Nguyen X. Thanh1, Anderson W. Chuck, Tracy Wasylak, Jeannette Lawrence, Peter Faris, Olle Ljungqvist, Gregg Nelson, Leah M. Gramlich. 1. From the Institute of Health Economics, Edmonton, Alta. (Thanh, Chuck); Alberta Health Services, Calgary, Alta. (Wasylak, Lawrence, Faris); the Faculty of Medicine and Health, School of Health and Medical Sciences, Department of Surgery, Örebro University, Örebro, Sweden (Ljungqvist); the Department of Oncology, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alta. (Nelson); the Department of Medicine, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alta. (Gramlich).
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In February 2013, Alberta Health Services established an Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) implementation program for adopting the ERAS Society colorectal guidelines into 6 sites (initial phase) that perform more than 75% of all colorectal surgeries in the province. We conducted an economic evaluation of this initiative to not only determine its cost-effectiveness, but also to inform strategy for the spread and scale of ERAS to other surgical protocols and sites. METHODS: We assessed the impact of ERAS on patients’ health services utilization (HSU; length of stay [LOS], readmissions, emergency department visits, general practitioner and specialist visits) within 30 days of discharge by comparing pre- and post-ERAS groups using multilevel negative binomial regressions. We estimated the net health care costs/savings and the return on investment (ROI) associated with those impacts for post-ERAS patients using a decision analytic modelling technique. RESULTS: We included 331 pre- and 1295 post-ERAS patients in our analyses. ERAS was associated with a reduction in all HSU outcomes except visits to specialists. However, only the reduction in primary LOS was significant. The net health system savings were estimated at $2 290 000 (range $1 191 000–$3 391 000), or $1768 (range $920–$2619) per patient. The probability for the program to be cost-saving was 73%–83%. In terms of ROI, every $1 invested in ERAS would bring $3.8 (range $2.4–$5.1) in return. CONCLUSION: The initial phase of ERAS implementation for colorectal surgery in Alberta is cost-saving. The total savings has the potential to be more substantial when ERAS is spread for other surgical protocols and across additional sites.
BACKGROUND: In February 2013, Alberta Health Services established an Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) implementation program for adopting the ERAS Society colorectal guidelines into 6 sites (initial phase) that perform more than 75% of all colorectal surgeries in the province. We conducted an economic evaluation of this initiative to not only determine its cost-effectiveness, but also to inform strategy for the spread and scale of ERAS to other surgical protocols and sites. METHODS: We assessed the impact of ERAS on patients’ health services utilization (HSU; length of stay [LOS], readmissions, emergency department visits, general practitioner and specialist visits) within 30 days of discharge by comparing pre- and post-ERAS groups using multilevel negative binomial regressions. We estimated the net health care costs/savings and the return on investment (ROI) associated with those impacts for post-ERAS patients using a decision analytic modelling technique. RESULTS: We included 331 pre- and 1295 post-ERAS patients in our analyses. ERAS was associated with a reduction in all HSU outcomes except visits to specialists. However, only the reduction in primary LOS was significant. The net health system savings were estimated at $2 290 000 (range $1 191 000–$3 391 000), or $1768 (range $920–$2619) per patient. The probability for the program to be cost-saving was 73%–83%. In terms of ROI, every $1 invested in ERAS would bring $3.8 (range $2.4–$5.1) in return. CONCLUSION: The initial phase of ERAS implementation for colorectal surgery in Alberta is cost-saving. The total savings has the potential to be more substantial when ERAS is spread for other surgical protocols and across additional sites.
Authors: K C H Fearon; O Ljungqvist; M Von Meyenfeldt; A Revhaug; C H C Dejong; K Lassen; J Nygren; J Hausel; M Soop; J Andersen; H Kehlet Journal: Clin Nutr Date: 2005-04-21 Impact factor: 7.324
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: Jason Werle; Loretta Dobbelsteyn; A Lynn Feasel; Brooke Hancock; Becky Job; Linda Makar; Heather Manning; Sarah Quigley; Art Teppler; Christopher Smith; Sheila Kelly; Tracy Wasylak Journal: Healthc Manage Forum Date: 2010
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: Clin Nutr Date: 2012-09-28 Impact factor: 7.324
Authors: Freek Gillissen; Christiaan Hoff; José M C Maessen; Bjorn Winkens; Jitske H F A Teeuwen; Maarten F von Meyenfeldt; Cornelis H C Dejong Journal: World J Surg Date: 2013-05 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: Donald E Low; William Allum; Giovanni De Manzoni; Lorenzo Ferri; Arul Immanuel; MadhanKumar Kuppusamy; Simon Law; Mats Lindblad; Nick Maynard; Joseph Neal; C S Pramesh; Mike Scott; B Mark Smithers; Valérie Addor; Olle Ljungqvist Journal: World J Surg Date: 2019-02 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: Chamaidi Sarakatsianou; Konstantinos Perivoliotis; George Tzovaras; Athina A Samara; Ioannis Baloyiannis Journal: In Vivo Date: 2021 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 2.155