G Nelson1, L N Kiyang2, A Chuck3, N X Thanh3, L M Gramlich4. 1. Department of Oncology, University of Calgary, AB; 2. Alberta Health Services, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB. 3. Institute of Health Economics, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB. 4. Department of Medicine, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (eras) colorectal guideline has been implemented widely across Alberta. Our study examined the clinical and cost impacts of eras on colon cancer patients across the province. METHODS: We first used both summary statistics and multivariate regression methods to compare, before and after guideline implementation, clinical outcomes (length of stay, complications, readmissions) in consecutive elective colorectal patients 18 or more years of age and in colon cancer and non-cancer patients treated at the Peter Lougheed Centre and the Grey Nuns Hospital between February 2013 and December 2014. We then used the differences in clinical outcomes for colon cancer patients, together with the average cost per hospital day, to estimate cost impacts. RESULTS: The analysis considered 790 patients (398 cancer and 392 non-cancer patients). Mean guideline compliance increased to 60% in cancer patients and 57% in non-cancer patients after eras implementation from 37% overall before eras implementation. From pre- to post-eras, mean length of stay declined to 8.4 ± 5 days from 9.5 ± 7 days in cancer patients, and to 6.4 ± 4 days from 8.8 ± 5.5 days in non-cancer patients (p = 0.0012 and p = 0.0041 respectively). Complications declined significantly in the renal, hepatic, pancreatic, and gastrointestinal groups (difference in proportions: 13% in cancer patients; p < 0.05). No significant change in the risk of readmission was observed. The net cost savings attributable to eras implementation ranged from $1,096 to $2,771 per cancer patient and from $3,388 to $7,103 per non-cancer patient. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of eras not only resulted in clinical outcome improvements, but also had a significant beneficial impact on scarce health system resources. The effect for cancer patients was different from that for non-cancer patients, representing an opportunity for further refinement and study.
BACKGROUND: The Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (eras) colorectal guideline has been implemented widely across Alberta. Our study examined the clinical and cost impacts of eras on colon cancerpatients across the province. METHODS: We first used both summary statistics and multivariate regression methods to compare, before and after guideline implementation, clinical outcomes (length of stay, complications, readmissions) in consecutive elective colorectalpatients 18 or more years of age and in colon cancer and non-cancerpatients treated at the Peter Lougheed Centre and the Grey Nuns Hospital between February 2013 and December 2014. We then used the differences in clinical outcomes for colon cancerpatients, together with the average cost per hospital day, to estimate cost impacts. RESULTS: The analysis considered 790 patients (398 cancer and 392 non-cancerpatients). Mean guideline compliance increased to 60% in cancerpatients and 57% in non-cancerpatients after eras implementation from 37% overall before eras implementation. From pre- to post-eras, mean length of stay declined to 8.4 ± 5 days from 9.5 ± 7 days in cancerpatients, and to 6.4 ± 4 days from 8.8 ± 5.5 days in non-cancerpatients (p = 0.0012 and p = 0.0041 respectively). Complications declined significantly in the renal, hepatic, pancreatic, and gastrointestinal groups (difference in proportions: 13% in cancerpatients; p < 0.05). No significant change in the risk of readmission was observed. The net cost savings attributable to eras implementation ranged from $1,096 to $2,771 per cancerpatient and from $3,388 to $7,103 per non-cancerpatient. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of eras not only resulted in clinical outcome improvements, but also had a significant beneficial impact on scarce health system resources. The effect for cancerpatients was different from that for non-cancerpatients, representing an opportunity for further refinement and study.
Authors: P M King; J M Blazeby; P Ewings; P J Franks; R J Longman; A H Kendrick; R M Kipling; R H Kennedy Journal: Br J Surg Date: 2006-03 Impact factor: 6.939
Authors: Massimiliano Greco; Giovanni Capretti; Luigi Beretta; Marco Gemma; Nicolò Pecorelli; Marco Braga Journal: World J Surg Date: 2014-06 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: U O Gustafsson; M J Scott; W Schwenk; N Demartines; D Roulin; N Francis; C E McNaught; J Macfie; A S Liberman; M Soop; A Hill; R H Kennedy; D N Lobo; K Fearon; O Ljungqvist Journal: World J Surg Date: 2013-02 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: Lawrence Lee; Juan Mata; Gabriela A Ghitulescu; Marylise Boutros; Patrick Charlebois; Barry Stein; A Sender Liberman; Gerald M Fried; Nancy Morin; Franco Carli; Eric Latimer; Liane S Feldman Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2015-12 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Malaika S Vlug; Jan Wind; Markus W Hollmann; Dirk T Ubbink; Huib A Cense; Alexander F Engel; Michael F Gerhards; Bart A van Wagensveld; Edwin S van der Zaag; Anna A W van Geloven; Mirjam A G Sprangers; Miguel A Cuesta; Willem A Bemelman Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2011-12 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Sarah B Jochum; Ethan M Ritz; Anuradha R Bhama; Dana M Hayden; Theodore J Saclarides; Joanne Favuzza Journal: Int J Colorectal Dis Date: 2020-01-04 Impact factor: 2.571
Authors: Mary E Brindle; Caraline McDiarmid; Kristin Short; Kathleen Miller; Ali MacRobie; Jennifer Y K Lam; Megan Brockel; Mehul V Raval; Alexandra Howlett; Kyong-Soon Lee; Martin Offringa; Kenneth Wong; David de Beer; Tomas Wester; Erik D Skarsgard; Paul W Wales; Annie Fecteau; Beth Haliburton; Susan M Goobie; Gregg Nelson Journal: World J Surg Date: 2020-08 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: Jennifer Y Lam; Alexandra Howlett; Duncan McLuckie; Lori M Stephen; Scott D N Else; Ashley Jones; Paul Beaudry; Mary E Brindle Journal: BJS Open Date: 2021-03-05