Impact of Facilitation of Early Mobilization on Postoperative Pulmonary Outcomes After Colorectal Surgery: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the extent to which staff-directed facilitation of early mobilization impacts recovery of pulmonary function and 30-day postoperative pulmonary complications (PPCs) after colorectal surgery. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Early mobilization after surgery is believed to improve pulmonary function and prevent PPCs; however, adherence is low. The value of allocating resources (eg, staff time) to increase early mobilization is unknown. METHODS: This study involved the analysis of a priori secondary outcomes of a pragmatic, observer-blind, randomized trial. Consecutive patients undergoing colorectal surgery were randomized 1:1 to usual care (preoperative education) or facilitated mobilization (staff dedicated to assist transfers and walking during hospital stay). Forced vital capacity, forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1), and peak cough flow were measured preoperatively and at 1, 2, 3 days and 4 weeks after surgery. PPCs were defined according to the European Perioperative Clinical Outcome Taskforce. RESULTS: Ninety-nine patients (57% male, 80% laparoscopic, median age 63, and predicted FEV1 97%) were included in the intention-to-treat analysis (usual care 49, facilitated mobilization 50). There was no between-group difference in recovery of forced vital capacity [adjusted difference in slopes 0.002 L/d (95% CI -0.01 to 0.01)], FEV1 [-0.002 L/d (-0.01 to 0.01)] or peak cough flow [-0.002 L/min/d (-0.02 to 0.02)]. Thirty-day PPCs were also not different between groups [adjusted odds ratio 0.67 (0.23-1.99)]. CONCLUSIONS: In this randomized controlled trial, staff-directed facilitation of early mobilization did not improve postoperative pulmonary function or reduce PPCs within an enhanced recovery pathway for colorectal surgery. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02131844.

Clinical Outcomes After Unilateral Adrenalectomy for Primary Aldosteronism.

Importance: In addition to biochemical cure, clinical benefits after surgery for primary aldosteronism depend on the magnitude of decrease in blood pressure (BP) and use of antihypertensive medications with a subsequent decreased risk of cardiovascular and/or cerebrovascular morbidity and drug-induced adverse effects. Objective: To evaluate the change in BP and use of antihypertensive medications within an international cohort of patients who recently underwent surgery for primary aldosteronism. Design, Setting, and Participants: A cohort study was conducted across 16 referral medical centers in Europe, the United States, Canada, and Australia. Patients who underwent unilateral adrenalectomy for primary aldosteronism between January 2010 and December 2016 were included. Data analysis was performed from August 2017 to June 2018. Unilateral disease was confirmed using computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, and/or adrenal venous sampling. Patients with missing or incomplete preoperative or follow-up data regarding BP or corresponding number of antihypertensive medications were excluded. Main Outcomes and Measures: Clinical success was defined based on postoperative BP and number of antihypertensive medications. Cure was defined as normotension without antihypertensive medications, and clear improvement as normotension with lower or equal use of antihypertensive medications. In patients with preoperative normotensivity, improvement was defined as postoperative normotension with lower antihypertensive use. All other patients were stratified as no clear success because the benefits of surgery were less obvious, mainly owing to postoperative, persistent hypertension. Clinical outcomes were assessed at follow-up closest to 6 months after surgery. Results: On the basis of inclusion and exclusion criteria, a total of 435 patients (84.6%) from a cohort of 514 patients who underwent unilateral adrenalectomy were eligible. Of these patients, 186 (42.3%) were women; mean (SD) age at the time of surgery was 50.7 (11.4) years. Cure was achieved in 118 patients (27.1%), clear improvement in 135 (31.0%), and no clear success in 182 (41.8%). In the subgroup classified as no clear success, 166 patients (91.2%) had postoperative hypertension. However, within this subgroup, the mean (SD) systolic and diastolic BP decreased significantly by 9 (22) mm Hg (P < .001) and 3 (15) mm Hg (P = .04), respectively. Also, the number of antihypertensive medications used decreased from 3 (range, 0-7) to 2 (range, 0-6) (P < .001). Moreover, in 75 of 182 patients (41.2%) within this subgroup, the decrease in systolic BP was 10 mm Hg or greater. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, for most patients, adrenalectomy was associated with a postoperative normotensive state and reduction of antihypertensive medications. Furthermore, a significant proportion of patients with postoperative, persistent hypertension may benefit from adrenalectomy given the observed clinically relevant and significant reduction of BP and antihypertensive medications.

Construct Validity and Responsiveness of the Abdominal Surgery Impact Scale in the Context of Recovery After Colorectal Surgery.

BACKGROUND: The Abdominal Surgery Impact Scale is a patient-reported outcome measure that evaluates quality of life after abdominal surgery. Evidence supporting its measurement properties is limited. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to contribute evidence for the construct validity and responsiveness of the Abdominal Surgery Impact Scale as a measure of recovery after colorectal surgery in the context of an enhanced recovery pathway. DESIGN: This is an observational validation study designed according to the Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments checklist. SETTING: This study was conducted at a university-affiliated tertiary hospital. PATIENTS: Included were 100 consecutive patients undergoing colorectal surgery (mean age, 65; 57% male). INTERVENTION: There were no interventions. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Construct validity was assessed at 2 days and 2 and 4 weeks after surgery by testing the hypotheses that Abdominal Surgery Impact Scale scores were higher 1) in patients without vs with postoperative complications, 2) with higher preoperative physical status vs lower, 3) without vs with postoperative stoma, 4) in men vs women, 5) with shorter time to readiness for discharge (≤4 days) vs longer, and 6) with shorter length of stay (≤4 days) vs longer. To test responsiveness, we hypothesized that scores would be higher 1) preoperatively vs 2 days postoperatively, 2) at 2 weeks vs 2 days postoperatively, and 3) at 4 weeks vs 2 weeks postoperatively. RESULTS: The data supported 3 of the 6 hypotheses (hypotheses 1, 5, and 6) tested for construct validity at all time points. Two of the 3 hypotheses tested for responsiveness (hypotheses 1 and 2) were supported. LIMITATIONS: This study was limited by the risk of selection bias due to the use of secondary data from a randomized controlled trial. CONCLUSIONS: The Abdominal Surgery Impact Scale was responsive to the expected trajectory of recovery up to 2 weeks after surgery, but did not discriminate between all groups expected to have different recovery trajectories. There remains a need for the development of recovery-specific, patient-reported outcome measures with adequate measurement properties. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/A814.

Measuring In-Hospital Recovery After Colorectal Surgery Within a Well-Established Enhanced Recovery Pathway: A Comparison Between Hospital Length of Stay and Time to Readiness for Discharge.

BACKGROUND: Hospital length of stay is often used as a measure of in-hospital recovery but may be confounded by organizational factors. Time to readiness for discharge may provide a superior index of recovery. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to contribute evidence for the construct validity of time to readiness for discharge and length of stay as measures of in-hospital recovery after colorectal surgery in the context of a well-established enhanced recovery pathway. DESIGN: This was an observational validation study designed according to the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health status Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist. SETTINGS: The study was conducted at a university-affiliated tertiary hospital. PATIENTS: A total of 100 consecutive patients undergoing elective colorectal resection (mean age = 65 y; 57% men; 81% laparoscopic) who participated in a randomized controlled trial were included. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: We tested a priori hypotheses that length of stay and time-to-readiness for discharge are longer in patients undergoing open surgery, with lower physical status, with severe comorbidities, with postoperative complications, undergoing rectal surgery, who are older (≥75 y), who have a new stoma, and who have inflammatory bowel disease. RESULTS: Median time-to-readiness for discharge and length of stay were both 3 days. For both measures, 6 of 8 construct validity hypotheses were supported (hypotheses 1 and 4-8). LIMITATIONS: The use of secondary data from a randomized controlled trial (risk of selection bias) was a limitation. Results may not be generalizable to institutions where patient care is not equally structured. CONCLUSIONS: This study contributes evidence to the construct validity of time-to-readiness for discharge and length of stay as measures of in-hospital recovery within enhanced recovery pathways. Our findings suggest that length of stay can be a less resource-intensive and equally construct-valid index of in-hospital recovery compared with time-to-readiness for discharge. Enhanced recovery pathways may decrease process-of-care variances that impact length of stay, allowing more timely discharge once discharge criteria are achieved. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/A564.

Ensuring Early Mobilization Within an Enhanced Recovery Program for Colorectal Surgery: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the extent to which the addition of staff-directed facilitation of early mobilization to an Enhanced Recovery Program (ERP) impacts recovery after colorectal surgery, compared with usual care. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Early mobilization is considered an important component of ERPs but, despite guidelines recommendations, adherence remains quite low. The value of dedicating specific resources (eg, staff time) to increase early mobilization is unknown. METHODS: This randomized trial involved 99 colorectal surgery patients in an established ERP (median age 63, 57% male, 80% laparoscopic) randomized 1:1 to usual care (including preoperative education about early mobilization with postoperative daily targets) or facilitated mobilization [staff dedicated to assist transfers and walking from postoperative days (PODs) 0-3]. Primary outcome was the proportion of patients returning to preoperative functional walking capacity (6-min walk test) at 4 weeks after surgery. We also explored the association of the intervention with in-hospital mobilization, time to achieve discharge criteria, time to recover gastrointestinal function, 30-day comprehensive complication index, and patient-reported outcome measures. RESULTS: In the facilitated mobilization group, adherence to mobilization targets was greater on POD0 [OR 4.7 (95% CI 1.8-11.9)], POD1 [OR 6.5 (95% CI 2.3-18.3)], and POD2 [OR 3.7 (95% CI 1.2-11.3)]. Step count was at least 2-fold greater on POD1 [mean difference 843.3 steps (95% CI 219.5-1467.1)] and POD2 [mean difference 1099.4 steps (95% CI 282.7-1916.1)] There was no between-group difference in recovery of walking capacity at 4 weeks after surgery [OR 0.77 (95% CI 0.30-1.97)]. Other outcome measures were also not different between groups. CONCLUSIONS: In an ERP for colorectal surgery, staff-directed facilitation of early mobilization increased out-of-bed activities during hospital stay but did not improve outcomes. This study does not support the value of allocating additional resources to ensure early mobilization in ERPs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02131844.

The effect of early mobilization protocols on postoperative outcomes following abdominal and thoracic surgery: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Early mobilization is considered an important element of postoperative care; however, how best to implement this intervention in clinical practice is unknown. This systematic review summarizes the evidence regarding the impact of specific early mobilization protocols on postoperative outcomes after abdominal and thoracic surgery. METHOD: The review was performed according to PRISMA guidelines. We searched 8 electronic databases to identify studies comparing patients receiving a specific protocol of early mobilization to a control group. Methodologic quality was assessed using the Downs and Black tool. RESULTS: Four studies in abdominal surgery (3 randomized controlled trials [RCTs] and 1 observational prospective study) and 4 studies in thoracic surgery (3 RCTs and 1 observational retrospective study) were identified. None of the 5 studies evaluating postoperative complications reported differences between groups. One of 4 studies evaluating duration of stay reported a significant decrease in the intervention group. One of 3 studies evaluating gastrointestinal function reported differences in favor of the intervention group. One of 4 studies evaluating performance-based outcomes reported differences in favor of the intervention group. One of 5 studies evaluating patient-reported outcomes reported differences in favor of the intervention group. Overall methodologic quality was poor. CONCLUSION: Few comparative studies have evaluated the impact of early mobilization protocols on outcomes after abdominal and thoracic surgery. The quality of these studies was poor and results were conflicting. Although bed rest is harmful, there is little available evidence to guide clinicians in effective early mobilization protocols that increase mobilization and improve outcomes.

Detection and correction of prescription errors by an emergency department pharmacy service.

OBJECTIVES: Emergency departments (EDs) are recognized as a high-risk setting for prescription errors. Pharmacist involvement may be important in reviewing prescriptions to identify and correct errors. The objectives of this study were to describe the frequency and type of prescription errors detected by pharmacists in EDs, determine the proportion of errors that could be corrected, and identify factors associated with prescription errors. METHODS: This prospective observational study was conducted in a tertiary care teaching ED on 25 consecutive weekdays. Pharmacists reviewed all documented prescriptions and flagged and corrected errors for patients in the ED. We collected information on patient demographics, details on prescription errors, and the pharmacists' recommendations. RESULTS: A total of 3,136 ED prescriptions were reviewed. The proportion of prescriptions in which a pharmacist identified an error was 3.2% (99 of 3,136; 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.5-3.8). The types of identified errors were wrong dose (28 of 99, 28.3%), incomplete prescription (27 of 99, 27.3%), wrong frequency (15 of 99, 15.2%), wrong drug (11 of 99, 11.1%), wrong route (1 of 99, 1.0%), and other (17 of 99, 17.2%). The pharmacy service intervened and corrected 78 (78 of 99, 78.8%) errors. Factors associated with prescription errors were patient age over 65 (odds ratio [OR] 2.34; 95% CI 1.32-4.13), prescriptions with more than one medication (OR 5.03; 95% CI 2.54-9.96), and those written by emergency medicine residents compared to attending emergency physicians (OR 2.21, 95% CI 1.18-4.14). CONCLUSIONS: Pharmacists in a tertiary ED are able to correct the majority of prescriptions in which they find errors. Errors are more likely to be identified in prescriptions written for older patients, those containing multiple medication orders, and those prescribed by emergency residents.