Robert S Ackerman1,2, Michael Hirschi1, Brandon Alford1, Trip Evans3, John V Kiluk4, Sephalie Y Patel5. 1. Morsani College of Medicine, University of South Florida, 12901 Bruce B Downs, Tampa, FL, 33612, USA. 2. Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Management, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, 5323 Harry Hines Blvd, Dallas, TX, 75390, USA. 3. Department of Anesthesiology, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer, 12902 Magnolia Drive, Tampa, FL, 33612, USA. 4. Department of Breast Oncology, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer, 12902 Magnolia Drive, Tampa, FL, 33612, USA. 5. Department of Anesthesiology, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer, 12902 Magnolia Drive, Tampa, FL, 33612, USA. Sephalie.Patel@moffitt.org.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols have been shown to improve surgical, anesthetic, and economic outcomes in intermediate-to-high-risk surgeries. Its influence on length of stay and cost of low-risk surgeries has yet to be robustly studied. As value-based patient care comes to the forefront of anesthesiology research, the focus shifts to strategies that maintain quality while effectively containing cost. METHODS: In July 2016, we implemented an ERAS for mastectomy protocol consisting of limiting fasting state, preoperative multimodal analgesia, and pectoralis I and II blocks. After 1 year, patient records were retrospectively reviewed for length of stay, opioid consumption, pain scores, and hospital charges. RESULTS: Implementation of an ERAS protocol for mastectomies led to a decrease in opioid consumption, and statistically significant decrease in length of stay (1.19 vs. 1.44, p = 0.01). No significant change in hospital charges was observed ($25,787 vs. $25,863, p = 0.97); however, the variance of charges was significantly decreased (6.8 × 107 vs. 1.5 × 108, p = 0.002). The decrease in length of stay translated to an extra 100 hospital bed days which can provide up to an additional $2,100,000 in gross patient service revenue from additional mastectomy volume. CONCLUSION: ERAS protocols for mastectomies may prove beneficial by allowing growing hospitals to increase bed capacity and consequently surgical volume. Despite no change in hospital charges, we predict a potential increase in gross patient service revenue of $2.1 million due to saved hospital bed days.
BACKGROUND: Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols have been shown to improve surgical, anesthetic, and economic outcomes in intermediate-to-high-risk surgeries. Its influence on length of stay and cost of low-risk surgeries has yet to be robustly studied. As value-based patient care comes to the forefront of anesthesiology research, the focus shifts to strategies that maintain quality while effectively containing cost. METHODS: In July 2016, we implemented an ERAS for mastectomy protocol consisting of limiting fasting state, preoperative multimodal analgesia, and pectoralis I and II blocks. After 1 year, patient records were retrospectively reviewed for length of stay, opioid consumption, pain scores, and hospital charges. RESULTS: Implementation of an ERAS protocol for mastectomies led to a decrease in opioid consumption, and statistically significant decrease in length of stay (1.19 vs. 1.44, p = 0.01). No significant change in hospital charges was observed ($25,787 vs. $25,863, p = 0.97); however, the variance of charges was significantly decreased (6.8 × 107 vs. 1.5 × 108, p = 0.002). The decrease in length of stay translated to an extra 100 hospital bed days which can provide up to an additional $2,100,000 in gross patient service revenue from additional mastectomy volume. CONCLUSION: ERAS protocols for mastectomies may prove beneficial by allowing growing hospitals to increase bed capacity and consequently surgical volume. Despite no change in hospital charges, we predict a potential increase in gross patient service revenue of $2.1 million due to saved hospital bed days.
Authors: Niles J Batdorf; Valerie Lemaine; Jenna K Lovely; Karla V Ballman; Whitney J Goede; Jorys Martinez-Jorge; Andria L Booth-Kowalczyk; Pamela L Grubbs; Lisa D Bungum; Michel Saint-Cyr Journal: J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg Date: 2014-11-21 Impact factor: 2.740
Authors: Suzanne B Coopey; Michelle C Specht; Lisa Warren; Barbara L Smith; Jonathan M Winograd; Katharine Fleischmann Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2012-10-14 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Jesper Dirks; Birgitte B Fredensborg; Dennis Christensen; Jonna S Fomsgaard; Henrik Flyger; Jørgen B Dahl Journal: Anesthesiology Date: 2002-09 Impact factor: 7.892
Authors: Hanna Nilsson; Ulf Angerås; David Bock; Mats Börjesson; Aron Onerup; Monika Fagevik Olsen; Martin Gellerstedt; Eva Haglind; Eva Angenete Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2016-01-14 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Alberto E Ardon; John E George; Kapil Gupta; Michael J O'Rourke; Melinda S Seering; Hanae K Tokita; Sylvia H Wilson; Tracy-Ann Moo; Ingrid Lizarraga; Sarah McLaughlin; Roy A Greengrass Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2022-04-15 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Ana Paula B S Etges; Luciana Paula Cadore Stefani; Dionisios Vrochides; Junaid Nabi; Carisi Anne Polanczyk; Richard D Urman Journal: J Health Econ Outcomes Res Date: 2021-06-24
Authors: Alireza Boloori; Bengt B Arnetz; Frederi Viens; Taps Maiti; Judith E Arnetz Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-10-16 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Brooke Vuong; Jennifer R Dusendang; Sharon B Chang; Margaret Ann Mentakis; Veronica C Shim; Julie Schmittdiel; Gillian Kuehner Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2020-10-03 Impact factor: 6.113