What outcomes are important in the assessment of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) pathways?

作者: Liane S. Feldman , Lawrence Lee , Julio Fiore

DOI: 10.1007/S12630-014-0263-1

关键词:

摘要: The purpose of this narrative review is to provide a framework from which measure the outcomes Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) programs. We define recovery perspective different stakeholders and time frames. There no single definition recovery. are overlapping phases particular interest (surgeons, anesthesiologists, nurses, patients their caregivers), primary outcome may vary depending on phase perspective. In earliest (from end surgery discharge postanesthesia care unit [PACU]), biologic physiologic emphasized. intermediate PACU hospital), symptoms related pain gastrointestinal function as well basic activities important. Studies ERAS pathways have reported clinical symptoms, including complications, hospital stay, mobilization, function, largely during hospitalization. Nevertheless, return normal functioning, process that occurs over weeks months (late phase). Outcomes reflecting functional status (e.g., physical activity, daily living) overall health quality life) important in phase. To date, few studies reporting effectiveness compared with conventional included or quality-of-life outcomes, there little information about after hospital. complex construct. Different at along trajectory. Measures for quantifying available. A consensus-based core set input multiple would facilitate research reporting.

参考文章(67)
Thomas H. Lee, Michael E. Porter, The Strategy That Will Fix Health Care ,(2013)
J. F. Fiore, L. Browning, A. Bialocerkowski, R. L. Gruen, I. G. Faragher, L. Denehy, Hospital discharge criteria following colorectal surgery:a systematic review Colorectal Disease. ,vol. 14, pp. 270- 281 ,(2012) , 10.1111/J.1463-1318.2010.02477.X
Geoffrey Norman, Hi! How are you? Response shift, implicit theories and differing epistemologies. Quality of Life Research. ,vol. 12, pp. 239- 249 ,(2003) , 10.1023/A:1023211129926
A. Neville, L. Lee, I. Antonescu, N. E. Mayo, M. C. Vassiliou, G. M. Fried, L. S. Feldman, Systematic review of outcomes used to evaluate enhanced recovery after surgery. British Journal of Surgery. ,vol. 101, pp. 159- 170 ,(2014) , 10.1002/BJS.9324
A. Nicholson, M. C. Lowe, J. Parker, S. R. Lewis, P. Alderson, A. F. Smith, Systematic review and meta-analysis of enhanced recovery programmes in surgical patients. British Journal of Surgery. ,vol. 101, pp. 172- 188 ,(2014) , 10.1002/BJS.9394
C. Jones, L. Kelliher, M. Dickinson, A. Riga, T. Worthington, M. J. Scott, T. Vandrevala, C. H. Fry, N. Karanjia, N. Quiney, Randomized clinical trial on enhanced recovery versus standard care following open liver resection. British Journal of Surgery. ,vol. 100, pp. 1015- 1024 ,(2013) , 10.1002/BJS.9165
J. M. Blazeby, M. Soulsby, K. Winstone, P. M. King, S. Bulley, R. H. Kennedy, A qualitative evaluation of patients' experiences of an enhanced recovery programme for colorectal cancer Colorectal Disease. ,vol. 12, pp. 1- 1 ,(2010) , 10.1111/J.1463-1318.2009.02104.X
I. Antonescu, C. L. Mueller, G. M. Fried, M. C. Vassiliou, N. E. Mayo, L. S. Feldman, Outcomes reported in high-impact surgical journals. British Journal of Surgery. ,vol. 101, pp. 582- 589 ,(2014) , 10.1002/BJS.9450
Katarina Berg, Ewa Idvall, Ulrica Nilsson, Kristofer Franzén Årestedt, Mitra Unosson, Psychometric evaluation of the post-discharge surgical recovery scale Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice. ,vol. 16, pp. 794- 801 ,(2010) , 10.1111/J.1365-2753.2009.01197.X