Liane S Feldman1, Lawrence Lee, Julio Fiore. 1. Division of General Surgery, Steinberg-Bernstein Centre for Minimally Invasive Surgery and Innovation, McGill University Health Centre, 1650 Cedar Ave, L9-303, Montreal, QC, H3G 1A4, Canada, liane.feldman@mcgill.ca.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this narrative review is to provide a framework from which to measure the outcomes of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) programs. PRINCIPLE FINDINGS: We define the outcomes of recovery from the perspective of different stakeholders and time frames. There is no single definition of recovery. There are overlapping phases of recovery which are of particular interest to different stakeholders (surgeons, anesthesiologists, nurses, patients and their caregivers), and the primary outcome of interest may vary depending on the phase and the perspective. In the earliest phase (from the end of the surgery to discharge from the postanesthesia care unit [PACU]), biologic and physiologic outcomes are emphasized. In the intermediate phase (from PACU to discharge from the hospital), symptoms related to pain and gastrointestinal function as well as basic activities are important. Studies of ERAS pathways have reported clinical outcomes and symptoms, including complications, hospital stay, mobilization, and gastrointestinal function, largely during hospitalization. Nevertheless, patients define recovery as return to normal functioning, a process that occurs over weeks to months (late phase). Outcomes reflecting functional status (e.g., physical activity, activities of daily living) and overall health (e.g., quality of life) are important in this phase. To date, few studies reporting the effectiveness of ERAS pathways compared with conventional care have included functional status or quality-of-life outcomes, and there is little information about recovery after discharge from hospital. CONCLUSION: Recovery after surgery is a complex construct. Different outcomes are important at different phases along the recovery trajectory. Measures for quantifying recovery in hospital and after discharge are available. A consensus-based core set of outcomes with input from multiple stakeholders would facilitate research reporting.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this narrative review is to provide a framework from which to measure the outcomes of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) programs. PRINCIPLE FINDINGS: We define the outcomes of recovery from the perspective of different stakeholders and time frames. There is no single definition of recovery. There are overlapping phases of recovery which are of particular interest to different stakeholders (surgeons, anesthesiologists, nurses, patients and their caregivers), and the primary outcome of interest may vary depending on the phase and the perspective. In the earliest phase (from the end of the surgery to discharge from the postanesthesia care unit [PACU]), biologic and physiologic outcomes are emphasized. In the intermediate phase (from PACU to discharge from the hospital), symptoms related to pain and gastrointestinal function as well as basic activities are important. Studies of ERAS pathways have reported clinical outcomes and symptoms, including complications, hospital stay, mobilization, and gastrointestinal function, largely during hospitalization. Nevertheless, patients define recovery as return to normal functioning, a process that occurs over weeks to months (late phase). Outcomes reflecting functional status (e.g., physical activity, activities of daily living) and overall health (e.g., quality of life) are important in this phase. To date, few studies reporting the effectiveness of ERAS pathways compared with conventional care have included functional status or quality-of-life outcomes, and there is little information about recovery after discharge from hospital. CONCLUSION: Recovery after surgery is a complex construct. Different outcomes are important at different phases along the recovery trajectory. Measures for quantifying recovery in hospital and after discharge are available. A consensus-based core set of outcomes with input from multiple stakeholders would facilitate research reporting.
Authors: Nicolò Pecorelli; Julio F Fiore; Chelsia Gillis; Rashami Awasthi; Benjamin Mappin-Kasirer; Petru Niculiseanu; Gerald M Fried; Francesco Carli; Liane S Feldman Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2015-08-27 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: David E Messenger; Nathan J Curtis; Adam Jones; Emma L Jones; Neil J Smart; Nader K Francis Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2016-09-08 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Janet Baack Kukreja; Qiuling Shi; Courtney M Chang; Mohamed A Seif; Brandon M Sterling; Ting-Yu Chen; Kelly M Creel; Ashish M Kamat; Colin P Dinney; Neema Navai; Jay B Shah; Xin Shelley Wang Journal: Surg Innov Date: 2018-03-20 Impact factor: 2.058
Authors: Nicolò Pecorelli; Saba Balvardi; A Sender Liberman; Patrick Charlebois; Barry Stein; Franco Carli; Liane S Feldman; Julio F Fiore Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2019-01-30 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Martin S Angst; Gabriela K Fragiadakis; Brice Gaudillière; Nima Aghaeepour; Garry P Nolan Journal: Anesthesiology Date: 2016-06 Impact factor: 7.892