Evaluating variation in perioperative red blood cell transfusion for patients undergoing elective gastrointestinal cancer surgery.

BACKGROUND: Patients undergoing gastrointestinal cancer surgery often receive packed red blood cell transfusions. Understanding practice variation is critical to support efforts working toward responsible transfusion use. We measured the extent and importance of variation in perioperative packed red blood cell transfusion use across physicians and hospitals among gastrointestinal cancer surgery patients. METHODS: We identified patients who underwent elective gastrointestinal cancer resection between 2007 and 2019 using linked administrative health data sets in Ontario, Canada. We used funnel plots to describe variation in transfusion use, adjusted for patient case mix. Hierarchical regression models quantified patient-level, between-physician, and between-hospital variation in transfusion use with R2 measures, variance partition coefficients, and median odds ratios. RESULTS: Of 59,964 included patients (median age 69 years; 43.2% female; 75.8% colorectal resections), 18.0% received perioperative packed red blood cell transfusions. Funnel plots showed variation in transfusion use among physicians and hospitals. Patient characteristics, such as age, comorbidity, and procedure type, combined to explain 12.8% of the variation. After adjusting for case mix, systematic between-physician and between-hospital differences were responsible for 2.8% and 2.1% of the variation, respectively. This translated to an approximately 30% difference in the odds of transfusion for 2 similar patients treated by distinct physicians (median odds ratio: 1.35, 95% confidence interval 1.30-1.40) and hospitals (median odds ratio: 1.30, 95% confidence interval 1.23-1.42). We observed comparable effects across procedure-type subgroups. CONCLUSION: Transfusion provision is highly driven by patient factors. Yet the impact of the treating physician and hospital on variation relative to other factors is important and reflects opportunities to target modifiable processes of care to standardize perioperative packed red blood cell transfusion practice.

Water-soluble contrast in the management of adhesive small-bowel obstruction: a Canadian centre's experience with guideline development and implementation.

BACKGROUND: Orally administered water-soluble contrast (WSC) can track resolution of small-bowel obstruction (SBO), but no universal pathway for its use exists. We developed and implemented an evidence-based guideline for the use of WSC in the management of adhesive SBO, to be implemented across hospitals affiliated with the University of Toronto. METHODS: We performed a systematic review and created a clinical practice guideline for WSC use in the management of adhesive SBO. The guideline was approved through consensus by an expert panel and implemented in 2018. We performed a prospective cohort study of guideline implementation at 1 pilot site (a large academic tertiary care centre), facilitated by the centre's acute care general surgery service. Primary outcomes included compliance with the guideline and hospital length of stay (LOS). Secondary outcomes included rates of failure of nonoperative management, morbidity, mortality and readmission for recurrence of SBO within 1 year. Patients with adhesive SBO admitted in 2016 served as a control cohort. RESULTS: We analyzed the data for 152 patients with adhesive SBO admitted to the centre, 65 in 2016 (historical cohort), 56 in January-June 2018 (transitional cohort) and 31 in July-December 2018 (implementation cohort). There was a significant increase in compliance with the WSC protocol in 2018, with the proportion of patients receiving WSC increasing from 45% (n = 25) in the transitional cohort to 71% (n = 22) in the implementation cohort (p < 0.001). The median LOS did not differ across the cohorts (p = 0.06). There was a significantly lower readmission rate in the transitional and implementation cohorts (13 [23%] and 9 [29%], respectively) than in the historical cohort (29 [45%]) (p = 0.04). Among patients assigned to nonoperative management initially, a significantly higher proportion of those who received WSC than those who did not receive WSC went on to undergo surgery (14.6% v. 3.6%, p = 0.01), with no difference in median time to surgery (p = 0.2). CONCLUSION: An evidence-based guideline for WSC use in SBO management was successfully developed and implemented; no difference in LOS or time to surgery was seen after implementation, but rates of immediate operation increased and readmission rates decreased. Our experience shows that implementation of an evidence-based clinical practice guideline is feasible through multidisciplinary efforts and coordination.

History of the Department of Surgery at the University of Toronto: celebrating a centennial of progress and innovation.

Now in its centennial year since inauguration, the Department of Surgery at the University of Toronto lays claim to more than 500 faculty, 270 residents, and 250 clinical fellows. There are 7 direct entry residency training programs, and 4 subspecialty programs accredited by the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada. There have been 10 chairs of the department since 1921. This article chronicles the life and times of the previous chairs in sequence; the success of the department originates from its many talented and luminary surgeons who have innovated and shaped their fields of surgery. In recent years, the department's academic productivity has been characterized by more than 1400 peer-reviewed publications per year, and annual research grant capture in excess of $90 million. Since the time of William Gallie, surgical trainees have been enabled to develop careers in surgery and science through the Gallie Program and, more recently, the Surgeon Scientist Training Program (SSTP) to attain higher graduate degrees. Providing quaternary surgical care at multiple hospital sites in Toronto, the Department of Surgery takes great pride in its robust clinical fellowship programs across all specialties that continue to attract trainees from around the world.

The Cost of Patient Education Materials Development: Opportunities to Identify Value and Priorities.

The study aim was to evaluate the costs associated with developing and reviewing patient education materials (pamphlets) across Ontario cancer centers. While patient education often produces a positive return on investment, limited efforts have been dedicated to optimizing the personnel, time, and capital dedicated to this feat across healthcare systems. Patient education leaders at 14 cancer centers completed a survey measure, estimating the number of hours spent developing and reviewing pamphlets and identifying the personnel involved in each procedural step. The time expended per center in each step was then combined with average salary data for the identified personnel to derive total cost estimates. Cancer centers spend on average $5672 (SD = $3180) developing (M = $4560, SD = $2620) and reviewing (M = $1112, SD = $654) one pamphlet. This cumulates to an average per annum spending of $65,401 (SD = $75,494) for pamphlet development and $19,819 (SD = $28,524) for annual pamphlet review at each cancer center. The cost and number of hours spent developing and reviewing pamphlets varied substantially between cancer centers. While the security of budgets for patient education varies across cancer centers, opportunities to optimize human capital and monetary resources should be considered. Results of the study can be used to advocate for sustainable investment into cancer education programs, improve the coordination of educational materials production and review, and ensure that resource quality and access are consistent across the province.

Prevalence and Workplace Drivers of Burnout in Cancer Care Physicians in Ontario, Canada.

PURPOSE: Provider well-being has become the fourth pillar of the quadruple aim for providing quality care. Exacerbated by the global COVID-19 pandemic, provider well-being has become a critical issue for health care systems worldwide. We describe the prevalence and key system-level drivers of burnout in oncologists in Ontario, Canada. METHODS: This is a cross-sectional survey study conducted in November-December 2019 of practicing cancer care physicians (surgical, medical, radiation, gynecologic oncology, and hematology) in Ontario, Canada. Ontario is Canada's largest province (with a population of 14.5 million), and has a single-payer publicly funded cancer system. The primary outcome was burnout experience assessed through the Maslach Burnout Inventory. RESULTS: A total of 418 physicians completed the questionnaire (response rate was 44% among confirmed oncologists). Seventy-three percent (n = 264 of 362) of oncologists had symptoms of burnout (high emotional exhaustion and/or depersonalization scores). Significant drivers of burnout identified in multivariable regression modeling included working in a hectic or chaotic atmosphere (odds ratio [OR] = 15.5; 95% CI, 3.4 to 71.5; P < .001), feeling unappreciated on the job (OR = 7.9; 95% CI, 2.9 to 21.3; P < .001), reporting poor or marginal control over workload (OR = 7.9; 95% CI, 2.9 to 21.3; P < .001), and not being comfortable talking to peers about workplace stress (OR = 3.0; 95% CI, 1.1 to 7.9; P < .001). Older age (≥ 56 years) was associated with lower odds of burnout (OR = 0.16; 95% CI, 0.1 to 0.4; P < .001). CONCLUSION: Nearly three quarters of participants met predefined standardized criteria for burnout. This number is striking, given the known impact of burnout on provider mental health, patient safety, and quality of care, and suggests Oncologists in Ontario may be a vulnerable group that warrants attention. Health care changes being driven by the COVID-19 pandemic provide an opportunity to rebuild new systems that address drivers of burnout. Creating richer peer-to-peer and leadership engagement opportunities among early- to mid-career individuals may be a worthwhile organizational strategy.

Reinventing the wheel: The incidence and cost implication of duplication of effort in patient education materials development.

OBJECTIVE: The development of patient education (PE) materials is costly and resource-intensive, and no mechanisms exist for sharing materials across cancer centers/hospitals to limit duplicated effort. The aim of this study was to explore the incidence and cost implication of duplicated PE efforts. METHODS: PE leaders from all (14) cancer centers in Ontario, Canada, submitted their collections of systemic therapy PE materials. Materials were categorized by topic and were coded as duplicate (more than one other material exists on the same topic and there was significant content and/or textual overlap), adapted (material was adapted from an existing material) or unique (no other material addresses the topic). RESULTS: 304 materials were included and <50 % of materials had duplicate content (n = 166, 55 %), a small proportion were adapted (n = 27, 9%), and less than half were unique (n = 111, 37 %). The majority of materials were considered amenable to adaptation meaning that the content was not dependent on a specific institutional context (n = 283, 93 %). The opportunity for cost savings if duplication of effort could be avoided is approximately $800 K for systemic therapy materials produced in cancer centers. CONCLUSION: There is need to refine the process for developing PE materials. Creating mechanisms of sharing can help facilitate equal access to materials and can result in significant cost savings. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Efforts are needed to better coordinate the development of PE materials among patient educators. Better coordination would allow patient education programs to focus on other important challenges.

Declining Use of Red Blood Cell Transfusions for Gastrointestinal Cancer Surgery: A Population-Based Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Gastrointestinal cancer surgery patients often develop perioperative anemia commonly treated with red blood cell (RBC) transfusions. Given the potential associated risks, evidence published over the past 10 years supports restrictive transfusion practices and blood conservation programs. Whether transfusion practices have changed remains unclear. We describe temporal RBC transfusion trends in a large North American population who underwent gastrointestinal cancer surgery. METHODS: We conducted a population-based retrospective cohort study of patients who underwent gastrointestinal cancer resection between 2007 and 2018 using health administrative datasets. The outcome was RBC transfusion during hospitalization. Temporal transfusion trends were analyzed with Cochran-Armitage tests. Multivariable regression assessed the association between year of diagnosis and likelihood of RBC transfusion while controlling for confounding. RESULTS: Of 79,764 patients undergoing gastrointestinal cancer resection, the median age was 69 years old (interquartile range (IQR) 60-78 years) and 55.5% were male. The most frequent procedures were colectomy (52.8%) and proctectomy (23.0%). A total of 18,175 patients (23%) received RBC transfusion. The proportion of patients transfused decreased from 26.5% in 2007 to 18.9% in 2018 (p < 0.001). After adjusting for patient, procedure, and hospital factors, the most recent time period (2015-2018) was associated with a reduced likelihood of receiving RBC transfusion [relative risk 0.86 (95% confidence interval: 0.83-0.89)] relative to the intermediate time period (2011-2014). CONCLUSION: Over 11 years, we observed decreased RBC transfusion use and reduced likelihood of transfusion in patients undergoing gastrointestinal cancer resection. This information provides a foundation to further examine transfusion appropriateness or explore if additional transfusion minimization in surgical patients can be achieved.

A Crucial Moment for Reflection on the Importance of Ethical Leadership in Academic Medicine.

The extreme disturbances caused by the COVID -19 pandemic on our academic medical centers compounded by a recurrent surge of violence against people of color have reopened our wounds exposing fragility, inequality, and continued racial disparities in society and health. At the center of this severe institutional disruption, leaders will be compelled to take action to keep their constituents and patients safe and their hospitals and departments afloat during and after a pandemic, all while simultaneously addressing and implementing the cultural changes required to eliminate systemic racism and discrimination. Organizational disruptions of this magnitude will naturally test one's principles, loyalties and responsibilities while challenging the practical burdens of leadership. If the goal of responding to these upheavals is to bring them to resolution and ultimately to bring about organizational change for the better, ethical leadership is critical. Applying ethical principles allows leaders to chart clear paths to solutions both in the short and long term. We review the principles of ethical leadership exemplified by a case illustration and provide a novel resource to help ensure ethical leadership in academic medicine and beyond.

Postoperative opioid-prescribing patterns among surgeons and residents at university-affiliated hospitals: a survey study

Background: Overprescribing of opioids to patients following surgery is a public health concern, as unused pills may be diverted and contribute to opioid misuse and dependence. The objectives of this study were to determine current opioid-prescribing patterns for common surgical procedures, factors that affect surgeons' prescribing behaviour and their perceived ability to manage patients with opioid use disorder. Methods: Survey participants included all consultant and trainee surgeons at the University of Toronto. The survey, which was administered electronically, included 52 multiple-choice, rank-order and open-text questions eliciting information on current prescribing patterns, prescribing of adjunct pain medications, and education and other factors related to opioid prescribing. Staff surgeons were also asked about how they manage patients with a suspected opioid issue. Results: Eighty surgical trainees and 40 staff surgeons responded to the survey (response rate 32%). Five staff surgeons (12%) felt adequately educated to prescribe pain medications (including opioids) at discharge. Staff surgeons prescribed Tylenol 3 more frequently than other opioids. Twenty (51%) of 39 staff surgeons reported that they sought further help for their patients when an opioid use disorder was suspected. Conclusion: Our results support existing studies showing a large degree of variability in postoperative opioid prescribing. Institutional guidelines have been shown to be effective in curbing excessive opioid prescribing without increasing unnecessary emergency department visits for uncontrolled pain. Thus, there is an opportunity to develop institutional guidelines to educate surgical teams in the prescribing of opioids and about services available for patients with a substance use disorder.

Contexte: La surprescription d'opioïdes aux patients après une chirurgie représente un problème de santé publique car il y a un risque que les comprimés inutilisés soient détournés et utilisés à mauvais escient, voire qu'ils causent la dépendance. Cette étude avait pour objectif d'identifier les modes actuels de prescription des opioïdes pour les chirurgies courantes, les facteurs qui influent sur les habitudes de prescription des chirurgiens et leur capacité perçue à prendre en charge les cas de mésusage des opioïdes. Méthodes: Les participants au sondage étaient tous les chirurgiens en poste et en formation à l'Université de Toronto. Ce sondage administré par voie électronique comprenait 52 questions (choix multiples, échelles ordinales et ouvertes) qui visaient à recueillir des renseignements sur les modes actuels de prescription, la prescription d'analgésiques d'appoint, l'enseignement au patient et autres éléments relatifs à la prescription des opioïdes. Les chirurgiens en poste ont aussi été interrogés sur leur gestion des cas présumés de mésusage des opioïdes. Résultats: Quatre-vingt chirurgiens en formation et 40 chirurgiens en poste ont répondu au sondage (taux de réponse, 32 %). Cinq chirurgiens en poste (12 %) se sont estimés adéquatement renseignés sur la façon de prescrire les analgésiques, (y compris les opioïdes) au moment du congé. Les chirurgiens en poste prescrivaient Tylenol 3 fois plus souvent que d'autres opioïdes. Vingt (51 %) chirurgiens en poste sur 39 ont dit consulter s'ils avaient besoin d'aide pour la prise en charge de patients soupçonnés de présenter un problème de mésusage des opioïdes. Conclusion: Nos résultats viennent étayer les conclusions d'études existantes selon lesquelles les modes de prescription des opioïdes en postopératoire varient grandement. Il a été démontré que l'adoption de lignes directrices institutionnelles permet de limiter efficacement la surprescription des opioïdes sans accroître indument le nombre de consultations aux urgences pour douleur non maîtrisée. Il y a donc là une possibilité d'adopter à plus grande échelle les lignes directrices institutionnelles pour sensibiliser les équipes chirurgicales à l'utilisation judicieuse des opioïdes et à l'existence des services à l'intention des patients qui présentent un problème de mésusage.

Consensus Statement for the Prescription of Pain Medication at Discharge after Elective Adult Surgery.

This Consensus Statement provides recommendations on the prescription of pain medication at discharge from hospital for opioid-naïve adult patients who undergo elective surgery. It encourages health care providers (surgeons, anesthesiologists, nurses/nurse practitioners, pain teams, pharmacists, allied health professionals, and trainees) to (1) use nonopioid therapies and reduce the prescription of opioids so that fewer opioid pills are available for diversion and (2) educate patients and their families/caregivers about pain management options after surgery to optimize quality of care for postoperative pain. These recommendations apply to opioid-naïve adult patients who undergo elective surgery. This consensus statement is intended for use by health care providers involved in the management and care of surgical patients. A modified Delphi process was used to reach consensus on the recommendations. First, the authors conducted a scoping review of the literature to determine current best practices and existing guidelines. From the available literature and expertise of the authors, a draft list of recommendations was created. Second, the authors asked key stakeholders to review and provide feedback on several drafts of the document and attend an in-person consensus meeting. The modified Delphi stakeholder group included surgeons, anesthesiologists, residents, fellows, nurses, pharmacists, and patients. After multiple iterations, the document was deemed complete. The recommendations are not graded because they are mostly based on consensus rather than evidence.

Cette déclaration de consensus fait des recommandations pour la prescription d'analgésiques à la sortie de l'hôpital pour les patients adultes n'ayant jamais pris d'opiacés et qui subissent une intervention chirurgicale non urgente. Elle encourage les prestataires de soins de santé (chirurgiens, anesthésiologistes, infirmières et infirmiers, infirmières et infirmiers praticiens, équipes antidouleur, pharmaciens, professionnels de la santé et stagiaires) à (1) utiliser des traitements non opiacés et à réduire la prescription d'opiacés afin de réduire le nombre de pilules opiacées pouvant être détournées; et (2) à éduquer les patients, ainsi que leurs familles et soignants, sur les options de prise en charge de la douleur après l'opération afin d'optimiser la qualité des soins pour la douleur postopératoire.Ces recommandations s'appliquent aux patients adultes n'ayant jamais pris d'opioïdes et qui subissent une intervention chirurgicale non urgente. Cette déclaration de consensus est destinée à être utilisée par les prestataires de soins de santé impliqués dans la prise en charge des patients opérés et les soins qui leur sont apportés.Un processus Delphi modifié a été utilisé pour parvenir à un consensus sur les recommandations. Tout d'abord, les auteurs ont procédé à une de la portée de la littérature afin de déterminer les pratiques exemplaires actuelles et les lignes directrices existantes. À partir de la littérature disponible et de l'expertise des auteurs, une liste provisoire de recommandations a été créée. Ensuite, les auteurs ont demandé aux principales parties prenantes d'examiner et de commenter plusieurs versions préliminaires du document et d'assister à une réunion de consensus en personne. Le groupe des parties prenantes du processus Delphi modifié comprenait des chirurgiens, des anesthésiologistes, des résidents, des fellows, des infirmières et infirmiers, des pharmaciens et des patients. Après de multiples itérations, le document a été jugé complet. Les recommandations n'ont pas été notées car elles étaient fondées sur un consensus plutôt que sur des données probantes.

Real-world outcomes of FOLFIRINOX vs gemcitabine and nab-paclitaxel in advanced pancreatic cancer: A population-based propensity score-weighted analysis.

BACKGROUND: In Ontario, FOLFIRINOX (FFX) and gemcitabine + nab-paclitaxel (GnP) have been publicly funded for first-line unresectable locally advanced pancreatic cancer (uLAPC) or metastatic pancreatic cancer (mPC) since April 2015. We examined the real-world effectiveness and safety of FFX vs GnP for advanced pancreatic cancer, and in uLAPC and mPC. METHODS: Patients receiving first-line FFX or GnP from April 2015 to March 2017 were identified in the New Drug Funding Program database. Baseline characteristics and outcomes were obtained through the Ontario Cancer Registry and other population-based databases. Overall survival (OS) was assessed using Kaplan-Meier and weighted Cox proportional hazard models, weighted by the inverse propensity score adjusting for baseline characteristics. Weighted odds ratio (OR) for hospitalization and emergency department visits (EDV) were estimated from weighted logistic regression models. RESULTS: For 1130 patients (632 FFX, 498 GnP), crude median OS was 9.6 and 6.1 months for FFX and GnP, respectively. Weighted OS was improved for FFX vs GnP (HR = 0.77, 0.70-0.85). Less frequent EDV and hospitalization were observed in FFX (EDV: 67.8%; Hospitalization: 49.2%) than GnP (EDV: 77.7%; Hospitalization: 59.3%). More frequent febrile neutropenia-related hospitalization was observed in FFX (5.8%) than GnP (3.3%). Risk of EDV and hospitalization were significantly lower for FFX vs GnP (EDV: OR = 0.68, P = .0001; Hospitalization: OR = 0.76, P = .002), whereas the risk of febrile neutropenia-related hospitalization was significantly higher (OR = 2.12, P = .001). Outcomes for uLAPC and mPC were similar. CONCLUSION: In the real world, FFX had longer OS, less frequent all-cause EDV and all-cause hospitalization, but more febrile neutropenia-related hospitalization compared to GnP.

A Canadian strategy for surgical quality improvement

Summary: The Canadian Association of General Surgeons (CAGS) Board of Directors hosted a symposium to develop a Canadian strategy for surgical quality and safety at its mid-term meeting on Feb. 24, 2018. The following 6 principles outline the consensus of this symposium, which included diverse stakeholders and surgeon leaders across Canada: 1) a Canadian quality-improvement strategy for surgery is needed; 2) quality improvement requires continuous, active and intentional effort; 3) outcome measurement alone will not drive improvement; 4) increased focus on standardization and process improvement is necessary; 5) new, large electronic medical record systems pose challenges as well as benefits in Canadian hospitals; and 6) surgeons in remote and rural hospitals must be engaged using tailored approaches.

Safety and Feasibility of Using Magnetic Resonance Imaging Criteria to Identify Patients With "Good Prognosis" Rectal Cancer Eligible for Primary Surgery: The Phase 2 Nonrandomized QuickSilver Clinical Trial.

IMPORTANCE: Chemoradiotherapy (CRT), followed by surgery, is the recommended approach for stage II and III rectal cancer. While CRT decreases the risk of local recurrence, it does not improve survival and leads to poorer functional outcomes than surgery alone. Therefore, new approaches to better select patients for CRT are important. OBJECTIVE: To conduct a phase 2 study to evaluate the safety and feasibility of using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) criteria to select patients with "good prognosis" rectal tumors for primary surgery. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Prospective nonrandomized phase 2 study at 12 high-volume colorectal surgery centers across Canada. From September 30, 2014, to October 21, 2016, a total of 82 patients were recruited for the study. Participants were patients newly diagnosed as having rectal cancer with MRI-predicted good prognosis rectal cancer. The MRI criteria for good prognosis tumors included distance to the mesorectal fascia greater than 1 mm; definite T2, T2/early T3, or definite T3 with less than 5 mm of extramural depth of invasion; and absent or equivocal extramural venous invasion. INTERVENTIONS: Patients with rectal cancer with MRI-predicted good prognosis tumors underwent primary surgery. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with a positive circumferential resection margin (CRM) rate. Assuming a 10% baseline probability of a positive CRM, a sample size of 75 was estimated to yield a 95% CI of ±6.7%. RESULTS: Eighty-two patients (74% male) participated in the study. The median age at the time of surgery was 66 years (range, 37-89 years). Based on MRI, most tumors were midrectal (65% [n = 53]), T2/early T3 (60% [n = 49]), with no suspicious lymph nodes (63% [n = 52]). On final pathology, 91% (n = 75) of tumors were T2 or greater, 29% (n = 24) were node positive, and 59% (n = 48) were stage II or III. The positive CRM rate was 4 of 82 (4.9%; 95% CI, 0.2%-9.6%). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The use of MRI criteria to select patients with good prognosis rectal cancer for primary surgery results in a low rate of positive CRM and suggests that CRT may not be necessary for all patients with stage II and III rectal cancer. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN.com identifier: ISRCTN05107772.

Enhanced Recovery After Surgery: Implementation Strategies, Barriers and Facilitators.

Numerous reports have documented the effectiveness of Enhanced Recovery after Surgery (ERAS) pathways in improving recovery and decreasing morbidity and length of stay. However, there is also increasing evidence that ERAS® guidelines are difficult to adopt and require the commitment of all members of the perioperative team. Multiple barriers related to limited hospital resources (financial, staffing, space restrictions, and education), active or passive resistance from members of the perioperative team, and lack of data and/or education have been identified. Thus, ERAS® guidelines require a tailored implementation strategy to increase adherence.

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.

Opioid Use After Discharge in Postoperative Patients: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Over the past 2 decades, there has been an increase in opioid use and subsequently, opioid deaths. The amount of opioid prescribed to surgical patients has also increased. The aim of this systematic review was to determine postdischarge opioid consumption in surgical patients compared with the amount of opioid prescribed. Secondary outcomes included adequacy of pain control and disposal methods for unused opioids. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to characterize postdischarge opioid consumption and prescription patterns in surgical patients. METHODS: A systematic search in MEDLINE and EMBASE identified 11 patient survey studies reporting on postdischarge opioid use in 3525 surgical patients. RESULTS: The studies reported on a variety of surgical operations, including abdominal surgery, orthopedic procedures, tooth extraction, and dermatologic procedures. The majority of patients consumed 15 pills or less postdischarge. The proportion of used opioids ranged from 5.6% to 59.1%, with an outlier of 90.1% in pediatric spinal fusion patients. Measured pain scores of those taking opioids ranged between 2 and 5 out of 10 and the majority of patients were satisfied with their pain control. Seventy percent of patients kept the excess opioids. Where planned disposal methods were reported, between 4% and 59% of patients planned proper disposal. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that surgical patients are using substantially less opioid than prescribed. There is a lack of awareness regarding proper disposal of leftover medication, leaving excess opioid that may be used inappropriately by the patient or others. Education for providers and clinical practice guidelines that provide guidance on prescription of outpatient of opioids are required.

Ready to Go Home? Patients' Experiences of the Discharge Process in an Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Program for Colorectal Surgery.

BACKGROUND: With the adoption of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) programs, patients are being discharged earlier and require more post-discharge teaching, educational materials, and information. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to assess satisfaction, discharge needs, and follow-up concerns of patients within an ERAS implementation program (iERAS). METHODS: Between 2012 and 2015, the iERAS program was undertaken at an academic hospital where 554 patients having elective colorectal surgery were enrolled. After discharge, patients were sent a survey containing multiple choice questions, preference ranking, and open-ended questions. Free-text responses were analyzed through a thematic approach. RESULTS: Overall, 496 patients were mailed surveys and 219 (44.2%) completed the survey. Ninety-three percent were satisfied with the discharge information, and 90% felt they were ready for discharge. Eighty-six percent of patients saw their surgeon at 6 weeks, and 88% were satisfied with this follow-up plan. Some patients felt they had inadequate post-operative information, including how to resolve complications while at home and lack of reliable information for common post-operative occurrences. Patients with ostomies wanted more information about what to expect post-discharge and what symptoms were normal. Support from the homecare team and having a surgical nurse available were considered to be essential. CONCLUSIONS: Improved post-operative education for surgical patients prior to discharge within iERAS is required to facilitate patient-centered discharge planning. Such interventions may help decrease unplanned hospital visits during the immediate post-discharge period.