Skip to main content

Enhanced recovery program implementation: an evidence-based review of the art and the science

Abstract

Background

The benefits of enhanced recovery program (ERP) implementation include patient engagement, improved patient outcomes and satisfaction, better team relationships, lower per episode costs of care, lower public consumption of narcotic prescription pills, and the promise of greater access to quality surgical care. Despite these positive attributes, vast numbers of surgical patients are not treated on ERPs, and many of those considered “on pathway” are unlikely to be exposed to a majority of recommended ERP elements.

Methods

To explain the gap between ERP knowledge and action, this manuscript reviewed formal implementation strategies, proposed a novel change adoption model and focused on common barriers (and corollary solutions) that are encountered during the journey to a fully implemented and successful ERP. Given the nature of this review, IRB approval was not required/obtained.

Results

The information reviewed indicates that implementation of best practice is both a science and an art. What many surgeons have learned is that the “soft” skills of emotional intelligence, leadership, team dynamics, culture, buy-in, motivation, and sustainability are central to a successful ERP implementation.

Conclusions

To lead teams toward achievement of pervasive and sustained adherence to best practices, surgeons need to learn new strategies, techniques, and skills.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

References

  1. Kehlet H, Wilmore DW (2008) Evidence-based surgical care and the evolution of fast-track surgery. Ann Surg 248(2):189–198

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Kehlet H (1991) The surgical stress response: should it be prevented? Can J Surg 34(6):565–567

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Bardram L, Funch-Jensen P, Jensen P, Crawford ME, Kehlet H (1995) Recovery after laparoscopic colonic surgery with epidural analgesia, and early oral nutrition and mobilisation. Lancet 345(8952):763–764

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Moullin JC, Sabater-Hernandez D, Fernandez-Llimos F, Benrimoj SI (2015) A systematic review of implementation frameworks of innovations in healthcare and resulting generic implementation framework. Health Res Policy Syst 13:16

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Strifler L, Cardoso R, McGowan J, Cogo E, Nincic V, Khan PA et al (2018) Scoping review identifies significant number of knowledge translation theories, models, and frameworks with limited use. J Clin Epidemiol 100:92–102

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Pearsall EA, McLeod RS (2018) Enhanced recovery after surgery: implementation strategies, barriers and facilitators. Surg Clin N Am 98(6):1201–1210

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Kitson A, Harvey G, McCormack B (1998) Enabling the implementation of evidence based practice: a conceptual framework. Qual Health Care 7(3):149–158

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Stetler CB, Damschroder LJ, Helfrich CD, Hagedorn HJ (2011) A Guide for applying a revised version of the PARIHS framework for implementation. Implement Sci 6:99

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Byrnes A, Young A, Mudge A, Banks M, Clark D, Bauer J (2018) Prospective application of an implementation framework to improve postoperative nutrition care processes: evaluation of a mixed methods implementation study. Nutr Diet 75(4):353–362

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Glasgow RE, Vogt TM, Boles SM (1999) Evaluating the public health impact of health promotion interventions: the RE-AIM framework. Am J Public Health 89(9):1322–1327

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Gaglio B, Shoup JA, Glasgow RE (2013) The RE-AIM framework: a systematic review of use over time. Am J Public Health 103(6):e38–e46

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Michie S, Johnston M, Abraham C, Lawton R, Parker D, Walker A et al (2005) Making psychological theory useful for implementing evidence based practice: a consensus approach. Qual Saf Health Care 14(1):26–33

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Cane J, O’Connor D, Michie S (2012) Validation of the theoretical domains framework for use in behaviour change and implementation research. Implement Sci 7:37

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Gramlich LM, Sheppard CE, Wasylak T, Gilmour LE, Ljungqvist O, Basualdo-Hammond C et al (2017) Implementation of enhanced recovery after surgery: a strategy to transform surgical care across a health system. Implement Sci 12(1):67

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Graham ID, Logan J, Harrison MB, Straus SE, Tetroe J, Caswell W et al (2006) Lost in knowledge translation: time for a map? J Contin Educ Health Prof 26(1):13–24

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Pearsall EA, Meghji Z, Pitzul KB, Aarts MA, McKenzie M, McLeod RS et al (2015) A qualitative study to understand the barriers and enablers in implementing an enhanced recovery after surgery program. Ann Surg 261(1):92–96

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. McLeod RS, Aarts MA, Chung F, Eskicioglu C, Forbes SS, Conn LG et al (2015) Development of an enhanced recovery after surgery guideline and implementation strategy based on the knowledge-to-action cycle. Ann Surg 262(6):1016–1025

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Aarts MA, Rotstein OD, Pearsall EA, Victor JC, Okrainec A, McKenzie M et al (2018) Postoperative ERAS interventions have the greatest impact on optimal recovery: experience with implementation of ERAS across multiple hospitals. Ann Surg 267(6):992–997

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Damschroder LJ, Aron DC, Keith RE, Kirsh SR, Alexander JA, Lowery JC (2009) Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: a consolidated framework for advancing implementation science. Implement Sci 4:50

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Kirk MA, Kelley C, Yankey N, Birken SA, Abadie B, Damschroder L (2016) A systematic review of the use of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. Implement Sci 11:72

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Messing BP, Ward EC, Lazarus C, Ryniak K, Kim M, Silinonte J et al (2019) Establishing a multidisciplinary head and neck clinical pathway: an implementation evaluation and audit of dysphagia-related services and outcomes. Dysphagia 34(1):89–104

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Birken SA, Powell BJ, Shea CM, Haines ER, Alexis Kirk M, Leeman J et al (2017) Criteria for selecting implementation science theories and frameworks: results from an international survey. Implement Sci 12(1):124

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Little EA, Presseau J, Eccles MP (2015) Understanding effects in reviews of implementation interventions using the Theoretical Domains Framework. Implement Sci 10:90

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Nilsen P (2015) Making sense of implementation theories, models and frameworks. Implement Sci 10:53

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Ljungqvist O, Hubner M (2018) Enhanced recovery after surgery-ERAS-principles, practice and feasibility in the elderly. Aging Clin Exp Res 30(3):249–252

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Gotlib Conn L, McKenzie M, Pearsall EA, McLeod RS (2015) Successful implementation of an enhanced recovery after surgery programme for elective colorectal surgery: a process evaluation of champions’ experiences. Implement Sci 10:99

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Brady KM, Keller DS, Delaney CP (2015) Successful implementation of an enhanced recovery pathway: the nurse’s role. AORN J 102(5):469–481

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Francis NK, Walker T, Carter F, Hubner M, Balfour A, Jakobsen DH et al (2018) Consensus on training and implementation of enhanced recovery after surgery: a delphi study. World J Surg 42(7):1919–1928

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Kahokehr A, Sammour T, Zargar-Shoshtari K, Thompson L, Hill AG (2009) Implementation of ERAS and how to overcome the barriers. Int J Surg 7(1):16–19

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Close KL, Baxter LS, Ravelojaona VA, Rakotoarison HN, Bruno E, Herbert A et al (2017) Overcoming challenges in implementing the WHO Surgical Safety Checklist: lessons learnt from using a checklist training course to facilitate rapid scale up in Madagascar. BMJ Glob Health 2(Suppl 4):e000430

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. CEC (2008) Enhancing project spread and sustainability—a companion to the “easy guide to clinical practice improvement. Clinical Excellence Commission (CEC), Sydney

  32. Grant MC, Galante DJ, Hobson DB, Lavezza A, Friedman M, Wu CL et al (2017) Optimizing an enhanced recovery pathway program: development of a postimplementation audit strategy. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf 43(10):524–533

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Liu VX, Rosas E, Hwang J, Cain E, Foss-Durant A, Clopp M et al (2017) Enhanced recovery after surgery program implementation in 2 surgical populations in an integrated health care delivery system. JAMA Surg 152(7):e171032

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Digital patient engagement platform for enhanced recovery after surgery (2018)

  35. Stone AB, Yuan CT, Rosen MA, Grant MC, Benishek LE, Hanahan E et al (2018) Barriers to and facilitators of implementing enhanced recovery pathways using an implementation framework: a systematic review. JAMA Surg 153(3):270–279

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Gillissen F, Ament SM, Maessen JM, Dejong CH, Dirksen CD, van der Weijden T et al (2015) Sustainability of an enhanced recovery after surgery program (ERAS) in colonic surgery. World J Surg 39(2):526–533

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Gustafsson UO, Hausel J, Thorell A, Ljungqvist O, Soop M, Nygren J et al (2011) Adherence to the enhanced recovery after surgery protocol and outcomes after colorectal cancer surgery. Arch Surg 146(5):571–577

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Ljungqvist O, Scott M, Fearon KC (2017) Enhanced recovery after surgery: a review. JAMA Surg 152(3):292–298

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

Authors are listed alphabetically and all equally participated in the Design, Writing, Editing, and Final Approval of this manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Thomas A. Aloia.

Ethics declarations

Disclosures

Drs. Aloia, Keller, Kowalski, Lin, Luciano, Myers, Sinha, Spaniolas, and Young-Fadok have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Aloia, T.A., Keller, D.S., Kowalski, R.B. et al. Enhanced recovery program implementation: an evidence-based review of the art and the science. Surg Endosc 33, 3833–3841 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-019-07065-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-019-07065-6

Keywords

  • Enhanced recovery
  • Implementation science
  • Quality and safety