'Am I really ready to go home?': a qualitative study of patients' experience of early discharge following an enhanced recovery programme for liver resection surgery.

PURPOSE: Fast-track surgery or enhanced recovery programmes (ERP) have been shown to improve patient outcomes with shorter post-operative recovery times, fewer complications and more cost-effective care amongst the reported benefits. Traditionally, the effectiveness of ERPs have been assessed by measuring clinical outcomes, with the patient experience often being neglected. The aim of this qualitative study was to ascertain patients' expectations and experiences of fast-track surgery and recovery at home within the setting of an enhanced recovery programme (ERP). METHOD: Twenty patients enrolled in the treatment group of the randomised controlled trial 'Enhanced recovery in liver resection surgery' were interviewed pre-operatively and 6 weeks post-surgery. Transcripts were analysed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Patients approached the surgery with a sense of renewed hope. Involvement with the ERP was viewed positively, and having milestones to aim for gave patients a sense of purpose. Many felt that real recovery from surgery began at home and so felt positive about having an early discharge. Patients did report some concerns about being discharged early and those who failed to meet milestones or were readmitted to hospital experienced this as failure. CONCLUSIONS: This qualitative data demonstrates some of the complexities of patients' expectations and experiences of the ERP. Whilst patients generally experience the ERP positively, they also have concerns about the process. The study highlights areas where additional support may be needed for patients enrolled in ERPs and discharged early.

Randomized clinical trial on enhanced recovery versus standard care following open liver resection.

BACKGROUND: Enhanced recovery programmes (ERPs) have been shown to reduce length of hospital stay (LOS) and complications in colorectal surgery. Whether ERPs have the same benefits in open liver resection surgery is unclear, and randomized clinical trials are lacking. METHODS: Consecutive patients scheduled for open liver resection were randomized to an ERP group or standard care. Primary endpoints were time until medically fit for discharge (MFD) and LOS. Secondary endpoints were postoperative morbidity, pain scores, readmission rate, mortality, quality of life (QoL) and patient satisfaction. ERP elements included greater preoperative education, preoperative oral carbohydrate loading, postoperative goal-directed fluid therapy, early mobilization and physiotherapy. Both groups received standardized anaesthesia with epidural analgesia. RESULTS: The analysis included 46 patients in the ERP group and 45 in the standard care group. Median MFD time was reduced in the ERP group (3 days versus 6 days with standard care; P < 0·001), as was LOS (4 days versus 7 days; P < 0·001). The ERP significantly reduced the rate of medical complications (7 versus 27 per cent; P = 0·020), but not surgical complications (15 versus 11 per cent; P = 0·612), readmissions (4 versus 0 per cent; P = 0·153) or mortality (both 2 per cent; P = 0·987). QoL over 28 days was significantly better in the ERP group (P = 0·002). There was no difference in patient satisfaction. CONCLUSION: ERPs for open liver resection surgery are safe and effective. Patients treated in the ERP recovered faster, were discharged sooner, and had fewer medical-related complications and improved QoL. REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN03274575 (http://www.controlled-trials.com).