Enhanced Recovery After Surgery: Evidence for Delivering Value-based Care

A Standardized Framework for Evaluating Surgical Enhanced Recovery Pathways: A Recommendations Statement from the TDABC in Health-care Consortium

Background: Innovative methodologies to redesign care delivery are being applied to increase value in health care, including the creation of enhanced recovery pathways (ERPs) for surgical patients. However, there is a lack of standardized methods to evaluate ERP implementation costs. Objectives: This Recommendations Statement aims to introduce a standardized framework to guide the economic evaluation of ERP care-design initiatives, using the Time-Driven Activity-Based Costing (TDABC) methodology. Methods: We provide recommendations on using the proposed framework to support the decision-making processes that incorporate ERPs. Since ERPs are usually composed of activities distributed throughout the patient care pathway, the framework can demonstrate how the TDABC may be a valuable method to evaluate the incremental costs of protocol implementation. Our recommendations are based on the review of available literature and expert opinions of the members of the TDABC in Healthcare Consortium. Results: The ERP framework, composed of 11 steps, was created describing how the techniques and methods can be applied to evaluate the economic impact of an ERP and guide health-care leaders to optimize the decision-making process of incorporating ERPs into health-care settings. Finally, six recommendations are introduced to demonstrate that using the suggested framework could increase value in ERP care-design initiatives by reducing variability in care delivery, educating multidisciplinary teams about value in health, and increasing transparency when managing surgical pathways. Conclusions: Our proposed standardized framework can guide decisions and support measuring improvements in value achieved by incorporating the perioperative redesign protocols.

The impact of an enhanced recovery program (ERP) on the costs of colorectal surgery

BACKGROUND

Enhanced Recovery Programs (ERPs) benefit patients but their effects on healthcare costs remain unclear. This study aimed to investigate the costs associated with a colorectal ERP in a large academic health system.

METHODS

Patients who underwent colorectal surgery from 2012 to 2014 (pre-ERP) and 2015-2017 (ERP) were propensity score matched based on patient and operative-level characteristics. Primary outcomes were median variable, fixed, and total costs. Secondary outcomes included length-of-stay (LOS), readmissions, and postoperative complications (POCs).

RESULTS

616 surgical cases were included. Patient and operative-level characteristics were similar between the cohorts. Variable costs were $1028 less with ERP. ERP showed savings in nursing, surgery, anesthesiology, pharmacy, and laboratory costs, but had higher fixed costs. Total costs between the two groups were similar. ERP patients had significantly shorter LOS (-1 day, p < 0.01), but similar 30-day readmission rates and overall POCs.

CONCLUSIONS

Implementation of an ERP for colorectal surgery was associated with lower variable costs compared to pre-ERP.

Does a pulmonary rehabilitation based ERAS program (PREP) affect pulmonary complication incidence, pulmonary function and quality of life after lung cancer surgery? Study protocol for a multicenter randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Lung cancer surgery is associated with a high incidence of postoperative pulmonary complications (PPCs). Preliminary evidence suggests that ERAS processes can reduce overall incidence of PPCs as short- and long-term recovery improved by supporting units to adopt evidence-based care. However, the evidence is inconclusive due to insufficient high-level studies in this research field. No well-designed, adequately powered, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have investigated the effects of pulmonary rehabilitation based ERAS program (PREP) on post-operative pulmonary complications, pulmonary function, and health related quality of life following lung cancer surgery.

METHODS

The PREP trial is a pragmatic, investigator-initiated, multi-center, randomized controlled, parallel group, clinical trial. Five hundred patients scheduled for minimally invasive pulmonary resection at six hospitals in China will be randomized with concealed allocation to receive either i) a pre-operative assessment and an information booklet or ii) a pre-operative assessment, an information booklet, plus an additional education, a 30-min pulmonary rehabilitation training session and the post-operative pulmonary rehabilitation program. The primary outcome is incidence of PPCs defined with the Melbourne Group Scale diagnostic scoring tool. Secondary outcomes include incidence of cardiopulmonary and other complications, pulmonary function, cardiopulmonary endurance, muscle strength, activity level, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), pre- and post-operative hospital length of stay (LOS), and total hospital LOS.

DISCUSSION

The PREP trial is designed to verify the hypothesis that pulmonary rehabilitation based ERAS program reduces incidence of PPCs and improves pulmonary function and HRQoL in patients following lung cancer surgery. This trial will furthermore contribute significantly to the limited knowledge about the pulmonary rehabilitation based ERAS program following lung cancer surgery, and may thereby form the basis of future recommendations in the surgical community.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Chinese Clinical Trial Registry: ChiCTR1900024646, 21 July 2019.

Developing and validating a center-specific preoperative prediction calculator for risk of pancreaticoduodenectomy

BACKGROUND

The American College of Surgeons (ACS) Surgical Risk Calculator predicts postoperative risk based on preoperative variables. The ACS model was compared to an institution-specific risk calculator for pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD).

METHODS

Observed outcomes were compared with those predicted by the ACS and institutional models. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis evaluated the models' predictive ability. Institutional models were evaluated with retrospective and prospective internal validation.

RESULTS

Brier scores indicate equivalent aggregate predictive ability. ROC values for the institutional model (ROC: 0.675-0.881, P < 0.01) indicate superior individual event occurrence prediction (ACS ROC: 0.404-0.749, P < 0.01-0.860). Institutional models' accuracy was upheld in retrospective (ROC: 0.765-0.912) and prospective (ROC: 0.882-0.974) internal validation.

CONCLUSIONS

Identifying higher-risk patients allows for individualized care. While ACS and institutional models accurately predict average complication occurrence, the institutional models are superior at predicting individualized outcomes. Predictive metrics specific to PD center volume may more accurately predict outcomes.