Postoperative ERAS Interventions Have the Greatest Impact on Optimal Recovery: Experience With Implementation of ERAS Across Multiple Hospitals.

BACKGROUND: Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) programs incorporate evidence-based practices to minimize perioperative stress, gut dysfunction, and promote early recovery. However, it is unknown which components have the greatest impact. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to determine which components of ERAS programs have the largest impact on recovery for patients undergoing colorectal surgery. METHODS: An iERAS program was implemented in 15 academic hospitals. Data were collected prospectively. Patients were considered compliant if >75% of the preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative predefined interventions were adhered to. Optimal recovery was defined as discharge within 5 days of surgery with no major complications, no readmission to hospital, and no mortality. Multivariable analysis was used to model the impact of compliance and technique on optimal recovery. RESULTS: Overall, 2876 patients were enrolled. Colon resections were performed in 64.7% of patients and 52.9% had a laparoscopic procedure. Only 20.1% of patients were compliant with all phases of the pathway. The poorest compliance rate was for postoperative interventions (40.3%) which was independently associated with an increase in optimal recovery (RR = 2.12, 95% CI 1.81-2.47). Compliance with ERAS interventions remained associated with improved outcomes whether surgery was performed laparoscopically (RR = 1.55, 95% CI 1.23-1.96) or open (RR = 2.29, 95% CI 1.68-3.13). However, the impact of ERAS compliance was significantly greater in the open group (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Postoperative compliance is the most difficult to achieve but is most strongly associated with optimal recovery. Although our data support that ERAS has more effect in patients undergoing open surgery, it also showed a significant impact on patients treated with a laparoscopic approach.

Emergency Room Visits and Readmissions Following Implementation of an Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (iERAS) Program.

BACKGROUND: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) guidelines have been widely promoted and supported largely due to several studies showing decreased post-operative complications and length of stay. The objective of this study was to review the emergency room (ER) visits and readmission rates and reasons for both in patients who were part of the Implementation of an Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (iERAS) program for colorectal surgery. METHODS: All patients having elective colorectal surgery at 15 academic hospitals were enrolled in the iERAS program. All patients were prospectively followed until 30 days post-discharge. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and multivariable analysis. RESULTS: A total of 2876 patients (48% female; mean 60 years old) were enrolled. Cancer was the most frequent indication (68.2%) for surgery. Overall, the median length of stay (LOS) was 5 days. Post-discharge, 359 (11.6%) of patients had a visit to the ER not requiring admission. The most common reasons for visiting the ER were surgical site infections (SSI) (34.5%), other wound complications (10.0%), and urinary tract infections (UTI) (8.6%). In addition, a smaller proportion of patients, 260 (8.2%) required readmission. The most common reasons for readmission were ileus and nausea/vomiting (26.1%), intra-abdominal abscess (23.9%), and SSI (11.5%). Patient and disease factors associated with ER visits, on multivariable analysis, included extremes of BMI (RR 1.02, 95%CI 1.01-1.04, p = 0.002), rectal surgery versus colon surgery (RR 1.34, 95%CI 1.14-1.58, p < 0.001), and open operative approach (RR 1.63, 95%CI 1.28-2.09, p < 0.001). Independent factors associated with hospital readmissions included rectal surgery (RR 1.89, 95%CI 1.34-2.77, p < 0.001), formation of a stoma (RR 1.34, 95%CI 1.04-1.74, p = 0.026), and reoperation during first admission (RR 4.60, 95%CI 3.50-6.05, p < 0.001). Length of stay of 5 days or less was not associated with ER visits or readmission (RR 0.99, 95%CI 0.72-1.35 and RR 0.91, 95%CI 0.71-1.18, respectively). CONCLUSION: Following colorectal surgery using an ERAS pathway, shortened length of stay is not associated with an increased return to the ER or hospital readmission. The majority of return visits to the hospital are ER visits not requiring readmission and the predominant reason for return are surgical site infections and wound complications.

Compliance with Urinary Catheter Removal Guidelines Leads to Improved Outcome in Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Patients.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to determine whether compliance with Enhanced Recovery after Surgery (ERAS) urinary catheter recommendations is associated with decreased urinary tract infections (UTI) and length of stay (LOS). METHODS: Patients having colorectal surgery at 15 academic hospitals were included. Patient and outcome data were collected prospectively. The guideline recommends that urinary catheters following colonic and rectal procedures should be removed at or before 24 and 72 h, respectively. RESULTS: Two thousand nine hundred and twenty-seven patients (1397 females and 1522 males; mean age 60.3 years) were enrolled. Small bowel or colonic procedures were performed in 1897 (64.9%) and rectal procedures in 1030 (35.2%) patients. Overall, 53.2% of patients had their catheter removed in compliance with the guidelines (44.3% after colonic resections and 69.5% after rectal resections). Following colonic operations, 0.8% of patients who were guideline compliant had a UTI compared to 4.1% non-compliant patients (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.07-0.58; p = 0.003). Following rectal operations, 3.5% of patients who were guideline compliant had a UTI compared to 9.6% of patients who were non-compliant (RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.20-0.68; p = 0.001). Median LOS was decreased in compliant patients: 4 vs 5 days following colonic procedures (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.66-0.82; p < 0.0001) and 5 vs 8 days following rectal procedures (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.49-0.59; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Early removal of urinary catheters is associated with a decreased risk of UTI and LOS.

Executive Summary: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery: Best Practice Guideline for Care of Patients With a Fecal Diversion.

Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) is a multimodal program developed to decrease postoperative complications, improve patient safety and satisfaction, and promote early discharge. In the province of Ontario, Canada, a standardized approach to the care of adult patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery (including benign and malignant diseases) was adopted by 15 hospitals in March 2013. All colorectal surgery patients with or without an ostomy were included in the ERAS program targeting a length of stay of 3 days for colon surgery and 4 days for rectal surgery. To ensure the individual needs of patients requiring an ostomy in an ERAS program were being met, a Provincial ERAS Enterostomal Therapy Nurse Network was established. Our goal was to develop and implement an evidence-based, ostomy-specific best practice guideline addressing the preoperative, postoperative, and discharge phases of care. The guideline was developed over a 3-year period. It is based on existing literature, guidelines, and expert opinion. This article serves as an executive summary for this clinical resource; the full guideline is available as Supplemental Digital Content 1 (available at: http://links.lww.com/JWOCN/A36) to this executive summary.

Successful implementation of an enhanced recovery after surgery programme for elective colorectal surgery: a process evaluation of champions' experiences.

BACKGROUND: Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) is a multimodal evidence-based approach to patient care that has become the standard in elective colorectal surgery. Implemented globally, ERAS programmes represent a considerable change in practice for many surgical care providers. Our current understanding of specific implementation and sustainability challenges is limited. In January 2013, we began a 2-year ERAS implementation for elective colorectal surgery in 15 academic hospitals in Ontario. The purpose of this study was to understand the process enablers and barriers that influenced the success of ERAS implementation in these centres with a view towards supporting sustainable change. METHODS: A qualitative process evaluation was conducted from June to September 2014. Semi-structured interviews with implementation champions were completed, and an iterative inductive thematic analysis was conducted. Following a data-driven analysis, the Normalization Process Theory (NPT) was used as an analytic framework to understand the impact of various implementation processes. The NPT constructs were used as sensitizing concepts, reviewed against existing data categories for alignment and fit. RESULTS: Fifty-eight participants were included: 15 surgeons, 14 anaesthesiologists, 15 nurses, and 14 project coordinators. A number of process-related implementation enablers were identified: champions' belief in the value of the programme, the fit and cohesion of champions and their teams locally and provincially, a bottom-up approach to stakeholder engagement targeting organizational relationship-building, receptivity and support of division leaders, and the normalization of ERAS as everyday practice. Technical enablers identified included effective integration with existing clinical systems and using audit and feedback to report to hospital stakeholders. There was an overall optimism that ERAS implementation would be sustained, accompanied by concern about long-term organizational support. CONCLUSIONS: Successful ERAS implementation is achieved by a complex series of cognitive and social processes which previously have not been well described. Using the Normalization Process Theory as a framework, this analysis demonstrates the importance of champion coherence, external and internal relationship building, and the strategic management of a project's organization-level visibility as important to ERAS uptake and sustainability.

Development of an Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Guideline and Implementation Strategy Based on the Knowledge-to-action Cycle.

BACKGROUND: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocols have been shown to increase recovery, decrease complications, and reduce length of stay. However, they are difficult to implement. OBJECTIVE: To develop and implement an ERAS clinical practice guideline (CPG) at multiple hospitals. METHODS: A tailored strategy based on the Knowledge-to-action (KTA) cycle was used to develop and implement an ERAS CPG at 15 academic hospitals in Canada. This included an initial audit to identify gaps and interviews to assess barriers and enablers to implementation. Implementation included development of an ERAS guideline by a multidisciplinary group, communities of practice led by multidiscipline champions (surgeons, anesthesiologists, and nurses) both provincially and locally, educational tools, and clinical pathways as well as audit and feedback. RESULTS: The initial audit revealed there was greater than 75% compliance in only 2 of 18 CPG recommendations. Main themes identified by stakeholders were that the CPG must be based on best evidence, there must be increased communication and collaboration among perioperative team members, and patient education is essential. ERAS and Pain Management CPGs were developed by a multidisciplinary team and have been adopted at all hospitals. Preliminary data from more than 1000 patients show that the uptake of recommended interventions varies but despite this, mean length of stay has decreased with low readmission rates and adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: On the basis of short-term findings, our results suggest that a tailored implementation strategy based on the KTA cycle can be used to successfully implement an ERAS program at multiple sites.

A qualitative study to understand the barriers and enablers in implementing an enhanced recovery after surgery program.

OBJECTIVE: Explore the barriers and enablers to adoption of an Enhanced Recovery after Surgery (ERAS) program by the multidisciplinary perioperative team responsible for the care of elective colorectal surgical patients. BACKGROUND: ERAS programs include perioperative interventions that when used together have led to decreased length of stay while increasing patient recovery and satisfaction. Despite the known benefits of ERAS programs, uptake remains slow. METHODS: Semistructured interviews were conducted with general surgeons, anesthesiologists, and ward nurses at 7 University of Toronto-affiliated hospitals to identify potential barriers and enablers to adoption of 18 ERAS interventions. Grounded theory was used to thematically analyze the transcribed interviews. RESULTS: Nineteen general surgeons, 18 anesthesiologists, and 18 nurses participated. The mean time of each interview was 18 minutes. Lack of manpower, poor communication and collaboration, resistance to change, and patient factors were cited by most as barriers. Discipline-specific issues were identified although most related to resistance to change. Overall, interviewees were supportive of implementation of a standardized ERAS program and agreed that a standardized guideline based on best evidence; standardized order sets; and education of the staff, patients, and families are essential. CONCLUSIONS: Multidisciplinary perioperative staff supported the implementation of an ERAS program at the University of Toronto-affiliated hospitals. However, major barriers were identified, including the need for patient education, increased communication and collaboration, and better evidence for ERAS interventions. Identifying these barriers and enablers is the first step toward successfully implementing an ERAS program.

Role of Evidence-Based Reviews in Surgery in teaching critical appraisal skills and in journal clubs.

BACKGROUND: Evidence-Based Reviews in Surgery (EBRS) is a program developed to teach critical appraisal skills to general surgeons and residents. The purpose of this study was to assess the use of EBRS by general surgery residents across Canada and to assess residents' opinions regarding EBRS and journal clubs. METHODS: We surveyed postgraduate year 2-5 residents from 15 general surgery programs. Data are presented as percentages and means. RESULTS: A total of 231 residents (58%, mean 56% per program, range 0%-100%) responded: 172 (75%) residents indicated that they know about EBRS and that it is used in their programs. More than 75% of residents who use EBRS agreed or strongly agreed that the EBRS clinical and methodological articles and reviews are relevant. Only 55 residents (24%) indicated that they used EBRS online. Most residents (198 [86%]) attend journal clubs. The most common format is a mandatory meeting held at a special time every month with faculty members with epidemiological and clinical expertise. Residents stated that EBRS articles were used exclusively (13%) or in conjunction with other articles (57%) in their journal clubs. Most respondents (176 of 193 [91%]) stated that journal clubs are very or somewhat valuable to their education. CONCLUSION: The EBRS program is widely used among general surgery residents across Canada. Although most residents who use EBRS rate it highly, a large proportion are unaware of EBRS online features. Thus, future efforts to increase awareness of EBRS online features and increase its accessibility are required.

CONTEXTE: Le programme de revues factuelles en chirurgie EBRS (Evidence-Based Reviews in Surgery) a été mis au point pour enseigner aux chirurgiens et aux résidents en chirurgie générale les compétences nécessaires pour faire des évaluations critiques. Le but de cette étude était d'analyser l'utilisation des EBRS par les résidents en chirurgie générale au Canada et de leur demander leur opinion au sujet des EBRS et des clubs de lecture. MÉTHODES: Nous avons interrogé des résidents des années 2 à 5 rattachés à 15 programmes de chirurgie générale. Les données sont présentées sous forme de pourcentages et de moyennes. RÉSULTANTS: En tout, 231 résidents (58 %, moyenne de 56 % par programme, intervalle 0 %­100 %) ont répondu : 172 résidents (75 %) ont indiqué qu'ils connaissent les EBRS et que leur programme les utilise. Plus de 75 % des résidents qui utilisent les EBRS se sont dit d'accord ou tout à fait d'accord avec l'énoncé sur la pertinence des articles et revues cliniques et méthodologiques des EBRS. Seulement 55 résidents (24 %) ont dit utiliser les EBRS en ligne. La plupart des résidents (198 [86 %]) participaient à des clubs de lecture. Leur utilisation la plus courante prend la forme d'une réunion obligatoire tenue à un moment particulier tous les mois avec les enseignants de la faculté ayant une expertise épidémiologique et clinique. Les résidents ont indiqué que les EBRS étaient utilisés seuls (13 %) ou avec d'autres articles (57 %) dans leurs clubs de lecture. La plupart des répondants (176 sur 193 [91 %]) ont affirmé que leurs clubs de lecture sont très ou assez utiles pour leur formation. CONCLUSIONS: Le programme EBRS est largement utilisé par les résidents en chirurgie générale au Canada. Même si la plupart des résidents qui utilisent les EBRS leur accordent une cote élevée, une forte proportion ignore l'existence des possibilités web des EBRS. Il faudra donc travailler à mieux faire connaître les possibilités offertes par le programme EBRS sur le web et en faciliter l'accès.

Surgical site infection prevention: a survey to identify the gap between evidence and practice in University of Toronto teaching hospitals.

BACKGROUND: A gap exists between the best evidence and practice with regards to surgical site infection (SSI) prevention. Awareness of evidence is the first step in knowledge translation. METHODS: A web-based survey was distributed to 59 general surgeons and 68 residents at University of Toronto teaching hospitals. Five domains pertaining to SSI prevention with questions addressing knowledge of prevention strategies, efficacy of antibiotics, strategies for changing practice and barriers to implementation of SSI prevention strategies were investigated. RESULTS: Seventy-six individuals (60%) responded. More than 90% of respondents stated there was evidence for antibiotic prophylaxis and perioperative normothermia and reported use of these strategies. There was a discrepancy in the perceived evidence for and the self-reported use of perioperative hyperoxia, omission of hair removal and bowel preparation. Eighty-three percent of respondents felt that consulting published guidelines is important in making decisions regarding antibiotics. There was also a discrepancy between what respondents felt were important strategies to ensure timely administration of antibiotics and what strategies were in place. Checklists, standardized orders, protocols and formal surveillance programs were rated most highly by 75%-90% of respondents, but less than 50% stated that these strategies were in place at their institutions. CONCLUSION: Broad-reaching initiatives that increase surgeon and trainee awareness and implementation of multifaceted hospital strategies that engage residents and attending surgeons are needed to change practice.

Teaching practicing surgeons critical appraisal skills with an Internet-based journal club: A randomized, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The effectiveness of interventions for developing critical appraisal skills in practicing physicians has not been studied, despite the documented importance of reading the literature in caring for patients and in continuing professional development. The objective of this study was to evaluate whether an Internet-based intervention would lead to enhanced critical appraisal skills in practicing surgeons. METHODS: General surgeons who agreed to participate were randomized into 2 groups. The intervention was a curriculum in critical appraisal skills that included a clinical and methodologic article, a listserve discussion, and clinical and methodologic critiques. The control group received only the clinical articles. The primary outcome measure was a previously validated 2-hour test of critical appraisal. RESULTS: Of the 55 surgeons who completed the examination, subjects in the intervention group performed better on the test of critical appraisal skills than those in the control group (mean score: intervention group, 58% +/- 8 vs control group, 50% +/- 8), with a large effect size of 1.06 standard deviation units (t+3.92, P <.0001). Training conditions accounted for 22% of the variance in total scores. CONCLUSIONS: A multifaceted, Internet-based intervention resulted in improved critical appraisal skills of practicing general surgeons.

Assessment of critical appraisal skills.

BACKGROUND: Studies have provided little evidence that critical appraisal skills improve with focused courses. However, outcome measures in these studies have been questionable. The goal of this study was to develop a feasible, reliable, and valid assessment of critical appraisal skills. METHODS: Forty-four surgery residents read three articles and then responded to short answer questions and provided 7-point ratings regarding various methodological aspects of each article. Reliability and validity of the examination were assessed. RESULTS: The mean score was 52.4% (SD 8.6%). Internal consistency of the 55-question examination was 0.77. Interrater reliability of clinician markers was 0.91. Mean score for residents with more intensive critical appraisal training was significantly higher than for those with little or no training (56.6% versus 49.3%, t(35) = 2.31, P = 0.02), suggesting construct validity. CONCLUSIONS: This examination has promising psychometric properties, and may be useful in evaluating critical appraisal curricula.