BACKGROUND: Early walking as part of a perioperative care program benefits patients who have had surgery. However, the impact of early walking by itself on the mental and physical recovery of postoperative patients has not been examined. METHODS: We established a program called walking to recovery (WTR) in which college volunteers provided walking assistance to patients recovering after abdominal surgery. Patients who participated in the program were compared with patients who did not. The postoperative recovery profile survey (PRP-17) was administered on day of discharge to 15 participants and 15 non-participants. Medical records were reviewed to obtain indication for surgery, type of surgery, length of hospital stay, and postoperative complications. At 1 month post-discharge, a short form (SF)-12v2 questionnaire was administered by telephone to assess postoperative quality of life as defined by mental and physical level of function and measured with the mental component score (MCS) and the physical component score (PCS). RESULTS: The average age of participants and non-participants was similar (48.9 ± 9.8 vs. 51.4 ± 8.7 years; p = 0.28). When the two groups were approximately matched by type and severity of surgery, participants had lower PRP-17 composite scores (9.9 vs. 12.5, p = 0.003) and higher indicator sums (9.8 vs. 8.4, p = 0.04) than non-participants, both of which indicate better postoperative recovery in participants. The mean immobilization score was significantly lower in participants (0.3 vs. 0.8, p = 0.04). Postoperative length of stay and MCS did not differ between the two groups, but in participants there was a trend for higher scores in the PCS. CONCLUSIONS: Walking with volunteers was associated with a better PRP during the hospitalization period but not at 1 month follow-up. The WTR program is a sustainable, cost-effective model program for other hospitals to emulate as part of the standard of care of postoperative patients.
BACKGROUND: Early walking as part of a perioperative care program benefits patients who have had surgery. However, the impact of early walking by itself on the mental and physical recovery of postoperative patients has not been examined. METHODS: We established a program called walking to recovery (WTR) in which college volunteers provided walking assistance to patients recovering after abdominal surgery. Patients who participated in the program were compared with patients who did not. The postoperative recovery profile survey (PRP-17) was administered on day of discharge to 15 participants and 15 non-participants. Medical records were reviewed to obtain indication for surgery, type of surgery, length of hospital stay, and postoperative complications. At 1 month post-discharge, a short form (SF)-12v2 questionnaire was administered by telephone to assess postoperative quality of life as defined by mental and physical level of function and measured with the mental component score (MCS) and the physical component score (PCS). RESULTS: The average age of participants and non-participants was similar (48.9 ± 9.8 vs. 51.4 ± 8.7 years; p = 0.28). When the two groups were approximately matched by type and severity of surgery, participants had lower PRP-17 composite scores (9.9 vs. 12.5, p = 0.003) and higher indicator sums (9.8 vs. 8.4, p = 0.04) than non-participants, both of which indicate better postoperative recovery in participants. The mean immobilization score was significantly lower in participants (0.3 vs. 0.8, p = 0.04). Postoperative length of stay and MCS did not differ between the two groups, but in participants there was a trend for higher scores in the PCS. CONCLUSIONS: Walking with volunteers was associated with a better PRP during the hospitalization period but not at 1 month follow-up. The WTR program is a sustainable, cost-effective model program for other hospitals to emulate as part of the standard of care of postoperative patients.
Authors: Valerie A Kibler; Rachel M Hayes; Dana E Johnson; Laura W Anderson; Shari L Just; Nancy L Wells Journal: Am J Nurs Date: 2012-04 Impact factor: 2.220
Authors: Sven Muller; Marco P Zalunardo; Martin Hubner; Pierre A Clavien; Nicolas Demartines Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2008-11-01 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Krishna K Varadhan; Keith R Neal; Cornelius H C Dejong; Kenneth C H Fearon; Olle Ljungqvist; Dileep N Lobo Journal: Clin Nutr Date: 2010-01-29 Impact factor: 7.324
Authors: Yehuda Kariv; Conor P Delaney; Anthony J Senagore; Elena A Manilich; Jeffrey P Hammel; James M Church; Jeffrey Ravas; Victor W Fazio Journal: Dis Colon Rectum Date: 2007-02 Impact factor: 4.585
Authors: Niek Koenders; Stein van den Heuvel; Shanna Bloemen; Philip J van der Wees; Thomas J Hoogeboom Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2019-11-10 Impact factor: 2.692