
Medicine sustainability interventions
Clinical care
Administer antiemetics orally and/or rectally instead of intravenously
Antiemetics, such as 5HT3 antagonists (e.g. ondansetron and granisetron) and dopamine antagonists (e.g. metoclopramide), are widely used in clinical care to prevent and treat nausea and vomiting, for example postoperatively or during chemotherapy. Research shows that antiemetics administered enterally (e.g., orally or rectally) at an equivalent dose usually have a similar effectiveness and safety to those administered intravenously (IV) (1-2).
The oral/rectal route contributes to greater comfort and autonomy. In addition, the use of oral/rectal medication is more cost-effective and sustainable, because fewer disposable materials are required than intravenous administration (3). In situations where oral administration is not feasible, such as severe nausea or vomiting, rectal administration may sometimes still be chosen. IV administration is only eligible if this is not possible. This is further detailed in the NVZA monographs (4-6).
Intervention
Administer antiemetics preferably enterally rather than IV unless there is a specific indication for IV administration.
Environmental impact
Measured in CO2-emissions by reducing the number of prescriptions IV administration of antiemetics compared to enteral administration.
Working method
1. Determine the population and formulate a goal
- Inventory current policies in selected department/for selected patient group (s):
- Using administration data from the EPD, evaluate the proportion of patients receiving antiemetic IV (toolkit iv/enterally)?
- Formulate SMART goals together with (the green team of) the relevant department (s). For example: within three months, a 25% reduction in IV antiemetic administrations compared to enteral antiemetic administrations
2. Implementation
- Adjust protocol and predefined medication orders (if necessary).
- Inform the prescribers and pharmacists of the department concerned and, if necessary, the Medicines Committee about the change, for example by briefly explaining the change during transfers and/or team meetings. To do this, the poster be used.
3. Monitoring and Evaluation
- Using the iv/enterally toolkit, monitor the proportion of IV compared to PO administrations, see “How to evaluate a drug intervention'. Discuss (interim) results regularly, for example (twice) monthly, during transfers, team meetings and/or teaching.
- Reflect on results in relation to the set goal, obstructing and promoting factors. Adjust interventions if necessary.
- At the end of the follow-up period, evaluate whether the goal (s) is/have been achieved and how the change is secured.
Provide (interim) results back to the implementation supervisor.

How is this measured?
The environmental impact of the intervention can be determined by reducing IV administrations compared to enteral administrations based on administration records before and after implementation, see “Method of evaluating a drug intervention”.
When successfully implemented?
Based on the reduction in the proportion of IV compared to oral and rectal administrations of antiemetics, as described in the previous section, determine when the implementation is considered successful, and reflect on the stated goal.
Resources
- Tramer MR, Reynolds DJM, Moore RA, McQuay HJ. Efficacy of 5-HT3 receptor antagonists in postoperative nausea and vomiting: a quantitative systematic review. MAY 1997; 314 (7092) :1088—92.
- Anthony LB, Krozely MG, Woodward NJ, et al. Antiemetic effect of oral versus intravenous metoclopramide in patients receiving cisplatin: a randomized, double-blind trial. J Clin Incol. 1986 Jan; 4 (1) :98-103
- Lim E, Parker E, Vasey N. Why learning how to swallow pills is good for patients, parents, and the planet BMJ 2024; 384:e076257 doi:10.1136/bmj-2023-076257
- NVZA. Metoclopramide monograph. Dutch Association of Hospital Pharmacists; 2025.
- NVZA. Granisetron monograph. Dutch Association of Hospital Pharmacists; 2025.
- NVZA. Ondansetron monograph. Dutch Association of Hospital Pharmacists; 2025.
Tools
Are any materials missing here or have you (developed) additional materials that can help other hospitals implement this intervention, please let us know via contact@samendezorgvergroenen.nl
- Environmental Impact Toolkit: Next
- NVZA drug monograph overview 'prefer enteral rather than parenteral therapy' (NL)
- Jacobs TG, van Herpen-Meeuwissen LJM, van den Bemt PMLA, Hunfeld NGM, Attema-de Jonge ME. Sustainable use of infusion bags; lessons from the infusion bag crisis. Ned Tijscher Genk 2025; 169:D8557 (NL).
Resultaten
%
%
%
View our other interventions
Clinical care
Sharing the indication and intended treatment duration of multiple anticoagulant therapies with primary care
The prescription of multiple anticoagulant therapy (e.g. double or triple therapy with anticoagulants and antiplatelet agents) is complex and associated with an increased risk of bleeding. Patients often use these combinations temporarily, for example after acute coronary syndrome, percutaneous coronary intervention, or concomitant atrial fibrillation and stent implantation (1). European and Dutch guidelines therefore emphasize that double or triple therapy is never indicated for life, but always has a limited treatment period, depending on the clinical situation and the individual balance between the risk of bleeding or an ischemic event (1).
In practice, however, it appears that these drugs are regularly used for too long or are continued without a current indication, which significantly increases the risk of serious, preventable bleeding. For example, research in Dutch pharmacies showed that 14— 23% of patients who used dual anticoagulation no longer had a valid indication (2). During hospitalization, it was found that more than 40% of patients with multiple anticoagulant therapies used these combinations incorrectly (3). This risks bleeding complications, and thus unnecessary hospital admissions (4), but also contributes to unnecessary costs and environmental impact.
To prevent this, clear communication during dismissal and transfer is crucial. Explicitly sharing the indication and the intended treatment duration with primary care (general practitioner and pharmacist) enables follow-up care providers to continue treatment responsibly or to stop it in time. This contributes to medication safety, reduces the risk of complications and prevents unnecessary drug use.
Clinical care
Treatment with oral antibiotics when bioavailability is good
Based on a recent opinion article This intervention has been selected in the NTvG by Kaal et al. This article recommends that there is more room for oral antibiotic initiation, but does not describe clinically tested interventions. This intervention will therefore be further developed on the basis of available scientific literature and will follow at a later date.
Clinical care and outpatient care
Discontinuation of proton pump inhibitors without a current indication
Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are antacids that are frequently used. Pantoprazole (1.3 million users) and (es) omeprazole (1.2 million users) were among the top 3 most used medicines in 2023 (1). However, it appears that a large number of these drug users have no indication for PPI use (2). In short-term use, more than half of the patients appeared to have no indication (3); in chronic use, this figure is even 87% (4). Overtreatment with PPIs risks side effects, such as an increased risk of bone fractures and vitamin B12 deficiency, but also leads to unnecessary costs and environmental impact (2).
The NHG 'Stomach Disease (NL)' guideline and the NVMDL guideline 'Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease (NL)' provide recommendations to prevent overtreatment with PPIs (5.6). These guidelines recommend that patients with stomach problems or disorders with a temporary indication for PPIs should reduce a PPI within three months. Only patients with grade C and D4 reflux esophagitis, Barrett's oesophagus and Zollinger-Ellison syndrome should use a PPI for life (5 - 7). A PPI for stomach protection should be stopped when a patient stops taking the medication for which it was prescribed (8).
The Proton Pump Inhibitors Knowledge Paper (NL) explains the consideration for reducing or discontinuing proton pump inhibitors when using PPIs chronically (7). Reducing appears to be successful in approximately 40 - 70% of the patients, depending on the intervention that is chosen (9). In this way, any long-term side effects of PPIs can be prevented and costs and environmental impact can be saved (5 - 7).
Clinical care and outpatient care
Restrictive opioid prescribing with indication and intended treatment duration
The most commonly used, high-acting opioids are morphine, fentanyl, oxycodone, and buprenorphine (1). In 2024, more than 1.1 million people received an opioid through the public pharmacy (2). Although the total number of benefits in kind fell slightly compared to 2023, the number of prescriptions from the hospital actually increased slightly (3). A first dose of a high-acting opioid included an average of 9 days of medication in 2024 (3), while acute pain due to trauma or surgery often requires only 48 hours of strong opioid pain relief (4). Prescribing opioids for too long increases the risk of dependence and also leads to unnecessary environmental impact.
Research shows that the amount of opioids that patients receive at discharge influences their actual use (5). As recovery progresses, the need for opioids decreases rapidly; four days are sufficient for most patients. This is in line with international recommendations that recommend a duration of 3 - 7 days (6-8). The guideline of the Dutch Association of Anesthesiology (NVA) also recommends appropriate use of opioids through restrictive prescribing (up to 7 days) tailored to the pain experienced (9).
Another bottleneck is that the intended treatment duration and indication of opioids at discharge or outpatient dispensing are not always explicitly stated or shared with patients and primary care providers. As a result, GPs and pharmacists often lack crucial information to continue treatment responsibly or to phase it out in time. This increases the risk of unnecessarily long use, and thus unnecessary environmental impact and risk of dependency.