Skip to main content
Download PDF

Perioperative Care Pathways in Low- and Lower-Middle-Income Countries: Systematic Review and Narrative Synthesis

World Journal of Surgery volume 46, pages 2102–2113 (2022)Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Safe and effective care for surgical patients requires high-quality perioperative care. In high-income countries (HICs), care pathways have been shown to be effective in standardizing clinical practice to optimize patient outcomes. Little is known about their use in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) where perioperative mortality is substantially higher.

Methods

Systematic review and narrative synthesis to identify and describe studies in peer-reviewed journals on the implementation or evaluation of perioperative care pathways in LMICs. Searches were conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL Plus, WHO Global Index, Web of Science, Scopus, Global Health and SciELO alongside citation searching. Descriptive statistics, taxonomy classifications and framework analyses were used to summarize the setting, outcome measures, implementation strategies, and facilitators and barriers to implementation.

Results

Twenty-seven studies were included. The majority of pathways were set in tertiary hospitals in lower-middle-income countries and were focused on elective surgery. Only six studies were assessed as high quality. Most pathways were adapted from international guidance and had been implemented in a single hospital. The most commonly reported barriers to implementation were cost of interventions and lack of available resources.

Conclusions

Studies from a geographically diverse set of low and lower-middle-income countries demonstrate increasing use of perioperative pathways adapted to resource-poor settings, though there is sparsity of literature from low-income countries, first-level hospitals and emergency surgery. As in HICs, addressing patient and clinician beliefs is a major challenge in improving care. Context-relevant and patient-centered research, including qualitative and implementation studies, would make a valuable contribution to existing knowledge.

Introduction

Improving access to surgical care remains a global priority due to persisting inequities and the considerable burden of surgical conditions. An estimated nine in ten people who live in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) are unable to access safe affordable surgical care, leaving an unmet need for 143 million procedures to address avoidable surgical mortality and morbidity [1,2,3]. In addition to expanding surgical volume, strategies are also required to improve quality of surgical care. Mortality after surgery in LMICs is much higher compared to high-income countries (HICs) and is the third leading cause of global deaths according to some estimates [4,5,6]. Transnational research suggests that there may be inefficiencies throughout the perioperative care continuum, which encompasses all health system activities before, during and after surgery [7], which contribute to poor outcomes [4, 8]. Therefore, improvements in perioperative care are required to realize the aspiration of providing access to safe surgical care worldwide.

Care pathways are one way of achieving high quality perioperative care as they are multidisciplinary plans incorporating the best available evidence to organize clinical practice, optimize patient outcomes and maximize clinical efficiency [5, 9]. In HICs, implementation of care pathways has reduced length of hospital stay without increasing readmission rates [10]. However, little is known about the use of perioperative pathways in LMICs where more efficient use of limited resources is particularly relevant. This lack of context-specific knowledge is problematic for those in LMICs seeking to implement care pathways, as understanding context is key for those attempting to influence change [11, 12]. Health illiteracy, absence of equipment, a limited workforce and high healthcare costs are some contextual factors contributing to poor perioperative care, particularly in LMICs [13], which may impact the design and implementation of perioperative pathways.

The aim of this systematic review and narrative evidence synthesis was to identify and describe the body of literature regarding the implementation and evaluation of perioperative care pathways in LMICs. Our objective was to better understand the design, components, outcome measures and implementation strategies of pathways as well as implementation barriers and facilitators.

Methods

We conducted a systematic review and narrative evidence synthesis according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement [14]. The study protocol was registered with the international prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO CRD42020172978) and reported in accordance with PRISMA and Synthesis Without Meta-Analysis guidelines (Online Resource 1) [14, 15].

Search strategy

Searches were conducted on July 5, 2020 in MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE (Ovid), CINAHL Plus (Ebscohost), WHO Global Index, Web of Science (Core), Scopus, Global Health (Ovid) and SciELO electronic databases (Online Resource 2), supplemented by browsing reference lists for additional studies. The search strategy was developed in consultation with an experienced researcher (CV) and university librarian (DM). Search results were exported into the EndNote (Clarivate, USA) reference manager to remove duplicates.

Selection of sources of evidence

Two researchers (JP, TT) independently screened titles, abstracts and full-text records, and included peer-reviewed articles written in English that described the implementation or evaluation of a perioperative care pathway in a LMIC involving patients of any age undergoing surgery. After an initial search, we found that a large proportion of eligible articles were from upper-middle-income countries (UMICs). We were concerned that such a disproportionate sample from the wealthiest LMIC settings would be poorly generalizable across resource-poor hospitals in LMICs. As such and in view of the resources available for this review, we prospectively excluded studies from UMICs and focused on low and low-middle income countries. Studies from UMICs will be reviewed separately (PROSPERO CRD42022324301).

Surgery was defined as a procedure taking place under the care of an anesthetist with a surgeon. A pathway was considered ‘perioperative’ if it concerned a journey through any combination of pre-, intra-, or postoperative phases. LMICs included upper-middle, lower-middle and low-income countries as per the World Bank [16]. A care pathway was defined as a structured multidisciplinary plan of care meeting at least three of the following criteria [5]:

  1. 1.

    Channels the translation of guidelines or evidence into local structures.

  2. 2.

    Details steps in a course of treatment or care in a plan, pathway, algorithm, guideline, protocol or other inventory of actions.

  3. 3.

    Has timeframes of criteria-based progression.

  4. 4.

    Aims to standardize care for a specific clinical problem, procedure or episode of care.

Conference abstracts, narrative reviews, letters, case reports and simulated evaluations were excluded. No exclusions were made based on comparators, outcomes or date. Decisions were recorded using the Rayyan QCRI web application [17] and discrepancies resolved by consensus or, failing that, a third researcher (TS).

Data charting and synthesis of results

A data charting form was created, piloted on a random sample of 4 articles and modified accordingly before extracting the following: author, country, year of publication, aim, design, number of patients, type of institution, specialty and acuity of surgery, scale of implementation, components and design of pathways, implementation strategies, comparators, and outcome measures. Facilitators and barriers to pathway implementation were also sought. Quality assessments were carried out independently by two researchers using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) for descriptive statistics of included studies [18]. Disagreements were resolved by discussion.

We used descriptive statistics, taxonomy classifications and frameworks to summarize data. Institutions, in which care pathways were set, were categorized into first, second and third-level hospitals (Online Resource 3) [19]. We described the design of perioperative care pathways as adopted (used a previously developed pathway), adapted (modified a previously developed pathway) or designed de novo [20]. The scale of pathway implementation was denoted as either within a single clinical team (surgeon and associated perioperative team), hospital-wide, national or international. Pathway implementation strategies were categorized according to the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) taxonomy [21, 22], outcome measures were categorized using the COMET (Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials) Initiative taxonomy [23], and facilitators and barriers to pathway implementation were aggregated using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) [24].

Results

The flow diagram of study selection is shown in Fig. 1. The initial literature search identified 15,266 articles. We removed 3064 duplicates and excluded 11,637 articles after screening titles and abstracts. Thirty-two articles from HICs and 448 from UMICs were excluded following a rapid sort by country. Full-text records of 85 articles and 7 additional papers identified through citation tracking were reviewed. In instances where full-text articles were not available, attempts were made to directly contact the author. A total of 27 articles met the inclusion criteria.

Fig. 1
figure 1

PRISMA diagram showing selection of articles for review

Full size image

Characteristics of sources of evidence

Characteristics of included studies are summarized in Table 1. Over half (n = 15) were published in the last 5 years (2016–2020), and the earliest article is from the year 2000. All studies were conducted in a single country and were from seven different countries: Bangladesh, Egypt, India, Nepal, Pakistan, Uganda and Ukraine. Twenty-four studies (89%) were from lower-middle-income, and 3 (11%) from low-income countries. Just over half (n = 15, 56%) were from India.

Table 1 Characteristics of included studies and care pathways
Full size table

The majority of studies were set in third-level institutions (n = 24, 89%), while none were from first-level institutions. Twenty-one articles (78%) reported pathways implemented at a hospital-wide scale. The other six (22%) were at a single perioperative team scale. The specialties in which care pathways were most commonly studied were hepato-pancreaticobiliary (n = 9, 33%), colorectal (n = 7, 26%) and cardiothoracic (n = 4, 15%). The majority of articles reported care pathways for elective surgery (n = 20, 74%). One (4%) article reported exclusively on a pediatric (≤ 18 years) pathway.

The design of included studies was quantitative non-randomized for 12 (44%), quantitative descriptive for 10 (37%) and quantitative randomized controlled for 5 (19%). There were no qualitative or mixed-method studies. Seventeen (63%) studies evaluated pathways against a comparator, most commonly (n = 14) previous standard of care.

Critical appraisal within sources of evidence

Most studies (n = 19, 70%) were of low (MMAT score = 0–2) or medium quality (MMAT score = 3) as outlined in Table 2. Common limitations were failure to meet the criteria ‘Did the participants adhere to the assigned intervention’ and ‘During the study period, is the intervention administered as intended’ for randomized controlled and non-randomized studies, respectively. None of the 5 randomized controlled trials demonstrated that outcome assessors were blinded to the intervention.

Table 2 Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) quality ratings for each study
Full size table

Pathway design and clinical interventions

Twenty-three (85%) of the included articles reported ‘adapted’ pathways. Almost all of these referenced ERAS (Enhanced Recovery After Surgery) or Fast-track guidelines as the original source. Two (7%) described pathways that were designed de novo. While fulfilling the inclusion criteria, one study did not provide details of pathway interventions [35]. Owing to the heterogeneity of pathways, no attempt was made to synthesize the nature of reported clinical interventions; however, these are listed in Online Resource 4.

Study aims and outcomes

Five articles (19%) referred to the evaluation of ‘safety’ within the title or study aim and three (11%) used the term ‘feasibility’. Table 3 summarizes the reported outcomes. A total of 375 outcome measures were charted across 27 articles. Of these, physiological and clinical outcomes were most common (n = 182, 49%). Twelve studies (44%) reported a physical functioning outcome, of which most related to early postoperative milestones of drinking, eating and mobilizing. Besides pain assessment, there were only three (1%) patient-reported outcome measures (PROMS); two studies reported mobility scores and one assessed patient satisfaction [29, 30, 35].

Table 3 Summary of outcomes categorized according to the COMET taxonomy [23]
Full size table

Most studies reported a hospital resource use outcome measure (n = 26, 96%), with 25 studies reporting length of hospital stay and 18 reporting readmission rates. Eight articles (30%) described adherence to intervention as an outcome measure. Some provided an overall statistic for compliance; however, only one study offered a detailed breakdown of the adherence to all pathway components [25].

Pathway implementation strategies

The number of implementation strategies reported by each study ranged from 0 to 9 (median = 2). No strategies were reported in 4 articles (15%). The most frequently reported strategy within each ERIC taxonomy cluster is shown in Table 4. Across 27 articles, 24 of the 73 ERIC strategies were used. The most frequently reported strategies were “Prepare patients/consumers to be active participants” and “Promote adaptability”. There were no strategies that targeted an infrastructure change.

Table 4 Summary of implementation strategies categorized according to the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) classification [21, 22]
Full size table

Facilitators and barriers to pathway implementation

Implementation facilitators and barriers according to CFIR construct are summarized in Table 5.

Table 5 Summary of implementation barriers and facilitators categorized according to the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) [24]
Full size table

Intervention characteristics

Most articles framed existing literature, almost exclusively from HICs, as a facilitator for implementation and adapted published pathways to the setting and type of surgery. For example, a pathway for pancreatic cancer resections adapted from ERAS recommendations omitted selective preoperative biliary drainage as this was performed elsewhere prior to admission [25]. The ability to trial a pathway on a smaller scale served as a facilitator as some expanded the use of pathways to other types of surgery after first implementing and evaluating a single pathway [27]. Others evaluated a new pathway against current care so that the better model could be used [50]. While a reduction in cost and resource use was a commonly cited advantage of pathway implementation, the cost of interventions was often a barrier. One study reported that financial constraints in Punjab province meant that minimally invasive surgery could not be offered [27]. In India, carbohydrate drinks recommended by ERAS were not commercially available [48], while thromboprophylaxis and ondansetron (antiemetic) could not be offered in Uganda as these were too expensive [47].

Outer setting

International guidelines, particularly by the ERAS society, were incorporated into most reviewed pathways and were an important facilitator. One study reported pressure to conform to international standards as a driver for implementation [26]. Institutional prioritization of patient needs facilitated the implementation of some pathways. Earlier return to work afforded by the pathway was cited as a priority for patients and thus an important reason for implementing fast track surgery in an Indian study [39]. A study from Pakistan recognized that when a child is admitted for surgery, the whole family moves close to the hospital, incurring a cost for accommodation [27]. Minimizing the length of hospital stay was therefore hoped to reduce costs for the family. Conversely, a study from Bangladesh described that lack of follow-up services outside the city led patients in the ‘fast track’ pathway to stay near the hospital for at least a week post-discharge [42].

Inner setting

Cooperation and good team communication were reported as facilitators to implementation [25, 27]. High demand for surgery, performance indicators and the need for efficient use of limited resources created tension for change away from existing care [25, 42, 50]. Two Indian studies conducted in specialized hospitals acknowledged that their existing resources were not representative of most LMIC institutions, where resource constraints could act as a barrier [30, 34]. Indeed, a lack of human resources and funding coupled with increasing patient numbers acted as a barrier in another Indian study [25].

Characteristics of individuals

Several studies hypothesized that clinician beliefs were the reason pathways were not widely implemented within their countries [33, 38, 48], though this was not reported as a barrier in their institutions. However, early discharge and outpatient surgery were hindered by surgeons’ conservative approach as well as patients’ fear of leaving the safety of a hospital [31, 42].

Process

Literature searches and multidisciplinary consensus meetings were used to design care pathways [29, 40]. Implementation was facilitated by the establishment of improvement teams and allocation of formal roles, including a dedicated supervisor for the entire pathway [30, 44, 46]. Senior clinicians with influence within a department often led implementation [28, 34, 45]. One study reported the use of a formal implementation methodology, the King’s interacting systems framework and theory of goal attainment, as a facilitator [35]. Although all studies reported quantitative outcomes, only one described how this information was used to aid further improvement [28].

Discussion

In this systematic review, we identified 27 studies published between 2000 and 2020 addressing the implementation and evaluation of perioperative care pathways in low and lower-middle-income countries. The main review finding is the sparsity of literature from low-income countries and first-level hospitals focused on emergency surgery. Existing studies reveal increasing evaluation of perioperative pathways, adapted to the realities of LMICs, to improve quality and reduce costs in a geographically diverse set of countries. Additionally, this review found a limited number of high-quality studies, lack of detail regarding adherence to pathway components, and absence of concurrent qualitative data collection to facilitate a deeper understanding of pathway implementation.

Ensuring access to essential surgical care is a key target outlined by the Lancet Commission and is measured as access to a facility that is able to perform cesarean delivery, laparotomy and open fracture repair (Bellwether Procedures) [1, 52]. Therefore, it is concerning that our review identified only two articles studying the implementation of a Bellwether Procedure pathway in settings with the highest need for essential surgical care. Furthermore, most pathways included in this review aimed to standardize care for complex elective procedures in third-level hospitals. This limits learning that such studies may offer others in similar resource-constrained contexts, such as those working to address the three times higher risk-adjusted mortality from emergency abdominal surgery or 50 times higher maternal mortality rates following cesarean section in LMICs compared to HICs [2, 53].

This poor perioperative care quality in LMICs is conceptualized to occur due to failures to provide timely access to services, deliver safe care and rescue post-operatively [13], and thus understanding how care pathways might overcome these failures in low-resource settings would be beneficial. Unfortunately, in our review, there was poor reporting by most authors about the process, facilitators and barriers to implementation. Despite this, we found similar themes with authors of a systematic review from HICs, who identified adapting pathways to fit the local context and resistance from frontline clinicians as major facilitators and barriers, respectively [54].

Differences in adherence to pathway components could highlight further context-specific facilitators and barriers. Unfortunately, only one study in this review reported the rate of adherence to all interventions within the pathway [25]. Poor compliance reporting is common and not confined to LMICs [55]. Thus, the ERAS society now recommends a standardized framework for reporting compliance [56], which were the most common source for pathways in the included articles. Adopting this framework would improve reporting quality, which was generally low or medium in this review.

Included articles mostly did not report on patient-reported outcome measures. Patient experience is increasingly recognized as one of the three pillars of quality alongside effectiveness and safety, and initiatives focused on enhancing patient experience have shown to lead to better levels of quality [57, 58]. Understanding patient experiences of perioperative pathways in LMICs would help ensure pathways are fit for purpose.

This study has strengths and limitations. Exclusion of non-English articles, grey literature and studies from UMICs may have excluded articles set in resource-poor institutions relevant to this review. Articles may have also been missed due to the varied nomenclature used for care pathways. However, these limitations were mitigated by our comprehensive search strategy, use of multiple databases, acquisition of 3 further articles from contacting authors directly and taking an inclusive approach during screening; factors which we feel are a strength of this review. Articles from UMICs will be reviewed separately to offer further learning to relevant contexts (CRD42022324301). Lastly, half of the sample was made up of articles from India. Despite being from the same country, the studies were conducted in diverse institutions, including public and private and second-level and third-level hospitals, and offered different and valuable insights into pathway implementation.

Conclusions

This systematic review presents an overview of literature on perioperative care pathways in low and lower-middle-income countries and offers a starting point for further applied health services research. Perioperative pathway implementation in LMICs has been increasingly reported in the literature with details regarding adaptations needed to ensure they are feasible in resource-limited settings. Future work may consider studying pathways for procedures with broader relevance within LMICs (e.g., Bellwether Procedures) and using standardized frameworks to improve reporting quality. Furthermore, qualitative and implementation research, including on adherence and patient experiences, would make a valuable contribution to existing knowledge and help improve patient outcomes.

Data availability

The data extracted from the included studies and data used for all analyses are available in Online Resource 4. The template data collection form can be obtained from the authors on request.

References

  1. Meara JG, Leather AJM, Hagander L et al (2016) Global Surgery 2030: evidence and solutions for achieving health, welfare, and economic development. Int J Obstet Anesth 25:75–78

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  2. GlobalSurg Collaboration (2016) Mortality of emergency abdominal surgery in high-, middle- and low-income countries. Br J Surg 103:971–988

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Alkire BC, Raykar NP, Shrime MG et al (2015) Global access to surgical care: a modelling study. Lancet Glob Health 3:e316–e323

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Biccard BM, Madiba TE, Kluyts HL et al (2018) Perioperative patient outcomes in the African surgical outcomes study: a 7-day prospective observational cohort study. Lancet 391:1589–1598

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Rotter T, Kinsman L, James E et al (2010) Clinical pathways: effects on professional practice, patient outcomes, length of stay and hospital costs. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD006632.pub2

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Nepogodiev D, Martin J, Biccard B et al (2019) Global burden of postoperative death. Lancet 393:401

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Grocott MPW, Mythen MG (2015) Perioperative medicine: the value proposition for anesthesia?: A UK Perspective on delivering value from anesthesiology. Anesthesiol Clin 33:617–628

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Kruk ME, Gage AD, Joseph NT et al (2018) Mortality due to low-quality health systems in the universal health coverage era: a systematic analysis of amenable deaths in 137 countries. Lancet 392:2203–2212

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. European Pathway Association About care pathways. In: European pathway association. https://e-p-a.org/care-pathways/. Accessed 19 Jul 2020

  10. Paton F, Chambers D, Wilson P et al (2014) Effectiveness and implementation of enhanced recovery after surgery programmes: a rapid evidence synthesis. BMJ Open 4:e005015

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Fulop NJ, Robert G (2015) Context for successful quality improvement. The Health Foundation, London

    Google Scholar 

  12. Zamboni K, Baker U, Tyagi M et al (2020) How and under what circumstances do quality improvement collaboratives lead to better outcomes? A Sys Rev Implement Sci 15:27

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Santhirapala V, Peden CJ, Meara JG et al (2020) Towards high-quality peri-operative care: a global perspective. Anaesthesia 75:e18–e27

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM et al (2021) The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 372:n71

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Campbell M, McKenzie JE, Sowden A et al (2020) Synthesis without meta-analysis (SWiM) in systematic reviews: reporting guideline. BMJ 368:l6890

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  16. World Bank (2020) World bank country and lending groups. In: World Bank. https://datahelpdesk.worldbank.org/knowledgebase/articles/906519-world-bank-country-and-lending-groups. Accessed 14 May 2020

  17. Ouzzani M, Hammady H, Fedorowicz Z, Elmagarmid A (2016) Rayyan—a web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Syst Rev 5:210

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Hong QN, Fàbregues S, Bartlett G et al (2018) The Mixed methods appraisal tool (MMAT) version 2018 for information professionals and researchers. Educ Inf 34:285–291

    Google Scholar 

  19. McCord C, Ozgediz D, Beard JH, Debas HT (2016) General surgical emergencies. In: Debas HT, Donkor P, Gawande A et al (eds) Essential surgery: disease control priorities, vol 1, 3rd edn. The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank, Washington (DC), pp 61–75

    Google Scholar 

  20. Gilhooly D, Green SA, McCann C et al (2019) Barriers and facilitators to the successful development, implementation and evaluation of care bundles in acute care in hospital: a scoping review. Implement Sci 14:1–12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Waltz TJ, Powell BJ, Matthieu MM et al (2015) Use of concept mapping to characterize relationships among implementation strategies and assess their feasibility and importance: results from the expert recommendations for implementing change (ERIC) study. Implement Sci 10:1–8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Powell BJ, Waltz TJ, Chinman MJ et al (2015) A refined compilation of implementation strategies: results from the expert recommendations for implementing change (ERIC) project. Implement Sci 10:21

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Dodd S, Clarke M, Becker L et al (2018) A taxonomy has been developed for outcomes in medical research to help improve knowledge discovery. J Clin Epidemiol 96:84–92

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Damschroder LJ, Aron DC, Keith RE et al (2009) Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: a consolidated framework for advancing implementation science. Implement Sci 4:1–15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Agarwal V, Thomas MJ, Joshi R et al (2018) Improved outcomes in 394 pancreatic cancer resections: the impact of enhanced recovery pathway. J Gastrointest Surg 22:1732–1742

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Ahmed N, Khan F, Zahoor M et al (2010) Fast tracking in adult cardiac surgery at Pakistan Institute of Medical Sciences. J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad 22:28–31

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Akhtar RP, Hameed K, Sarwar M et al (2000) Critical pathway, cardiac surgery in the third world. Pak J Med Sci Q 16:263–266

    Google Scholar 

  28. Chaudhary A, Barreto SG, Talole SD et al (2015) Early discharge after pancreatoduodenectomy: What helps and what prevents? Pancreas 44:273–278

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Jain D, Sidhu GS, Selhi HS et al (2015) Early results of a geriatric hip fracture program in India for femoral neck fracture. Geriatr Orthop Surg Rehabil 6:42–46

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Kulshrestha V, Sood M, Kumar S et al (2019) Outcomes of Fast-track multidisciplinary care of hip fractures in veterans: a geriatric hip fracture program report. Clin Orthop Surg 11:388–395

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Mahendran R, Tewari M, Dixit VK, Shukla HS (2019) Enhanced recovery after surgery protocol enhances early postoperative recovery after pancreaticoduodenectomy. Hepatobiliary Pancreat Dis Int 18:188–193

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Mangukia C, Kachhadia M, Meswani M (2019) Fast-track off-pump coronary artery bypass: single-center experience. Asian Cardiovasc Thorac Ann 27:256–264

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Pandit N, Sah R, Awale L et al (2019) Outcome of Enhanced recovery after surgery protocol in a patients undergoing pancreatic surgery. JOP 20:4–7

    Google Scholar 

  34. Vashistha N, Singhal D, Budhiraja S et al (2018) Outcomes of emergency laparotomy (EL) care protocol at tertiary care center from low-middle-income country (LMIC). World J Surg 42:1278–1284

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Khowaja K (2006) Utilization of King’s interacting systems framework and theory of goal attainment with new multidisciplinary model: clinical pathway. Aust J Adv Nurs 24:44–50

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Kurmi S, Pandit N, Sah S et al (2020) Safety and feasibility of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocol in patients undergoing stoma closure. Indian J Surg 83:703–707

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Kuzmenko V, Usenko A, Skums A et al (2019) Perioperative multimodal program of enhanced recovery following pancreaticoduodenectomy. Georgian Med News 290:7–12

    Google Scholar 

  38. Nanavati AJ, Prabhakar S (2014) A comparative study of “fast-track” versus traditional peri-operative care protocols in gastrointestinal surgeries. J Gastrointest Surg 18:757–767

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Nanavati AJ, Prabhakar S (2015) Fast-tracking colostomy closures. Indian J Surg 77:1148–1153

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Pal KMI, Ahmed M (2003) Itemized bill: novel method to audit the process of laparoscopic cholecystectomy. World J Surg 27:666–670

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Pillai SA, Palaniappan R, Pichaimuthu A et al (2014) Feasibility of implementing fast-track surgery in pancreaticoduodenectomy with pancreaticogastrostomy for reconstruction–a prospective cohort study with historical control. Int J Surg 12:1005–1009

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Quader SA, Sarker R, Ahmed F et al (2010) Fast-track cardiac surgery in children: feasibility in Bangladeshi setting. Cardiovasc J 3:50–54

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Sahoo MR, Gowda MS, Kumar AT (2014) Early rehabilitation after surgery program versus conventional care during perioperative period in patients undergoing laparoscopic assisted total gastrectomy. J Minim Access Surg 10:132–138

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Sanad AS, El-Gindi E, El-Khateeb RR et al (2019) Implementation of enhanced recovery after surgery for endometrial carcinoma: a non-randomized controlled trial. Indian J Public Health Res Dev 10:1979–1984

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Shah OJ, Bangri SA, Singh M et al (2016) Impact of centralization of pancreaticoduodenectomy coupled with fast track recovery protocol: a comparative study from India. Hepatobiliary Pancreat Dis Int 15:546–552

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Shrikhande SV, Barreto SG, Somashekar BA et al (2013) Evolution of pancreatoduodenectomy in a tertiary cancer center in India: improved results from service reconfiguration. Pancreatology 13:63–71

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Baluku M, Bajunirwe F, Ngonzi J et al (2020) A randomized controlled trial of enhanced recovery after surgery versus standard of care recovery for emergency cesarean deliveries at Mbarara Hospital, Uganda. Anesth Analg 130:769–776

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Bansal D, Nayak B, Singh P et al (2020) Randomized controlled trial to compare outcomes with and without the enhanced recovery after surgery protocol in patients undergoing radical cystectomy. Indian J Urol 36:95–100

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Iyer SP, Kareem Z (2019) Fast-track protocol versus conventional protocol on patient outcome: a randomized clinical trial. Niger J Surg 25:36–41

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Pirzada MT, Naseer F, Haider R et al (2017) Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocol in stoma reversals. J Pak Med Assoc 67:1674–1678

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Shetiwy M, Fady T, Shahatto F, Setit A (2017) Standardizing the protocols for enhanced recovery from colorectal cancer surgery: Are we a step closer to ideal recovery? Ann Coloproctol 33:86–92

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  52. O’Neill KM, Greenberg SLM, Cherian M et al (2016) Bellwether procedures for monitoring and planning essential surgical care in low- and middle-income countries: caesarean delivery, laparotomy, and treatment of open fractures. World J Surg 40:2611–2619

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Bishop D, Dyer RA, Maswime S et al (2019) Maternal and neonatal outcomes after caesarean delivery in the African surgical outcomes study: a 7-day prospective observational cohort study. Lancet Glob Health 7:e513–e522

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Stone AB, Yuan CT, Rosen MA et al (2018) Barriers to and facilitators of implementing enhanced recovery pathways using an implementation framework: a systematic review. JAMA Surg 153:270–278

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Day RW, Fielder S, Calhoun J et al (2015) Incomplete reporting of enhanced recovery elements and its impact on achieving quality improvement. Br J Surg 102:1594–1602

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Elias KM, Stone AB, McGinigle K et al (2019) The reporting on ERAS compliance, outcomes, and elements research (RECOvER) checklist: a joint statement by the ERAS® and ERAS® USA societies. World J Surg 43:1–8

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Doyle C, Lennox L, Bell D (2013) A systematic review of evidence on the links between patient experience and clinical safety and effectiveness. BMJ Open 3(1):e001570. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2012-001570

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  58. Coulter A, Fitzpatrick R, Cornwell J (2009) The point of care - measures of patients’ experiences in hospital: PURPOSE, methods and uses. King’s Fund, London

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge Dr Abi Beane for their assistance with writing and the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine Medical Library team for their advice regarding the LMIC filter used as part of the search strategy.

Funding

This study was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Global Health Policy and Systems Research Program Development Award (Grant number 129848), which had no role in the design, analysis or reporting of this review.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Jignesh Patel and Timo Tolppa have contributed equally.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, Centre for Perioperative Medicine, University College London, London, UK

    Jignesh Patel & Ramani Moonesinghe

  2. Network for Improving Critical Care Systems and Training, YMBA Building, Colombo, 08, Sri Lanka

    Timo Tolppa & Rashan Haniffa

  3. Mahidol Oxford Tropical Medicine Research Unit, Bangkok, 10400, Thailand

    Timo Tolppa & Rashan Haniffa

  4. Department of Anesthesia and Perioperative Medicine, Groote Schuur Hospital and University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa

    Bruce M. Biccard

  5. Adult Critical Care Unit, The Royal London Hospital, Barts Health NHS Trust, Whitechapel, London, E1 1FR, UK

    Brigitta Fazzini

  6. Library Services, University College London, London, UK

    Debora Marletta

  7. Critical Care and Perioperative Medicine Research Group, William Harvey Research Institute, c/o ACCU Research Team, Royal London Hospital, Queen Mary University of London, London, E1 1BB, UK

    Rupert Pearse & Timothy J. Stephens

  8. Department of Surgery, Jaffna Teaching Hospital, Jaffna, 40000, Sri Lanka

    Sutharshan Vengadasalam

  9. Division of Surgery, Department of Targeted Intervention, University College London, London, UK

    Cecilia Vindrola-Padros

Authors
  1. Jignesh Patel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Timo Tolppa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Bruce M. Biccard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Brigitta Fazzini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Rashan Haniffa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Debora Marletta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Ramani Moonesinghe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Rupert Pearse
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Sutharshan Vengadasalam
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Timothy J. Stephens
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Cecilia Vindrola-Padros
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Timothy J. Stephens.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

BF has received honoraria from Middlesex University and Queen Mary University of London, is a member of the Cochrane Collaboration Group and the Deputy Chair for the Advanced Practitioner in Critical Care Professional Advisory Group of the Intensive Care Society. RH has received grants from Wellcome, Health Data Research UK, and UK Research and Innovation. RP has received honoraria and/or research grants from Edwards Lifesciences, Intersurgical and GlaxoSmithKline.

Systematic review registration

PROSPERO CRD42020172978.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Patel, J., Tolppa, T., Biccard, B.M. et al. Perioperative Care Pathways in Low- and Lower-Middle-Income Countries: Systematic Review and Narrative Synthesis. World J Surg 46, 2102–2113 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-022-06621-x

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-022-06621-x