Rethinking single use: why safe reuse matters more than ever

As we look ahead to our upcoming IPC Partners Insight Webinar on Sustainability and IPC, it’s becoming increasingly clear that sustainability and infection prevention and control are no longer separate conversations. Environmental pressures, resource constraints, and rising waste volumes are reshaping how we think about safety, and safe reuse of medical products and devices is now firmly part of that debate.

For years, single‑use products were seen as the simplest way to manage infection risk. However, climate change, water stress, and supply chain fragility mean we need to rethink how we use resources without compromising patient safety.

Safe reuse using evidence, standards, and modern decontamination processes to deliver care that is both safe and sustainable is where we should be focusing our efforts.

Why safe reuse matters now

• Environmental pressures - single‑use plastics and high‑volume disposables carry a heavy carbon and waste burden.
• Infrastructure fragility - supply chain shocks and resource constraints make reliance on disposables increasingly risky.
• Evolving evidence – a growing body of evidence is demonstrating that reuse, when validated, can match or exceed the safety of single‑use pathways.

What the evidence shows (two examples of safe reuse).

1. Reusable surgical textiles (gowns and drapes)

A recent review in American Journal of Infection Control has shown that reusable surgical gowns and drapes can outperform single‑use alternatives on barrier performance, linting, and durability when processed correctly.

Key findings include:

• Reusable gowns maintained high levels of protection after repeated laundering and sterilisation cycles.
• Microbial penetration rates were equivalent or lower than single‑use products.
• Lifecycle analyses consistently showed 70–80% lower carbon emissions compared with disposables.

2. Reprocessing of non‑critical medical devices (e.g., blood pressure cuffs, tourniquets)

A study published in Resources, Conservation and Recycling evaluated the environmental and economic impact of reusable and disposable blood pressure cuffs in multiple clinical settings.

Key findings include:

• Reusable blood‑pressure cuffs showed no increase in infection risk when cleaned using standard low‑level disinfection, with contamination effectively controlled through routine workflows.
• Environmental impact was dramatically lower; reusable cuffs produced up to 40× fewer greenhouse‑gas emissions than disposable alternatives across multiple clinical settings.
• Reusable cuffs were often more cost‑effective, with lower total lifecycle costs once cleaning time and materials were accounted for, making them both a safe and sustainable option.

What this means for IPC teams

Safe reuse is becoming a core part of sustainable healthcare, and IPC teams are central to making it work. Three shifts stand out:

1. IPC needs to shape system‑level decisions

Waste pathways, product design, and decontamination all influence infection risk. IPC teams increasingly need to be involved early.

2. Sustainability should sit inside IPC risk assessment

Carbon, waste, and resource impacts are now part of the safety conversation. IPC teams are uniquely placed to balance clinical risk with environmental responsibility and challenge assumptions about single‑use safety.

3. IPC teams need confidence and tools to evaluate reuse proposals

As pressure grows to reduce single use items, IPC teams will be asked whether reuse is safe. Clear frameworks, validated evidence, and the ability to distinguish real risk from perceived risk will be essential.

Safe reuse isn’t about lowering standards; it’s about applying validated decontamination processes to reduce environmental impact without compromising patient safety. The evidence is beginning to show that when workflows are well‑designed, reuse can deliver both safety and substantial sustainability gains.