We have located links that may give you full text access.
COMPARATIVE STUDY
EVALUATION STUDY
JOURNAL ARTICLE
Cost-effectiveness of the implementation of an enhanced recovery protocol for colorectal surgery.
British Journal of Surgery 2013 July
BACKGROUND: Enhanced recovery protocols may reduce postoperative complications and length of hospital stay. However, the implementation of these protocols requires time and financial investment. This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of enhanced recovery implementation.
METHODS: The first 50 consecutive patients treated during implementation of an enhanced recovery programme were compared with 50 consecutive patients treated in the year before its introduction. The enhanced recovery protocol principally implemented preoperative counselling, reduced preoperative fasting, preoperative carbohydrate loading, avoidance of premedication, optimized fluid balance, standardized postoperative analgesia, use of a no-drain policy, as well as early nutrition and mobilization. Length of stay, readmissions and complications within 30 days were compared. A cost-minimization analysis was performed.
RESULTS: Hospital stay was significantly shorter in the enhanced recovery group: median 7 (interquartile range 5-12) versus 10 (7-18) days (P = 0·003); two patients were readmitted in each group. The rate of severe complications was lower in the enhanced recovery group (12 versus 20 per cent), but there was no difference in overall morbidity. The mean saving per patient in the enhanced recovery group was €1651.
CONCLUSION: Enhanced recovery is cost-effective, with savings evident even in the initial implementation period.
METHODS: The first 50 consecutive patients treated during implementation of an enhanced recovery programme were compared with 50 consecutive patients treated in the year before its introduction. The enhanced recovery protocol principally implemented preoperative counselling, reduced preoperative fasting, preoperative carbohydrate loading, avoidance of premedication, optimized fluid balance, standardized postoperative analgesia, use of a no-drain policy, as well as early nutrition and mobilization. Length of stay, readmissions and complications within 30 days were compared. A cost-minimization analysis was performed.
RESULTS: Hospital stay was significantly shorter in the enhanced recovery group: median 7 (interquartile range 5-12) versus 10 (7-18) days (P = 0·003); two patients were readmitted in each group. The rate of severe complications was lower in the enhanced recovery group (12 versus 20 per cent), but there was no difference in overall morbidity. The mean saving per patient in the enhanced recovery group was €1651.
CONCLUSION: Enhanced recovery is cost-effective, with savings evident even in the initial implementation period.
Full text links
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app