Influence of size and complexity of the hospitals in an enhanced recovery programme for colorectal resection
The aim of this study was to see whether the application of the enhanced recovery programme for colorectal resection improves the results and, in turn, the influence of complexity and size of the hospitals in applying this and its results.
A multi-centric prospective study was controlled with a retrospective group. The prospective operation group included 300 patients with elective colorectal resection due to cancer. The centres were divided depending on size and complexity in large reference centres (group 1) and area and basic general hospitals (group 2). The retrospective control group included 201 patients with the same characteristics attended before the application of the programme. Completion of categories of the protocol, complications, perioperative mortality and stay in hospital were recorded.
The introduction of the programme achieved a reduction in mortality (1 vs. 4 %), morbidity (26 vs. 39 %) and preoperative (<24 h vs. 3 days) and postoperative (7 vs. 11 days) stays (p < 0.01). There was greater fulfilment of protocol in group 2 with the mean number of items completed at 8.46 and 60 % completed compared with the hospitals in group 1 (7.70 completed items and 55 % completion). The size of the hospital had no relation to the rate of complications (21.3 vs. 26.5 %). In smaller sized and less complex hospitals, the average length of stay was 1.88 days less than in those of greater size (6.45 vs. 8.33 days).
Patients treated according to an enhanced recovery programme develop significantly fewer complications and have a shorter hospital stay. The carrying out of protocol is greater in smaller and less complex hospitals and is directly related to a shorter stay in hospital.
KeywordsEnhanced recovery programme Colorectal
- 5.Mitchell RE, Lee BT, Cookson MS et al (2009) Immediate surgical outcomes for radical prostatectomy in the University HealthSystem Consortium Clinical Data Base: the impact of hospital case volume, hospital size and geographical region on 48,000 patients. BJU Int 104:1442–1445PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 7.Delaney CP, Zutshi M, Senagore AJ, Remzi FH, Hammel J, Fazio VW (2003) Prospective, randomized, controlled trial between a pathway of controlled rehabilitation with early ambulation and diet and traditional postoperative care after laparotomy and intestinal resection. Dis Colon Rectum 46:851–859PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 16.Spanjersberg WR, Reurings J, Keus F, van Laarhoven CJHM (2011) Fast track surgery versus conventional recovery strategies for colorectal surgery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev Issue 2. Art. No.: CD007635. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD007635.pub2
- 18.Braumann C, Guenther N, Wendling P, Fast-Track Colon II Quality Assurance Group et al (2009) Multimodal perioperative rehabilitation in elective conventional resection of colonic cancer: results from the German Multicenter Quality Assurance Program ‘Fast-Track Colon II’. Dig Surg 26:123–129PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 23.Merad F, Yahchouchi E, Hay JM, Fingerhut A, Laborde Y, Langlois-Zantain O (1998) Prophylactic abdominal drainage after elective colonic resection and suprapromontory anastomosis: a multicenter study controlled by randomization. French Associations for Surgical Research. Arch Surg 133:309–314PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 27.Mowatt G, Houston G, Hernandez R, de Verteuil R, Fraser C, Cuthbertson B, Vale L (2009) Systematic review of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of oesophageal Doppler monitoring in critically ill and high-risk surgical patients. Health Technol Assess 13:1–118Google Scholar