastructure and resources.

Conclusion

LYPFT doctors appreciated the significance of the climate crisis and its relevance to their role as healthcare professionals. However, there is a lack of awareness of local and national efforts to mitigate the impact of healthcare on the climate. Future work should raise awareness of the association between planetary and human health and encourage stakeholders to prioritise sustainability issues.

Type
Rapid-Fire Presentations
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NC
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. This does not need to be placed under each abstract, just each page is fine.
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Royal College of Psychiatrists

Footnotes

Abstracts were reviewed by the RCPsych Academic Faculty rather than by the standard BJPsych Open peer review process and should not be quoted as peer-reviewed by BJPsych Open in any subsequent publication.

Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.