
Medicine sustainability interventions
Clinical care
Paracetamol should be administered orally instead of intravenously
To treat postoperative pain, intravenous (IV) acetaminophen is usually administered. However, research shows that oral (PO) administration is equally effective and more sustainable in most patients. A systematic review of 14 studies shows that there is no convincing difference in the analgesic effect between IV and oral acetaminophen at different times after surgery (1). However, the environmental impact varies considerably: CO2 emissions from IV administration are up to 16x higher (2). Where an oral administration of 1 gram of acetaminophen from a blister results in the emission of approximately 38 grams of CO₂ eq., this can be up to 628 grams when administered IV, depending on the packaging and administration material (2).
In most patients, acetaminophen can be administered orally, as described in the NVZA Monograph 'Paracetamol' (3). The paracetamol challenge demonstrated that IV acetaminophen administration can be reduced by at least 25%, saving staff time, costs and environmental impact (4). These results underline deployment at a larger scale.
Intervention
Administer paracetamol orally instead of intravenously unless there is a specific indication for intravenous administration.
Environmental impact
Measured in CO2-emissions by reducing the number of intravenous acetaminophen prescriptions compared to oral 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 paracetamol intravenously (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 paracetamol use in postoperative pain medication in orthopedics.
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, check the proportion of IV compared to PO administrations, see ''Evaluation of a drug intervention' method. 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 PO administrations based on administration records before and after implementation with the iv/enteral toolkit. See 'Method of evaluating a drug intervention'.
When successfully implemented?
Based on the reduction in the proportion of IV compared to PO acetaminophen administrations, as described in the previous section, determine when the implementation is considered successful, and reflect on the set goal.
Resources
- Mallama M, Valencia A, Rice K, Rietdijk WJR, Klimek M, Calvache JA. A systematic review and trial sequential analysis of intravenous vs. oral peri-operative acetaminophen. Anaesthesia 2020; 76:270—6.
- Davies JF, McAlister S, Eckelman MJ, McGain F, Seglenieks R, Gutman EN, Groome J, Palipane N, Latoff K, Nielsen D, Sherman JD; TRA2SH, GASP and WAREN collaborators. Environmental and financial impacts of perioperative paracetamol use: a multicentre international life-cycle assessment. Br J Anaesth. 2024 Dec; 133 (6) :1439-1448.
- NVZA Sustainability Committee/Drug Waste Working Group. Paracetamol monograph. Version 06-08-2025.
- Hunfeld N, Tibboel D, Gommers D. The paracetamol challenge in intensive care: going green with acetaminophen. Intensive Care Med. 2024 Oct 28; 50 (12) :2182—2184.
Attachments
- Video from infusion to tablet: the paracetamol challenge is a real win-win-win
- Hunfeld N, Tibboel D, Gommers D. The paracetamol challenge in intensive care: going green with paracetamol. Intensive Care Med. 2024 Oct 28; 50 (12) :2182—2184.
View our other interventions
Clinical care and outpatient care
Targeted prescribing of proton pump inhibitors (as stomach protection)
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 (anymore) (2). With short-term use, more than half of the patients appeared to have no indication (3). Part of this is caused by starting PPIs as stomach protection without indication.
The NHG guideline “Prevention of stomach complications due to drug use (NL)” and the knowledge document proton pump inhibitors (NL) indicate that a PPI is indicated as stomach protection based on risk factors, such as age, ulcer or history of stomach complications, NSAID dosing, co-medication with an increased risk of stomach complications and comorbidities, such as rheumatoid arthritis, heart failure or diabetes (4 - 6). By prescribing PPIs based on risk factors for stomach protection, unnecessary PPI use can be reduced, thereby preventing environmental impact.
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
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
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).