Development and implementation of an institutional enhanced recovery program data process.

Background: With increasing implementation of enhanced recovery programs (ERPs) in clinical practice, standardised data collection and reporting have become critical in addressing the heterogeneity of metrics used for reporting outcomes. Opportunities exist to leverage electronic health record (EHR) systems to collect, analyse, and disseminate ERP data. Objectives: (i) To consolidate relevant ERP variables into a singular data universe; (ii) To create an accessible and intuitive query tool for rapid data retrieval. Method: We reviewed nine established individual team databases to identify common variables to create one standard ERP data dictionary. To address data automation, we used a third-party business intelligence tool to map identified variables within the EHR system, consolidating variables into a single ERP universe. To determine efficacy, we compared times for four experienced research coordinators to use manual, five-universe, and ERP Universe processes to retrieve ERP data for 10 randomly selected surgery patients. Results: The total times to process data variables for all 10 patients for the manual, five universe, and ERP Universe processes were 510, 111, and 76 min, respectively. Shifting from the five-universe or manual process to the ERP Universe resulted in decreases in time of 32% and 85%, respectively. Conclusion: The ERP Universe improves time spent collecting, analysing, and reporting ERP elements without increasing operational costs or interrupting workflow. Implications: Manual data abstraction places significant burden on resources. The creation of a singular instrument dedicated to ERP data abstraction greatly increases the efficiency in which clinicians and supporting staff can query adherence to an ERP protocol.

Assessment of physical function by subjective and objective methods in patients undergoing open gynecologic surgery.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the utility of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) to measure physical functioning in perioperative care for patients with gynecological (GYN) tumors. METHODS: 180 patients with GYN tumors undergoing open surgery participated in this longitudinal study. The physical functioning was measured by a subjective PRO tool, the Interference subscales of the MD Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI-I); as well as by an objective tool, the Timed Up & Go test (TUGT), perioperatively. Longer time (>20 s) needed to complete the TUGT was defined as "Prolonged". Patients completed EuroQoL-5D as well. The association between the scores of MDASI-I items and TUGT was assessed via the Spearman correlation coefficient. The known-group validity was assessed using the t-test and Cohen's D effect size. RESULTS: Compliance rates at preoperative, discharge and postoperative time points of MDASI-I were 98%, 95%, 96%; while TUGT completion rates were 92%, 75%, and 80%, respectively. Patients who had refused TUGT at discharge reported a significantly worse "MDASI-general activity" score compared to patients who completed TUGT (mean score of 7.00 vs. 5.38, P = 0.020). Patient-reported "Walking" on MDASI-I significantly differentiated patients with prolonged vs. those with frail/normal TUGT at discharge (mean score of 4.89 vs. 2.79, Cohen's d effect size = 0.82, P < 0.001). MDASI-I demonstrated excellent known-group validity per performance status and for the EuroQoL-5D subscales. CONCLUSION: Patient-reported physical functioning impairment after GYN surgery correspond with observed worse scores of the objective functioning measure test (TUGT). MDASI-I assessment represents a feasible and valid tool to evaluate functional status and warrants further implementation in the perioperative setting.

Impact of implementation of an enhanced recovery program in gynecologic surgery on healthcare costs.

BACKGROUND: Enhanced recovery programs have been associated with improved outcomes after gynecologic surgery. There are limited data on the effect of enhanced recovery programs on healthcare costs or healthcare service use. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate differences in hospital charges for women who undergo surgery for a suspected gynecologic cancer that is managed in an enhanced recovery program as compared with conventional perioperative care. STUDY DESIGN: We performed a retrospective cohort study of women who underwent open abdominal surgery for a suspected gynecologic cancer before and after the implementation of an enhanced recovery after surgery program. Consecutive patients from May to October 2014 and from November 2014 to November 2015 comprised the conventional perioperative care (before enhanced recovery after surgery) and enhanced recovery after surgery cohorts, respectively. Patients were excluded if they underwent surgery with a multidisciplinary surgical team or minimally invasive surgery. All technical and professional charges were ascertained for all healthcare services from the day of surgery until postoperative day 30. Charges for adjuvant treatment were excluded. Charges were classified according to the type of clinical service provided. The primary outcome was the difference in total hospital charges between the pre-enhanced recovery after surgery and the enhanced recovery after surgery groups. Secondary outcomes were between group differences in hospital charges within clinical service categories. RESULTS: A total of 271 patients were included in the analysis (58 patients in the pre-enhanced recovery after surgery and 213 patients in the enhanced recovery after surgery cohort). A total of 70,177 technical charges and 6775 professional charges were identified and classified. The median hospital charge for a patient decreased 15.6% in the enhanced recovery after surgery group compared with the pre-enhanced recovery after surgery group (95% confidence interval, 5-24.5%; P=.008). Patients in the enhanced recovery after surgery group also had lower charges for laboratory services (20% lower; 95% confidence interval, 0--39%; P=.04), pharmacy services (30% lower; 95% confidence interval, 14--41%; P<.001), room and board (25% lower; 95% confidence interval, 20--47%; P=.005), and material goods (64% lower; 95% confidence interval, 44--81%; P<.001). No differences in charges were observed for perioperative services, diagnostic procedures, emergency department care, transfusion-related services, interventional radiology procedures, physical/occupational therapy, outpatient care, or other services. CONCLUSION: Hospital charges and healthcare service use were lower for enhanced recovery patients compared with patients who received conventional perioperative care after open surgery for a suspected gynecologic cancer. Enhanced recovery programs may be considered to be high value in healthcare because they provide improved outcomes while lowering resource use.

Perioperative trajectory of patient reported symptoms: a pilot study in gynecologic oncology patients.

OBJECTIVE: With the growing focus on patient-centered care, patient reported outcomes (PROs) are becoming an important component to clinical trials and quality metrics. The objective of this study was to pilot the collection of patient reported symptom burden in women undergoing surgery in a gynecologic oncology practice. METHODS: Perioperative patient reported symptom burden was measured for women undergoing laparotomy on the gynecologic oncology service at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center. Symptoms were assessed using the M.D. Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI-OC), a 27 item tool validated for use in patients with ovarian cancer. The MDASI-OC was administered as a preoperative baseline, daily while admitted to the hospital after surgery, twice a week on the first week after discharge and then weekly until 8 weeks postoperatively. RESULTS: 29 patients were evaluable. Seventy-five percent of patients had a diagnosis of ovarian cancer. Of those patients, half underwent a primary debulking surgery and the other half had neoadjuvant chemotherapy prior to interval cytoreductive surgery. In the postoperative inpatient setting, the five symptoms with the highest overall burden were fatigue, pain, abdominal pain, dry mouth and drowsiness. Longitudinal change of the top 5 symptoms during hospitalization did not show any significant difference between those who had neoadjuvant chemotherapy and those who did not. CONCLUSION: The collection of longitudinal PROs to assess symptom burden is feasible in patients undergoing gynecologic oncology surgery. Patient reported outcomes are a crucial component of patient-centered research and the longitudinal collection and analysis of symptom burden can allow for more meaningful comparisons of surgical technique and perioperative care.