BACKGROUND: Bariatric surgery demands a multidisciplinary approach and enhanced recovery schemes. Such schemes are complex and cumbersome to introduce into practice. This study evaluates if a clinical pathway (CP) facilitates implementation of an enhanced recovery scheme in bariatric surgery with the goal of improving perioperative quality of care. METHODS: We compared 65 consecutive patients who underwent bariatric surgery in 2009 and were treated with a CP (CP group) with 64 consecutive patients treated without CP in 2007/2008 (pre-CP group). Process quality indicators were catheter management, postoperative mobilization, spirometer training, vitamin B supplementation, diet resumption, intake of supplement drinks, and length of stay. Outcome quality was measured through morbidity, mortality, re-operations, and re-admissions. RESULTS: In the CP group, foley catheters were removed earlier (p < 0.0001), patients were mobilized more often on the surgery day (CP group 92.3% vs. pre-CP group 78.1%, p = 0.03), used spirometers more often (56.9% vs. 28.1%, p = 0.002), were more often supplemented with vitamin B (100% vs. 31.3%, p < 0.0001), and received oral supplement nutrition more often (100% vs. 59.4%, p < 0.0001). Median length of stay was shorter in the CP group (6 vs. 7 days, p = 0.007). There was no significant difference in mortality, morbidity, re-operations, and re-admissions. CONCLUSIONS: Following implementation of an enhanced recovery CP for bariatric surgery, several indicators of process quality improved while outcome quality remained unchanged. A CP seems useful for optimizing treatment of bariatric surgery patients according to enhanced recovery principles. However, future studies are required to better determine which elements of care can be improved most.
BACKGROUND: Bariatric surgery demands a multidisciplinary approach and enhanced recovery schemes. Such schemes are complex and cumbersome to introduce into practice. This study evaluates if a clinical pathway (CP) facilitates implementation of an enhanced recovery scheme in bariatric surgery with the goal of improving perioperative quality of care. METHODS: We compared 65 consecutive patients who underwent bariatric surgery in 2009 and were treated with a CP (CP group) with 64 consecutive patients treated without CP in 2007/2008 (pre-CP group). Process quality indicators were catheter management, postoperative mobilization, spirometer training, vitamin B supplementation, diet resumption, intake of supplement drinks, and length of stay. Outcome quality was measured through morbidity, mortality, re-operations, and re-admissions. RESULTS: In the CP group, foley catheters were removed earlier (p < 0.0001), patients were mobilized more often on the surgery day (CP group 92.3% vs. pre-CP group 78.1%, p = 0.03), used spirometers more often (56.9% vs. 28.1%, p = 0.002), were more often supplemented with vitamin B (100% vs. 31.3%, p < 0.0001), and received oral supplement nutrition more often (100% vs. 59.4%, p < 0.0001). Median length of stay was shorter in the CP group (6 vs. 7 days, p = 0.007). There was no significant difference in mortality, morbidity, re-operations, and re-admissions. CONCLUSIONS: Following implementation of an enhanced recovery CP for bariatric surgery, several indicators of process quality improved while outcome quality remained unchanged. A CP seems useful for optimizing treatment of bariatric surgery patients according to enhanced recovery principles. However, future studies are required to better determine which elements of care can be improved most.
Authors: José V Roig; Rodolfo Rodríguez-Carrillo; Juan García-Armengol; Francisco L Villalba; Antonio Salvador; Cristina Sancho; Pilar Albors; Francisco Puchades; Carlos Fuster Journal: Cir Esp Date: 2007-06 Impact factor: 1.653
Authors: Jeffrey I Mechanick; Robert F Kushner; Harvey J Sugerman; J Michael Gonzalez-Campoy; Maria L Collazo-Clavell; Safak Guven; Adam F Spitz; Caroline M Apovian; Edward H Livingston; Robert Brolin; David B Sarwer; Wendy A Anderson; John Dixon Journal: Surg Obes Relat Dis Date: 2008-08-19 Impact factor: 4.734
Authors: Matthias H M Schwarzbach; Ulrich Ronellenfitsch; Qian Wang; Eric D Rössner; Christof Denz; Stefan Post; Peter Hohenberger Journal: Langenbecks Arch Surg Date: 2009-06-10 Impact factor: 3.445
Authors: Sebastiaan W Polle; Jan Wind; Jan W Fuhring; Jan Hofland; Dirk J Gouma; Willem A Bemelman Journal: Dig Surg Date: 2007-09-13 Impact factor: 2.588
Authors: Brian M Block; Spencer S Liu; Andrew J Rowlingson; Anne R Cowan; John A Cowan; Christopher L Wu Journal: JAMA Date: 2003-11-12 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Caroline M J Theunissen; John K Maring; Natascha J C Raeijmaekers; Ingrid S Martijnse; Barbara S Langenhoff Journal: Obes Surg Date: 2016-02 Impact factor: 4.129
Authors: Jerry T Dang; Vivian G Szeto; Ahmad Elnahas; James Ellsmere; Allan Okrainec; Amy Neville; Samaad Malik; Ekua Yorke; Dennis Hong; Laurent Biertho; Timothy Jackson; Shahzeer Karmali Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2019-06-17 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Marion van der Kolk; Mark van den Boogaard; Femke Becking-Verhaar; Hettie Custers; Hans van der Hoeven; Peter Pickkers; Kees van Laarhoven Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2017-06-06 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: A Thorell; A D MacCormick; S Awad; N Reynolds; D Roulin; N Demartines; M Vignaud; A Alvarez; P M Singh; D N Lobo Journal: World J Surg Date: 2016-09 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: Ola S Ahmed; Ailín C Rogers; Jarlath C Bolger; Achille Mastrosimone; William B Robb Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2018-02-27 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Dana A Telem; Daniel B Jones; Philip R Schauer; Stacy A Brethauer; Raul J Rosenthal; David Provost; Stephanie B Jones Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2018-03-30 Impact factor: 4.584