Evaluating Implementation Costs of an Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Protocol in Colorectal Surgery: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols have been well documented in the current literature to improve healthcare outcomes by decreasing length of stay, resource utilization, and morbidity without increasing readmission rates or complications. This subsequently leads to a net decrease in hospital costs. However, the initial costs of implementing such a program have not been well described, which is crucial information for hospitals with less resources. The aim of this study was to provide a cohesive review of the current literature for the costs of implementing a colorectal surgery ERAS protocol.

METHODS

A comprehensive review was conducted on five databases (Google Scholar, Web of Science, PROSPERO, PubMed, and Cochrane) with the assistance of a professional librarian. All relevant English articles published between 1995 and June 2021 were screened for eligibility prior to inclusion in the review. Cost data were converted to US dollars based on the exchange rate at the end time of the study period for standardization.

RESULTS

Seven studies were included for review. The studies evaluated a range of 50-1295 patients through their respective ERAS programs, which were followed for 5 to 22 months. ERAS implementation costs ranged from $57 to $1536 per patient. Components for each ERAS program varied for each study, but ultimately, the greatest costs were attributed to personnel.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite data heterogeneity and inconsistencies between cost breakdowns, a majority of the implementation cost was found to be secondary to personnel. This review demonstrates the need for a more standardized approach for reporting ERAS implementation costs through an open database as well as a potential streamlining of the ERAS protocol to facilitate implementation in institutions with less financial resources.

Improving Gastrointestinal Cancer Care by Enhanced Recovery Protocol Implementation

Background

Enhanced recovery protocols (ERPs) have become the standard of care for patients undergoing elective small bowel surgeries but have not yet been adequately studied in community hospitals. In this study, a multidisciplinary ERP was developed and implemented at a community hospital to include minimal anesthesia, early ambulation and enteral alimentation, and multimodal analgesia. The aim of this study was to determine the effects of the ERP on postoperative length of stay (LOS), readmission (RA) rates following bowel surgery, and postoperative outcomes.

Methods

The study design was a retrospective review of patients undergoing major bowel resection at Holy Cross Hospital (HCH) from January 1, 2017 to December 31, 2017. Patient charts for diagnostic-related group (DRG) 329, 330, and 331 were retrospectively reviewed at HCH in 2017 to compare outcomes in ERP versus non-ERP cases. The Medicare claims database (CMS) was also retrospectively reviewed to compare HCH data to the national average LOS and RA for the same DRG codes. Mean values for LOS and RA were statistically compared to determine significant differences between ERP versus non-ERP patients at HCH and national CMS data versus HCH patients.

Results

LOS was analyzed for each DRG at HCH. At HCH, for DRG 329, the mean LOS for non-ERP was 13.0833 days (n = 12) versus 3.375 days (n = 8) (P ≤ 0.001) for ERP. For DRG 330, the mean LOS for non-ERP was 10.861 days (n = 36) versus 4.583 days (n = 24) (P ≤ 0.001) for ERP. For DRG 331, the mean LOS for non-ERP was 7.272 days (n = 11) versus 3.348 days (n = 23) (P = 0.004) for ERP. LOS was also compared to national CMS data. The LOS at HCH for DRG 329 improved from the 10th to 90th percentile (n = 238,907); DRG 330 improved from the 10th to the 72nd percentile (n = 285,423); DRG 331 improved from 10th to 54th percentile (n = 126,941) (P < 0.001). The RA at HCH in ERP and non-ERP cases was 3% at 30 and 90 days. CMS RA for DRG 329 was 25.1% at 90 days and 9.9% at 30 days; DRG 330 RA was 18.3% at 90 days and 6.6% at 30 days; DRG 331 RA was 11% at 90 days and 3.9% at 30 days.

Conclusion

Implementation of ERP following bowel surgery at HCH significantly improved outcomes, in comparison to non-ERP cases, national CMS data, and Humana data. Further research on ERP for other fields and its impact on outcomes in other community settings is recommended.

Rural context, single institution prospective outcomes after enhanced recovery colorectal surgery protocol implementation

Background

Rural hospitals face unique challenges to adopting Enhanced Recovery protocols after colorectal surgical procedures. There are few examples of successful implementation in the United States, and fewer yet of prospective, outcomes-based trials.

Methods

This study drew data from elective bowel resection prospectively collected, retrospectively analyzed cases 2 years prior (n = 214) and 3 years after (n = 224) implementing an ERAS protocol at a small, rural health network in upstate New York. Primary outcomes were cost, length-of-stay, readmission rate, and complications.

Results

The implementation required changes and buy-in at multiple levels of the institution. There was a statistically significant reduction in mean length of stay (6.9 versus 5.1 days) and per-patient savings to hospital ($3000) after implementation of ERAS protocol. There was no significant change in rate of 30-day readmissions or complications.

Conclusions

The authors conclude that for rural-specific barriers to implementation of Enhanced Recovery protocols there are specific organizational strategies that can ultimately yield sustainable endpoints.

Factors Associated with a Short (<2 Days) or Long (>10 Days) Length of Stay after Colectomy: A Multivariate Analysis of over 400 Patients

A prospectively maintained database of 415 patients undergoing colectomy was evaluated. We performed a logistic regression analysis to identify factors associated with 1) length of stay (LOS) of 2 days or less and 2) LOS of 10 days or more. Investigated variables included demographics, American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) score, diagnosis, operative procedure, approach and time, transfusion requirements, and occurrence of any complications. Factors associated with a LOS of two days or less included ASA [odds ratio (OR): 0.34, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.208–0.576], use of transversus abdominis plane block (OR: 5.259, 95% CI: 2.825–9.791), and operative time (OR: 0.98, 95% CI: 0.974–0.986). Age >65 had an OR of 1.73, though this did not reach statistical significance. Factors associated with LOS >10 days included ASA (OR: 2.152, 95% CI: 1.245–3.721), anastomotic leak (OR: 2.163, 95% CI: 1.486–3.148), ileus (OR: 8.790, 95% CI: 4.501–17.165), and surgical site infection (OR: 5.846, 95% CI: 2.764–12.362). Cancer and transfusion status were associated but did not reach statistical significance. Although operative time was longer in left-sided resections, no differences in LOS were observed. In conclusion, numerous factors are associated with short or long LOS and may help stratify resource utilization after colectomy. Further study is needed to confirm our findings.

Laparoscopic Colectomy and the General Surgeon

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic colectomy has a shorter length of stay and less analgesic requirements than its open counterpart. Studies have suggested a learning curve of 30 cases. It is uncertain whether surgeons in rural settings have the case volume to acquire and maintain the necessary skill set. The aim of this study was to analyze the volume of colon resections performed by surgeons in rural practice.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective cohort study of the laparoscopic and open partial colectomy case volumes of rural general surgeons seeking American Board of Surgery recertification in 2012. Results were stratified by large and small rural area.

RESULTS

One hundred ninety-seven surgeons were classified as practicing in a rural setting (large rural-150, small rural-47). The median open partial colectomy frequency for large rural surgeons was 7 cases and 4 for small rural surgeons. Median annual partial laparoscopic colectomy volume was 1.0 for large rural surgeons and 0.0 for small rural surgeons. Approximately half of surgeons in both groups did not perform a laparoscopic partial colectomy.

CONCLUSIONS

Industry and financial pressures to promote laparoscopic colectomy may not promote optimal patient outcomes in rural settings, as safety concerns may outweigh the modest benefits of the procedure. Although referral to remote high-volume centers could be advocated, the need for rural general surgeons to perform urgent colectomy for acute indications and the desire of many patients to have care close to home must also be considered.

Cost of practice in a tertiary/quaternary referral center: is it sustainable?

BACKGROUND

Third-party payers are moving toward a bundled care payment system. This means that there will need to be a warranty cost of care-where the cost of complexity and complication rates is built into the bundled payment. The theoretical benefit of this system is that providers with lower complication rates will be able to provide care with lower warranty costs and lower overall costs. This may also result in referring riskier patients to tertiary or quaternary referral centers. Unless the payment model truly covers the higher cost of managing such referred cases, the economic risk may be unsustainable for these centers.

METHODS

We took the last seven patients that were referred by other surgeons as "too high risk" for colectomy at other centers. A contribution margin was calculated using standard Medicare reimbursement rates at our institution and cost of care based on our administrative database. We then recalculated a contribution margin assuming a 3 % reduction in payment for a higher than average readmission rate, like that which will take effect in 2014. Finally, we took into account the cost of any readmissions.

RESULTS

Seven patients with diagnosis related group (DRG) 330 were reviewed with an average age of 66.8 ± 16 years, American Society of Anesthesiologists score 2.3 ± 1.0, body mass index 31.6 ± 9.8 kg/m(2) (range 22-51 kg/m(2)). There was a 57 % readmission rate, 29 % reoperation rate, 10.8 ± 7.7 day average initial length of stay with 14 ± 8.6 day average readmission length of stay. Forty-two percent were discharged to a location other than home. Seventy-one percent of these patients had Medicare insurance. The case mix index was 2.45. Average reimbursement for DRG 330 was $17,084 (based on Medicare data) for our facility in 2012, with the national average being $12,520. The total contribution margin among all cases collectively was -$19,122 ± 13,285 (average per patient -$2,731, range -$21,905-$12,029). Assuming a 3 % reimbursement reduction made the overall contribution margin -$22,122 ± 13,285 (average -$3,244). Including the cost of readmission in the variable cost made the contribution margin -$115,741 ± 16,023 (average -$16,534).

CONCLUSIONS

Care of high-risk patients at tertiary and quaternary referral centers is a very expensive proposition and can lead to financial ruin under the current reimbursement system.