Добавил:
kiopkiopkiop18@yandex.ru t.me/Prokururor I Вовсе не секретарь, но почту проверяю Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз: Предмет: Файл:
Ординатура / Хирургия / Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана / Книга_917_Библиотеки_им_академика_М_И_Перельмана.pdf
Скачиваний:
0
Добавлен:
31.08.2026
Размер:
32 Мб
Скачать
88
D. S. Keller and L. Lee
and convalescence decreased [5]. Since their introduction, volumes of work have established that these pathways can reduce the stress response, postoperative mor­bidity, length of hospital stay, and overall costs. Enhanced recovery was initiated in colorectal surgery, and the largest body of literature is still based in the colorectal eld; however, the concept and benets rapidly spread to a variety of surgical spe­cialties [6].
With the undisputed improvement in clinical and nancial outcomes using enhanced recovery protocols and need to improve surgical quality and value, this is a topic relevant to all surgeons who perform colorectal procedures. As enhanced recovery evolves, there are several important points for providers to keep in mind. First, the term “enhanced recovery after surgery” is a misnomer, as the order sets cover the entire patient surgical experience, and the preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative periods need to be incorporated for best success. In addition, simply having a protocol is also not enough to reap the benets of enhanced recov­ery; experience and better organization of care are necessary for success [7]. Finally, the implementation process involves the entire multidisciplinary team; all staff members that care for the surgical patient should be educated in the protocols and supportive. In this chapter, we debunk common assumptions around ERPs and use a simple approach to help put an ERP into practice using minimal requirements for maximal benet in colorectal surgery.
Reviewing theEvidence: TheClinical Case forERP
The benets of ERPs are becoming unquestionably clear based on a growing body of literature. Multiple randomized trials have demonstrated the clinical benets of ERPs. The most recent systematic review and meta-analysis included 25 randomized trials comparing ERP versus conventional care in patients undergoing colorectal surgery. In this meta-analysis, there were signicant reductions in length of stay and periopera­tive morbidity in favor of ERP, without differences in readmissions or mortalities (Table7.1) [8]. These overall effects remained signicant regardless of open versus laparoscopic approach or by indication for surgery (colorectal cancer, rectal cancer, or benign disease). A similar meta-analysis in patients undergoing major non-colorectal
Table 7.1 Results from a meta-analysis of 25 randomized trials comparing ERP and conventional
care in patients undergoing colorectal surgery
Number of comparisons Outcome Length of stay 24
Perioperative morbidity Mortality 22 Risk ratio: 1.79 (95% CI 0.81, 3.95) Readmissions 19 Risk ratio: 1.10 (95% CI 0.81, 1.50) Surgical site infections
included
19 Risk ratio: 0.66 (95% CI 0.54, 0.80)
17 Risk ratio: 0.75 (95% CI 0.52, 1.07)
Effect Mean difference: 2.62days (95% CI
3.22, 2.02)
7 Debunking Enhanced Recovery Protocols inColorectal Surgery: Minimal…
Table 7.2 Results of a meta-analysis comparing ERP and conventional care in patients undergo-
ing major non-colorectal abdominal surgery (randomized trials only)
Number of Outcome Length of stay 11 Perioperative morbidity Readmissions 7 Risk ratio: 1.60 (95% CI 0.87, 2.96)
comparisons included
12 Risk ratio: 0.68 (95% CI 0.43, 1.10)
Effect Mean difference: 2.6days (95% CI 3.5, 1.7)
89
abdominal surgery also demonstrated a signicant decrease in length of stay without a difference in readmissions, although the effect on complications was not statistically signicant (Table7.2) [9]. Analysis of return of GI function has reported signicant reductions in time to rst atus and time to rst bowel movement for both upper GI and colorectal procedures [10]. Nonetheless, the effect sizes for these three important outcomes are remarkably similar between colorectal and non-colorectal abdominal surgery, suggesting the robustness of ERP principles. The generalizability of ERPs is especially important, as the initial effort and resource investments and expertise devel­opment for a colorectal ERP can then be applied for other procedures and specialties. With this evidence, methods to develop, implement, and measure outcomes with ERP are key for surgeons performing colorectal surgery.

Solicit Institutional Support

Institutional support from hospital administrators is a necessary step for success, as for senior level buy-in sets the tone for the culture change with ERP implementa­tion, and demonstrates to all staff that the institution supports dedicating the time and resources that are required to implement and maintain these pathways. Institutional support for ERP is necessary to identify where support can be offered, such as in the provision of an ERP facilitator, purchasing decisions, reallocation of staff and support services, education sessions in relation to ERPs, and the develop­ment of strategies to improve multidisciplinary buy-in and participation [11]. A recent study of SAGES members reported the single most important roadblock to successful ERP implementation was the lack of support from the hospital adminis­tration [12]. Thus, the visible top-down support of the institution and administration is key to drive the awareness and implementation of an ERP.As you put an ERP into practice, the next step after reviewing the evidence and building a clinical case is to present this evidence to the institutional administration to ensure high-level support of the initiative.
Defining Leaders andCreation oftheMultidisciplinary Team
With support of the administration, the next step is to build the multidisciplinary team. A successful ERP requires active collaboration and participation from the entire healthcare provider team, to ensure that all involved stakeholders feel
90
D. S. Keller and L. Lee
accountable for the implementation and maintenance processes [13]. It is essential to dene leaders and assemble a multidisciplinary team, identifying champions from all involved specialties that will take the lead in organizing, implementing, and maintaining their specialty’s respective roles in the ERP. The team begins with dening a local clinical champion, who recognizes its benets. This individual then forms a working group of similar-minded individuals from all involved parties into a steering committee, which should be able to effectively disseminate the clinical and economic benets of the ERP approach to their colleagues, implement, and monitor changes. This steering committee should consist of representatives from the involved specialties, as well as allied health professionals that are essential for patient care. This multidisciplinary team is recommended to include surgeons, anes­thesiologists, internists, nursing representatives from the preoperative center, post­anesthesia care unit, surgical ward, physiotherapists, pharmacists, and nutritionists that meet on a regular schedule. Each of these individuals represents an essential component in the patient’s perioperative journey. The role of the surgeon and anes­thesiologist is obvious; however other specialties and team members should also be recruited. For example, much of the preoperative testing and evaluation can be streamlined to minimize patient burden and resource utilization. In this regard, the inclusion of a representative of the medical specialty in charge of preoperative cen­ter is crucial. Operating room, perioperative care, and ward nursing representation are also critical, to ensure education, acceptance, and compliance with the ERP items during surgery and the patient’s stay in the postanesthesia recovery unit and inpatient oor. Similarly, allied health professionals that provide much of the care processes in the perioperative period should also be included. Pharmacists are an essential team member for agreement with medications included in the pathways and ease of future clinical trials. Nutrition, physical therapy, and wound ostomy care nurses are invaluable for input on managing high-risk and frail patients during the prehabilitation and postoperative periods. In most hospital systems, trainees are actively involved in patient care and may actually have the primary role of putting in orders and patient education. Thus, surgical resident involvement for ownership and buy-in of the care practices by the house staff is critical. For centers with the means or desire to publish, a librarian who can provide detailed literature searches on the best available evidence can also facilitate the dissemination process and path­way design. Once protocols have been developed and approved, the Information Technologies department can help streamline the implementation and audit pro­cesses, by integrating the pathways into the electronic medical record with auto­mated order sets, back-end databases, and personalized queries on outcomes metrics. Finally, a dedicated ERP facilitator is one of the essential elements com­monly overlooked. The facilitator is paramount for successful ERP implementation and subsequent audit processes [14, 15]. The ERP facilitator is mostly a nurse, nurse practitioner, or physician assistant (most common in the United States). Their responsibilities include reviewing the literature and evidence-based guidelines; shepherding the pathways through the approval process; maintaining momentum; creating patient education material; coordinating education sessions, meetings, and launch; and, nally, conducting postlaunch feedback and audit [15]. In cases where
7 Debunking Enhanced Recovery Protocols inColorectal Surgery: Minimal…
there is a dedicated colorectal unit, the facilitator could also be the nurse manager of the dedicated unit, helping to assure training and compliance with postoperative care principles. The ERP coordinator is a vital member of the team who is respon­sible for overseeing each of these key steps and coordinating among specialties.
91

Reviewing Current Data

Once the team is created, it is important to provide clear goals for your ERP.The rst step in this process is to review specic institutional practice patterns and out­comes. Determine what the current outcome and process measure data are at your institution. Process measures cover what the institution does to maintain or improve care; these measures typically reect generally accepted recommendations for clini­cal practice. Examples include use of bowel prep, blood sugar control before sur­gery, and the delivery of timely prophylactic antibiotics to reduce surgical site infection. Outcome measures reect the impact of interventions on the patient’s care and include metrics such as hospital length of stay, readmissions, and common com­plications. From these data, develop a specic needs assessment for change and initial goals for the ERP, such as reducing the rate of surgical site infections, reduc­ing length of stay, or reducing opioid use. Provide the group with your institution’s current processes and outcomes, as well as the same metrics for other hospitals and national benchmarks to emphasize the need and help prove the need for the change. These are basics of patient improvement, nancial benets, and clinical outcomes, to give the team a sense of urgency and need to implement a protocol. Without these data, there may be resistance to change from healthcare providers that do not see any advantages of the ERP approach over their current practice or fear the process change will be cumbersome and expensive [12].
Creating anEducation Program
With the current state of your institution and ERP goals dened, the next step involves education of these providers on current best practices and evidence-based recom­mendations and their potential improvements in clinical and nancial outcomes. It is imperative to provide education for all staff at the appropriate levels, as well as to create a sense of urgency to drive change initiatives. This approach has been shown to be effective in a business setting, as well as in healthcare [11, 13]. Literature on the basic principles and successful outcomes of ERP can be sent for the team to review as pre-learning, prior to meeting in person. Suggested landmark background papers are seen in Box 7.1. Next, targeted education specic to each team member’s contri­bution is essential for the team to understand their role and essential contribution to the overall success of an ERP.Ideas for education include presenting the initiative at grand rounds for each department involved and trainees, staff meetings, designated education sessions, and ward “huddles” or sign-out sessions and creating handouts for the staff with the protocol and their main role highlighted. For the nursing and
92
D. S. Keller and L. Lee
allied health staff, assure presentations occur at multiple periods to include staff that work on evening or weekend shifts. With education, acceptance of the culture change will come, followed by willing participation and then nally excitement for the new standard and identication of ERP champions. It is especially important to educate the primary caretakers, including nursing and other allied health professionals in the preoperative clinic, postanesthesia care unit, and postoperative surgical ward, as ERPs may require signicant departures from long-standing practices. Specic changes like removing patient-controlled analgesia (PCAs) after surgery and remov­ing the practice of preoperative fasting starting at midnight the night before surgery require changes across multiple providers, preoperative clinic, admitting ofce, pre­anesthesia clinic and anesthesiologists, and postoperative and ward nursing. These changes can be facilitated with the support of the champions, who can effectively set goals, disseminate the evidence and benets underlying the proposed changes, and support the implementation [1].
Box 7.1 Suggested Reading for Surgeons to Review Evidence for Enhanced Recovery
1. King PM, Blazeby JM, Ewings P, etal. The inuence of an enhanced recovery programme on clinical outcomes, costs and quality of life after surgery for colorectal cancer. Colorectal Dis. 2006;8:506–13.
2. Kehlet H, Wilmore DW.Evidence-based surgical care and the evolution of fast-track surgery. Ann Surg. 2008;248:189–98.
3. Vlug MS, Wind J, Hollmann MW, Ubbink DT, Cense HA, Engel AF, Gerhards MF, van Wagensveld BA, van der Zaag ES, van Geloven AA, Sprangers MA, Cuesta MA, Bemelman WA, LAFA study group. Laparoscopy in combination with fast track multimodal management is the best perioperative strategy in patients undergoing colonic surgery: a randomized clinical trial (LAFA-study). Ann Surg. 2011;254:868–75.
4. Smart NJ, White P, Allison AS, Ockrim JB, Kennedy RH, Francis NK.Deviation and failure of enhanced recovery after surgery following laparoscopic colorectal surgery: early prediction model. Colorectal Dis. 2012;14:e727–34.
5. Aarts MA, Okrainec A, Glicksman A, Pearsall E, Victor JC, McLeod RS.Adoption of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) strategies for colorectal surgery at academic teaching hospitals and impact on total length of hospital stay. Surg Endosc. 2012;26:442–50.
6. Lawrence JK, Keller DS, Samia H, etal. Discharge within 24 to 72hours of colorectal surgery is associated with low readmission rates when using enhanced recovery pathways. J Am Coll Surg. 2013;216:390–4.
7. Keller DS, Bankwitz B, Woconish D, etal. Predicting who will fail early discharge after laparoscopic colorectal surgery with an established enhanced recovery pathway. Surg Endosc. 2014;28:74–9.
8. Lee L, Mata J, Augustin B, Ghitulescu GA, Boutros M, Charlebois P, Stein B, Liberman AS, Fried GM, Morin N, Carli F, Latimer E, Feldman LS. Cost-effectiveness of enhanced recovery versus conventional
7 Debunking Enhanced Recovery Protocols inColorectal Surgery: Minimal…
perioperative management for colorectal surgery. Ann Surg. 2015; 262(6):1026–33.
9. Stone AB, Grant MC, Pio Roda C, et al. Implementation costs of an enhanced recovery after surgery program in the United States: a nancial model and sensitivity analysis based on experiences at a Quaternary Academic Medical Center. J Am Coll Surg. 2016;222:219–25.
10. Keller DS, Delaney CP, Senagore AJ, Feldman LS, SAGES SMART Task Force. Uptake of enhanced recovery practices by SAGES members: a survey. Surg Endosc. 2017;31(9):3519–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s00464-016-5378-8.
11. Carmichael JC, Keller DS, Baldini G, Bordeianou L, Weiss E, Lee L, Boutros M, McClane J, Steele SR, Feldman LS.Clinical practice guide­line for enhanced recovery after colon and rectal surgery from the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons (ASCRS) and Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES). Surg Endosc. 2017;9.
12. Jurt J, Slieker J, Frauche P, Addor V, Solà J, Demartines N, Hübner M.Enhanced recovery after surgery: can we rely on the key factors or do we need the bel ensemble? World J Surg. 2017;41(10):2464–70. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s00268-017-4054-z.
13. Berian JR, Ban KA, Liu JB, Ko CY, Feldman LS, Thacker JK.Adherence to enhanced recovery protocols in NSQIP and association with colec­tomy outcomes. Ann Surg. 2017.
14. Stone AB, Yuan CT, Rosen MA, Grant MC, Benishek LE, Hanahan E, Lubomski LH, Ko C, Wick EC.Barriers to and facilitators of implement­ing enhanced recovery pathways using an implementation framework: a systematic review. JAMA Surg. 2018;03.
93

Overcoming Barriers Through Culture Change

ERPs may represent a signicant culture change– departures from long-standing clinical practices– and there may be initial resistance to change, especially if aware­ness of the benets of the ERP is poor [14]. Resistance to change has been identied as one of the major barriers to ERP implementation, yet it is one that can be slowly broken down through enhanced multidisciplinary collaboration and communica­tion, as well as support from hospital administration [16, 17]. Other potential barri­ers that are often encountered include lack of manpower, knowledge, hospital resources, buy-in, poor communication among team members, and patient factors [12]. There may also be specialty-specic barriers and concerns. From the nursing point of view, a potential lack of manpower and time is often viewed as potential barriers to ERP implementation, as nurses may be resistant to interventions that increased their workload and thus compound stafng shortages [16]. However, studies have reported decreased or unchanged nursing workload as a result of
94
pathway implementation [18]. Surgeons often cite personal preferences, feeling little room for improvement from their current outcomes, lack of time to learn new methods, inconsistency with covering teams and partners, and comfort with long­standing practices as barriers to implementation [12]. Anesthesiologists were con­cerned about the surgeons’ willingness to cede control of perioperative elements traditionally under their control. One common theme across specialties is that they often saw other specialties as potential barriers, such as surgeon concerns about ward nursing not adopting many of the perioperative interventions. Many of these potential barriers can be overcome through improved organizational culture, com­munication, and education on everyone’s role in reaching the common goal of improved patient recovery. Another common barrier to adoption is the perceived additional costs and resources that these pathways require [16]. A review of the economic data (described in more detail below) will show that there are important cost savings associated with these pathways, and any initial resource investments can be recovered by the clinical and economic benets [19, 20]. With the common barriers and obstacles to success identied, the steering committee can proactively develop action plans to overcome them and adjust the plans during regular meetings to address new issues that arise.
D. S. Keller and L. Lee
Overcoming Barriers by Building theBusiness Case forEnhanced Value withERPs
One of the oft-stated barriers to ERP adoption is the perception that signicant time, money, and resources are required. While certainly some investments in time and healthcare resources are necessary, especially when it comes to a dedicated ERP facilitator, these overall costs are often more than recovered based from the overall cost savings associated with ERPs. It is also important to frame the benets of ERP through the “value” perspective. Value in healthcare is dened as the outcomes achieved per dollar spent [21]. Value is always dened around the customer, which is the surgical patient. Value depends on results, and it is important to realize that cost reduction without regard to the outcomes achieved is dangerous and self­defeating, leading to false “savings” and potentially ineffective care and poor out­comes. Conversely, when value improves, patients, payers, providers, and suppliers all benet, and the economic sustainability of the healthcare system increases [21]. Improving the quality and cost-effectiveness of healthcare requires that we decrease or eliminate care that provides no benet or offer interventions that provide good value for their cost [22]. ERPs eliminate surgical practices that are outdated, have no evidence-based benet, and may be harmful– such as perioperative starvation and prolonged postoperative bedrest– and replace them with multiple evidence­based interventions within a single perioperative strategy that may reduce waste and variability and improve outcomes. There is a cost to set up an ERP, with much of the expense to cover salary of the ERP coordinator. However, these costs can be spread across a large number of patients, especially as ERP principles can be easily applied across different procedure groups, thus resulting in a negligible per patient cost. In addition, even including all input and maintenance costs, there is an overall cost
7 Debunking Enhanced Recovery Protocols inColorectal Surgery: Minimal…
Table 7.3 Breakdown of McGill University Health Centre Surgical Recovery (SuRe) workgroup
program costs over a 1-year period
Full-time ERP nurse coordinator (yearly salary) 81,225 Opportunity costs of ERP steering group (1hr./meeting × 26 meetings) 14,320 Nurse specialists and managers, nutritionist, physiotherapist, librarian, clinical
leaders from surgery, and anesthesia ($550 per meeting) Patient education material (operating costs of work performed by a medical informatics center) Total 108,770
Used with permission of Wolters Kluwer Health from Lee etal. [20]
95
13,225
benet for the savings resulting from the accelerated recovery and use of resources during the hospital stay; these saving are furthered by the reduction of postdischarge healthcare resources, complications, and readmissions with ERP. Several studies have proven this overall cost benet. In a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing ERP with conventional care in colorectal surgery, Lee and colleagues found the yearly cost of the ERP was $108,770 (2103 CAD); this cost was spread across mul­tiple patients and specialties managed by ERPs, resulting in a mean overall cost of the multidisciplinary program to approximately $153 (2013 CAD) per patient [20] (Table7.3). The authors found no shift in the burden of care to the outpatient setting, either resulting an overall signicantly lower societal costs (productivity losses and caregiver burden) or total cost savings with ERP of $2985 ($373–$5753) per patient [20]. The available economic data generally support the cost-effectiveness of ERP, with lower total and direct costs [2329]. At one institution, there was a per patient reduction of $7129in direct costs, corresponding to a cost savings of $777,061in the 6-month study period the ERP group [26]. The cost-effectiveness was generaliz­able to all patient populations, with the cost benet for ERP expected to generate cost savings in at least 85% of unadjusted and 82% of adjusted cost samples [27]. Another study estimated that the implementation of ERP across an entire provincial hospital network in Alberta, Canada, reported that an upfront investment of $528,459 CAN over 2years was required [30]. The “break-even point”– where the cost sav­ings would be greater than the implementation costs– was estimated at 93 to 236 cancer resections or 38 to 80 noncancer resections. Based on these data, it was fur­ther estimated that every $1 invested would result in $3.8 (range 2.4–5.1) in return [31]. Data from an academic US center reported similar results (Table7.4) [19]. All of these studies support the notion of higher value care with ERP, with provision of better outcomes at the same cost, identical outcomes at the same cost, or better out­comes at lower costs.
Developing theProtocols
After reviewing the evidence, current outcome, and process measure data and devel­oping the multidisciplinary team, the next step is writing the detailed care plans. In the ERP development, it is necessary to consider the preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative periods, and then drill down on the distinct elements you want to cover in each time frame. The specic elements included will depend on the
96
Table 7.4 Implementation costs at an American quaternary academic medical center
Costs 100 250 500 Implementation costs, $ 10,000 10,000 10,000
Site visits/training course 0 73,700 135,839 Surgeon/anesthesia/nursing leadership time 0 25,000 50,000 Capita expenses, equipment, $ Annual costs, $ Personnel Project manager 100,875 100,875 126,094 Acute pain nurse 0 56,950 113,900 Preoperative support 0 28,475 56,950 Materials Education materials 2000 5000 10,000 Carbohydrate drinks/nutritional supplements 5000 12,500 25,000 Disposable materials related to uid therapy monitor or
other ERAS equipment Total rst-year costs, $ 117,875 325,00 552,783 Annual maintenance costs, $ 107,875 216,300 356,944 Cost per patient, year 1, $ 1179 1300 1106 Cost per patient, nonyear 1, $ 1079 865 714
Used with permission of Elsevier from Stone etal. [19]
D. S. Keller and L. Lee
Annual no. of ERAS cases
0 12,500 25,000
Fig. 7.1 Enhanced recovery protocol template. (Used with permission of the Society of American
Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES) from SAGES SMART Program. Available online at: http://www.sages.org/smart-enhanced-recovery-program)
individual institution and the ERP goals, but there are essential elements to cover in all protocols. Samples and guidelines can be found on the SAGES SMART Enhanced Recovery Program site [32]. A general template is seen in Fig.7.1. In the preoperative period, patient education and setting expectations should be the
7 Debunking Enhanced Recovery Protocols inColorectal Surgery: Minimal…
Fig. 7.2 Enhanced recovery protocol educational material
97
cornerstone of every ERP [33]. Preoperative education is essential; the need for more education and counseling has been identied as a barrier to ERP success [34]. Thus, information should be repeated at different points in time and via different means – words, pictures, electronic media, or mobile health apps – to increase patient engagement in their recovery process (Fig.7.2) [15, 33, 35]. The bowel preparation should be detailed; the current standard of care is mechanical and oral antibiotics to reduce surgical site infection [36, 37]. There may also be a role for a prehabilitation program prior to surgery, with nutrition, regular exercise, smoking cessation, and anxiety/stress management facilitate return to baseline functional sta­tus; this is especially important in colorectal cancer and frail patients [3840]. Other tenets for the preoperative period are uid and carbohydrate loading, clear liquids until 2hours before surgery, and preemptive pain and ileus management [6]. During the intraoperative period, attention should focus on multimodal pain management, minimally invasive approaches instead of large incisions when feasible, goal­directed uid therapy, and avoidance of unnecessary drains and tubes. Postoperatively, important elements include early ambulation; early removal of catheters, drains, and tubes; early resumption of diet and cessation of supplemental intravenous uids, and multimodal opioid-sparing pain management. Patients should also have a scheduled follow- up visit before discharge to reduce anxiety during the transition of care from hospital to home.
Measuring andFurther Improving Outcomes
Audit of processes and outcomes is a common theme across all periods. The desig­nated coordinator can document compliance with the protocol overall and individ­ual ERP elements and evaluate the process and outcome variables for key metrics.