Michael Hughes1, Marielle M E Coolsen2, Eirik K Aahlin3, Ewen M Harrison4, Stephen J McNally4, C H C Dejong2, Kristoffer Lassen3, Stephen J Wigmore4. 1. Department of Clinical Surgery, Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland, United Kingdom. Electronic address: michaelh@doctors.net.uk. 2. Department of Surgery, University Hospital Maastricht, Maastricht, The Netherlands. 3. Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, University Hospital Northern Norway and Institute of Clinical Medicine, University of Tromsø, Tromsø, Norway. 4. Department of Clinical Surgery, Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland, United Kingdom.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) is a well-established pathway of perioperative care in surgery in an increasing number of specialties. To implement protocols and maintain high levels of compliance, continued support from care providers and patients is vital. This survey aimed to assess the perceptions of care providers and patients of the relevance and importance of the ERAS targets and strategies. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Pre- and post-operative surveys were completed by patients who underwent major hepatic, colorectal, or oesophagogastric surgery in three major centers in Scotland, Norway, and The Netherlands. Anonymous web-based and article surveys were also sent to surgeons, anesthetists, and nurses experienced in delivering enhanced recovery protocols. Each questionnaire asked the responder to rate a selection of enhanced recovery targets and strategies in terms of perceived importance. RESULTS: One hundred nine patients and 57 care providers completed the preoperative survey. Overall, both patients and care providers rated the majority of items as important and supported ERAS principles. Freedom from nausea (median, 10; interquartile range [IQR], 8-10) and pain at rest (median, 10; IQR, 8-10) were the care components rated the highest by both patients and care providers. Early return of bowel function (median, 7; IQR, 5-8) and avoiding preanesthetic sedation (median, 6; IQR, 3.75-8) were scored the lowest by care providers. CONCLUSIONS: ERAS principles are supported by both patients and care providers. This is important when attempting to implement and maintain an ERAS program. Controversies still remain regarding the relative importance of individual ERAS components.
BACKGROUND: Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) is a well-established pathway of perioperative care in surgery in an increasing number of specialties. To implement protocols and maintain high levels of compliance, continued support from care providers and patients is vital. This survey aimed to assess the perceptions of care providers and patients of the relevance and importance of the ERAS targets and strategies. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Pre- and post-operative surveys were completed by patients who underwent major hepatic, colorectal, or oesophagogastric surgery in three major centers in Scotland, Norway, and The Netherlands. Anonymous web-based and article surveys were also sent to surgeons, anesthetists, and nurses experienced in delivering enhanced recovery protocols. Each questionnaire asked the responder to rate a selection of enhanced recovery targets and strategies in terms of perceived importance. RESULTS: One hundred nine patients and 57 care providers completed the preoperative survey. Overall, both patients and care providers rated the majority of items as important and supported ERAS principles. Freedom from nausea (median, 10; interquartile range [IQR], 8-10) and pain at rest (median, 10; IQR, 8-10) were the care components rated the highest by both patients and care providers. Early return of bowel function (median, 7; IQR, 5-8) and avoiding preanesthetic sedation (median, 6; IQR, 3.75-8) were scored the lowest by care providers. CONCLUSIONS: ERAS principles are supported by both patients and care providers. This is important when attempting to implement and maintain an ERAS program. Controversies still remain regarding the relative importance of individual ERAS components.
Authors: Ester Miralpeix; Alpa M Nick; Larissa A Meyer; Juan Cata; Javier Lasala; Gabriel E Mena; Vijaya Gottumukkala; Maria Iniesta-Donate; Gloria Salvo; Pedro T Ramirez Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2016-03-09 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Joseph C Carmichael; Deborah S Keller; Gabriele Baldini; Liliana Bordeianou; Eric Weiss; Lawrence Lee; Marylise Boutros; James McClane; Scott R Steele; Liane S Feldman Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2017-08-03 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Scott E Regenbogen; Andrew J Mullard; Nanette Peters; Shannon Brooks; Michael J Englesbe; Darrell A Campbell; Samantha Hendren Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2016-12 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: L Brown; M Gray; B Griffiths; M Jones; A Madhavan; K Naru; F Shaban; S Somnath; D Harji Journal: Ann R Coll Surg Engl Date: 2019-06-24 Impact factor: 1.891
Authors: Michał Pędziwiatr; Mateusz Wierdak; Michał Nowakowski; Magdalena Pisarska; Maciej Stanek; Michał Kisielewski; Maciej Matłok; Piotr Major; Stanisław Kłęk; Andrzej Budzyński Journal: Wideochir Inne Tech Maloinwazyjne Date: 2016-03-16 Impact factor: 1.195
Authors: Eliza W Beal; Joshua-Paolo C Reyes; Zachary Denham; Mahmoud Abdel-Rasoul; Eyad Rasoul; Michelle L Humeidan Journal: Medicine (Baltimore) Date: 2021-06-18 Impact factor: 1.889