Abstract
The various components and patient benefits of enhanced recovery after surgery protocols are more extensively discussed elsewhere in this publication. The focus of this discussion is on the institutional benefits related to adoption of a strong ERP. The two major sources of institutional benefit are related to reductions in resource consumption and potentially avoidable complications. The net result of these benefits is improved quality of care and lower cost of care. There is often concern regarding the complexity and cost of adoption but in reality the principal components of care should be readily available and actually less expensive compared to standard care. The slow adoption of ERAS strategies confirms the difficulties in transforming traditional approaches in health care systems, even in the face of simple, evidence based processes of care which benefit both patients and providers. This chapter focuses on colorectal surgery as an example, but the principles are applicable to other procedures.
Access provided by Autonomous University of Puebla. Download chapter PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Keywords
- Enhanced Recovery Programs
- Business of Enhanced Recovery Programs
- Laparoscopic colon resection
- Prophylaxis for postoperative ileus
- Surgical outcomes with Enhanced Recovery Programs
The various components and patient benefits of enhanced recovery after surgery protocols are more extensively discussed elsewhere in this publication. The focus of this discussion is on the institutional benefits related to adoption of a strong Enhanced Recovery Programs (ERP). The two major sources of institutional benefit are related to reductions in resource consumption and potentially avoidable complications. The net result of these benefits is improved quality of care and lower cost of care. There is often concern regarding the complexity and cost of adoption but in reality the principal components of care should be readily available and actually less expensive compared to standard care. The slow adoption of ERP strategies confirms the difficulties in transforming traditional approaches in health care systems, even in the face of simple, evidence based processes of care which benefit both patients and providers. This chapter focuses on colorectal surgery as an example, but the principles are applicable to other procedures.
ERP Impact on Length of Stay
Most Western healthcare systems are facing significant pressures to control the growth of health care expenses, especially in the surgical population. Because most colorectal pathology has a predictable incidence and prevalence of disease burden within a population, the only option to control costs at the provider level is to redesign the process, reduce variability of care, and decrease the rate of truly preventable complications. ERPs have been adopted broadly since the 2000s and the consistent benefit across all health care systems has been a reduction in the duration of hospital stay which is the principal driver of institutional productivity gains and cost savings [1–5]. At a basic level, reducing the length of stay allows a greater number of patients to be managed within the constraints of fixed resources such as number of hospital beds and nursing care at the inpatient unit level. This benefit has been consistently demonstrated across all studies and accrues to both open and laparoscopic approaches [6]. Therefore, the data consistently demonstrate and confirm a reduction in length of stay by 2–5 days depending on the original process of care and the adoption of laparoscopic techniques.
Adoption of Laparoscopic Colectomy
The widespread adoption of laparoscopic colon resection was delayed because of concerns regarding the adequacy of oncologic resection; however, robust prospective randomized studies confirmed equipoise with the open technique [7, 8]. These studies also confirmed a reduced length of stay compared to open colectomy in the absence of a structured enhanced recovery program. However, it should be recognized that increasing the case mix in favor of laparoscopic resection is an important component of providing system benefits even within an ERP [6, 9–13]. The data is clear that laparoscopic surgery is a key enabler to safely and consistently reduce the length of stay and other outcomes within a healthcare system [9, 13]. At the system level, Archibald et al. showed that a 10 % shift towards laparoscopic colectomy, in addition to adoption of an ERP protocol, was an important component of reducing length of stay. Similarly, Bosio et al. showed in a case matched study that this combination of laparoscopy and ERP resulted in a 5 days reduction in length of stay [13]. Yet there remains large geographic variability in uptake of laparoscopic colectomy for colon cancer in the USA, from 0 to 67 % [14]. Given the breadth of data and the increased training opportunities for advanced laparoscopic techniques, the data support a broader adoption of laparoscopic colectomy whenever possible.
Specific Components
It is difficult to tease out the relative benefits of laparoscopic colectomy versus ERP components; however, the evidence does suggest a reduction in specific complications related to simple components of care. Cakir et al. assessed multiple ERP components and determined that laparoscopic surgery, removal of nasogastric tube before extubation, mobilization within 24 h after surgery, starting nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs at day 1 and removal of thoracic epidural analgesia at day 2 were independent predictors of LOS [15].
Avoidance of postoperative ileus is a very important component of reducing a cause for unnecessary delay in discharge and a significant source of increased cost of care [16]. The two major approaches to reducing the rate of ileus are prophylaxis with alvimopan and narcotic sparing multimodality analgesia. Although alvimopan is not routinely mentioned as part of ERP protocols, there is a preponderance of data to suggest that use of this agent is associated with a reduction in both ileus rates and length of stay [17–19]. However, it should be understood that each team should assess the care plan used because the relative benefit of extended use (other than preoperative prophylaxis for intraoperative narcotic exposure) of alvimopan is dependent on the amount of narcotic used subsequently as ileus risk appears to be dose dependent [20–22].
The next major component of ERP is effective multimodal analgesia because it not only reduces ileus risk, but allows for early ambulation which conveys its own particular advantages. The various components vary by institution; however, commonly invoked strategies included epidural analgesia, transversus abdominis plane (TAP) blocks, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agents, gabepentin, and acetaminophen [23–27]. In laparoscopic colectomy it is not clear that epidural analgesia is an important adjunct and avoidance of the approach avoids one more additional procedure and its associated cost [28, 29]. Therefore, the literature suggest that inexpensive, oral analgesia combined with surgeon delivered TAP blocks provides for a very efficient means of perioperative analgesia. For open colectomy, there is more data to support the role of epidural analgesia within a structured ERP [30–33].
Surgical site infection (SSI) is another common complication associated with colectomy and results in patient morbidity, mortality, increased cost of care and prolonged length of stay. Once again laparoscopic colectomy appears to be associated with a relative reduction in SSI compared to open colectomy [34–36]. A major issue in the ERAS Society guidelines is the recommendation that mechanical bowel preparation be avoided, at least for open colon surgery [37]. This recommendation is based on systematic reviews finding no decrease in SSI rate with the use of mechanical bowel preparation versus no preparation, but a major limitation is that the bowel preparation groups did not include the use of oral antibiotics [37]. This gap has been exposed by studies which document higher SSI rates after abandoning the oral antibiotic/mechanical preparation strategy and lower rates after its reintroduction [38–41]. While the need for oral antibiotics is clear, whether oral antibiotics need a mechanical preparation in order to be effective has not been studied [42]. The issue of appropriate intravenous prophylactic antibiotics has been well studied and the appropriate options are evidence based [43]. These data support the role of inexpensive strategies to effectively reduce the risk of SSI following colectomy and surgeons should give strong consideration to adding these measures to their ERAS protocol.
Cost Benefits of ERP
The data associated with ERP clearly demonstrate many potential sources of cost containment with adoption of these inexpensive strategies. In fact, other than the often cumbersome process of adoption of ERP protocols, the individual components are relatively inexpensive and readily available even in cost constrained environments [44–48]. Sammour et al. identified an adoption cost of NZ$ 102,000 for an ERP protocol which produced and excellent rate of return of NZ$ 6900 per patient [49]. Delaney et al. demonstrated similar benefits and highlighted a variety of sources of cost reduction related to shortened length of stay, lower complication rates, and lower utilization of laboratory, imaging and pharmaceutical resources [11]. These cost benefits can be considered within the construct of a warranty process which allows providers to assess the financial risks associated with internal processes of care and the population managed [49, 50].
Summary
The data associated with ERP protocols, particularly when combined with laparoscopic techniques, has consistently demonstrated efficient cost reduction while producing superior clinical outcomes. The time has arrived for senior surgeon leadership and hospital administrative leadership to demand implementation of a “bundle” of inexpensive highly effective processes of care. Each team should then regularly assess and evaluate further opportunities guided by actual experience to resolve the remaining clinical issues which can be modified. These assessments should include both clinical and financial analyses, as well as the potential cost of risk mitigation. This practical approach to operational management will allow maximal innovation which should produce higher quality and lower cost of care for colorectal surgical patients.
Take Home Messages
Key take home messages based upon this review include:
-
Introduction of an ERP will almost assuredly safely reduce the length of hospital stay by avoiding components of the care plan which negatively impact recovery.
-
The addition of a significant volume of minimally invasive colorectal resection will be necessary for a system to see significant improvement even with the introduction on an ERP.
-
Prophylaxis for postoperative ileus is an important adjunct because this factor disproportionately accounts for many unnecessary days of care within a colectomy population.
-
A multimodal, narcotic minimized analgesic program is highly effective in managing postoperative pain while avoiding opioid related adverse events.
-
The standardization of care and adoption of effective, inexpensive care components will yield a significant cost of care for the provider within ERP.
References
Kehlet H, Wilmore DW. Evidence-based surgical care and the evolution of fast-track surgery. Ann Surg. 2008;248:189–98.
Basse L, Thorbøl JE, Løssl K, Kehlet H. Colonic surgery with accelerated rehabilitation or conventional care. Dis Colon Rectum. 2004;47:217–71. discussion 277–8.
Abraham NS, Byrne CM, Young JM, Solomon MJ. Metaanalysis of non-randomized comparative studies of the short-term outcomes of laparoscopic resection for colorectal cancer. ANZ J Surg. 2007;77(7):508–16.
Wind J, Polle SW, Fung Kon Jin PH, Dejong CH, von Meyenfeldt MF, Ubbink DT, Gouma DJ, Bemelman WA. Systematic review of enhanced recovery programmes in colonic surgery. Br J Surg. 2006;93:800–9.
Gouvas N, Tan E, Windsor A, Xynos E, Tekkis PP. Fast-track vs standard care in colorectal surgery: a meta-analysis update. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2009;24:1119–31.
Vlug MS, Wind J, Hollmann MW, Ubbink DT, Cense HA, Engel AF, Gerhards MF, van Wagensveld BA, van der Zaag ES, van Geloven AA, Sprangers MA, Cuesta MA, Bemelman WA. Laparoscopy in combination with fast track multimodal management is the best perioperative strategy in patients undergoing colonic surgery: a randomized clinical trial (LAFA-study). Ann Surg. 2011;254:868–75.
Franks PJ, Bosanquet N, Thorpe H, Brown JM, Copeland J, Smith AM, Quirke P, Guillou PJ. CLASICC trial participants. Short-term costs of conventional vs laparoscopic assisted surgery in patients with colorectal cancer (MRC CLASICC trial). Br J Cancer. 2006;95(1):6–12.
Clinical Outcomes of Surgical Therapy Study Group. A comparison of laparoscopically assisted and open colectomy for colon cancer. N Engl J Med. 2004;350(20):2050–9.
Archibald LH, Ott MJ, Gale CM, Zhang J, Peters MS, Stroud GK. Enhanced recovery after colon surgery in a community hospital system. Dis Colon Rectum. 2011;54(7):840–5.
Senagore AJ, Duepree HJ, Delaney CP, Dissanaike S, Brady KM, Fazio VW. Cost structure of laparoscopic and open sigmoid colectomy for diverticular disease: similarities and differences. Dis Colon Rectum. 2002;45(4):485–90.
Delaney CP, Kiran RP, Senagore AJ, Brady K, Fazio VW. Case-matched comparison of clinical and financial outcome after laparoscopic or open colorectal surgery. Ann Surg. 2003;238(1):67–72.
Senagore AJ, Duepree HJ, Delaney CP, Brady KM, Fazio VW. Results of a standardized technique and postoperative care plan for laparoscopic sigmoid colectomy: a 30-month experience. Dis Colon Rectum. 2003;46(4):503–9.
Bosio RM, Smith BM, Aybar PS, Senagore AJ. Implementation of laparoscopic colectomy with fast-track care in an academic medical center: benefits of a fully ascended learning curve and specialty expertise. Am J Surg. 2007;193(3):413–5. discussion 415–6.
Reames BN, Sheetz KH, Waits SA, Dimick JB, Regenbogen SE. Geographic variation in use of laparoscopic colectomy for colon cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32:3667–72.
Cakir H, van Stijn MF, Lopes Cardozo AM, Langenhorst BL, Schreurs WH, van der Ploeg TJ, Bemelman WA, Houdijk AP. Adherence to Enhanced Recovery After Surgery and length of stay after colonic resection. Colorectal Dis. 2013;15(8):1019–25.
Asgeirsson T, El-Badawi KI, Mahmood A, Barletta J, Luchtefeld M, Senagore AJ. Postoperative ileus: it costs more than you expect. J Am Coll Surg. 2010;210(2):228–31.
Harbaugh CM, Al-Holou SN, Bander TS, Drews JD, Shah MM, Terjimanian MN, Cai S, Campbell Jr DA, Englesbe MJ. A statewide, community-based assessment of alvimopan’s effect on surgical outcomes. Ann Surg. 2013;257(3):427–32.
Itawi EA, Savoie LM, Hanna AJ, Apostolides GY. Alvimopan addition to a standard perioperative recovery pathway. JSLS. 2011;15(4):492–8.
Delaney CP, Craver C, Gibbons MM, Rachfal AW, VandePol CJ, Cook SF, Poston SA, Calloway M, Techner L. Evaluation of clinical outcomes with alvimopan in clinical practice: a national matched-cohort study in patients undergoing bowel resection. Ann Surg. 2012;255(4):731–8.
Barletta JF, Asgeirsson T, El-Badawi KI, Senagore AJ. Introduction of alvimopan into an enhanced recovery protocol for colectomy offers benefit in open but not laparoscopic colectomy. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2011;21(10):887–91.
Madbouly KM, Senagore AJ, Delaney CP. Endogenous morphine levels after laparoscopic versus open colectomy. Br J Surg. 2010;97(5):759–64. Erratum in: Br J Surg. 2010;97(8):1314.
Barletta JF, Asgeirsson T, Senagore AJ. Influence of intravenous opioid dose on postoperative ileus. Ann Pharmacother. 2011;45(7–8):916–23.
Gatt M, Anderson AD, Reddy BS, Hayward-Sampson P, Tring IC, MacFie J. Randomized clinical trial of multimodal optimization of surgical care in patients undergoing major colonic resection. Br J Surg. 2005;92(11):1354–62.
Zutshi M, Delaney CP, Senagore AJ, Mekhail N, Lewis B, Connor JT, Fazio VW. Randomized controlled trial comparing the controlled rehabilitation with early ambulation and diet pathway versus the controlled rehabilitation with early ambulation and diet with preemptive epidural anesthesia/analgesia after laparotomy and intestinal resection. Am J Surg. 2005;189(3):268–72.
Basse L, Thorbøl JE, Løssl K, Kehlet H. Colonic surgery with accelerated rehabilitation or conventional care. Dis Colon Rectum. 2004;47(3):271–7. discussion 277–8. Erratum in: Dis Colon Rectum. 2005;48(8):1673.
Keller DS, Ermlich BO, Schiltz N, Champagne BJ, Reynolds Jr HL, Stein SL, Delaney CP. The effect of transversus abdominis plane blocks on postoperative pain in laparoscopic colorectal surgery: a prospective, randomized, double-blind trial. Dis Colon Rectum. 2014;57(11):1290–7.
Keller DS, Stulberg JJ, Lawrence JK, Delaney CP. Process control to measure process improvement in colorectal surgery: modifications to an established enhanced recovery pathway. Dis Colon Rectum. 2014;57(2):194–200.
Senagore AJ, Delaney CP, Mekhail N, Dugan A, Fazio VW. Randomized clinical trial comparing epidural anaesthesia and patient-controlled analgesia after laparoscopic segmental colectomy. Br J Surg. 2003;90(10):1195–9.
Levy BF, Tilney HS, Dowson HM, Rockall TA. A systematic review of postoperative analgesia following laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Colorectal Dis. 2010;12(1):5–15.
Halabi WJ, Kang CY, Nguyen VQ, Carmichael JC, Mills S, Stamos MJ, Pigazzi A. Epidural analgesia in laparoscopic colorectal surgery: a nationwide analysis of use and outcomes. JAMA Surg. 2014;149(2):130–6.
Swenson BR, Gottschalk A, Wells LT, Rowlingson JC, Thompson PW, Barclay M, Sawyer RG, Friel CM, Foley E, Durieux ME. Intravenous lidocaine is as effective as epidural bupivacaine in reducing ileus duration, hospital stay, and pain after open colon resection: a randomized clinical trial. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2010;35(4):370–6. 8151.
Feo CV, Lanzara S, Sortini D, Ragazzi R, De Pinto M, Pansini GC, Liboni A. Fast track postoperative management after elective colorectal surgery: a controlled trial. Am Surg. 2009;75(12):1247–51.
Braumann C, Guenther N, Wendling P, Engemann R, Germer CT, Probst W, Mayer HP, Rehnisch B, Schmid M, Nagel K, Schwenk W, Fast-Track Colon II Quality Assurance Group. Multimodal perioperative rehabilitation in elective conventional resection of colonic cancer: results from the German Multicenter Quality Assurance Program “Fast-Track Colon II”. Dig Surg. 2009;26(2):123–9.
Kiran RP, El-Gazzaz GH, Vogel JD, Remzi FH. Laparoscopic approach significantly reduces surgical site infections after colorectal surgery: data from national surgical quality improvement program. J Am Coll Surg. 2010;211(2):232–8.
Aimaq R, Akopian G, Kaufman HS. Surgical site infection rates in laparoscopic versus open colorectal surgery. Am Surg. 2011;77(10):1290–4.
Lawson EH, Hall BL, Ko CY. Risk factors for superficial vs deep/organ-space surgical site infections: implications for quality improvement initiatives. JAMA Surg. 2013;148(9):849–58.
Gustafsson UO, Scott MJ, Schwenk W, Demartines N, Roulin D, Francis N, McNaught CE, MacFie J, Liberman AS, Soop M, Hill A, Kennedy RH, Lobo DN, Fearon K, Ljungqvist O. Guidelines for perioperative care in elective colonic surgery: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS®) Society recommendations. World J Surg. 2013;37:259–84.
Englesbe MJ, Brooks L, Kubus J, Luchtefeld M, Lynch J, Senagore A, Eggenberger JC, Velanovich V, Campbell Jr DA. A statewide assessment of surgical site infection following colectomy: the role of oral antibiotics. Ann Surg. 2010;252(3):514–9. discussion 519–20.
Wick EC, Hobson DB, Bennett JL, Demski R, Maragakis L, Gearhart SL, Efron J, Berenholtz SM, Makary MA. Implementation of a surgical comprehensive unit-based safety program to reduce surgical site infections. J Am Coll Surg. 2012;215(2):193–200.
Cannon JA, Altom LK, Deierhoi RJ, Morris M, Richman JS, Vick CC, Itani KM, Hawn MT. Preoperative oral antibiotics reduce surgical site infection following elective colorectal resections. Dis Colon Rectum. 2012;55(11):1160–6.
Crolla RM, van der Laan L, Veen EJ, Hendriks Y, van Schendel C, Kluytmans J. Reduction of surgical site infections after implementation of a bundle of care. PLoS One. 2012;7(9), e44599.
Hendren S, Fritze D, Banerjee M, Kubus J, Cleary RK, Englesbe MJ, Campbell Jr DA. Antibiotic choice is independently associated with risk of surgical site infection after colectomy: a population-based cohort study. Ann Surg. 2013;257(3):469–75.
Zelhart M, Hauch AT, Slakey DP, Nichols RL. Preoperative antibiotic colon preparation: have we had the answer all along? JACS. 2014;219(5):1070–7.
Nygren J, Soop M, Thorell A, Hausel J, Ljungqvist O, ERAS Group. An enhanced-recovery protocol improves outcome after colorectal resection already during the first year: a single-center experience in 168 consecutive patients. Dis Colon Rectum. 2009;52(5):978–85.
Maessen J, Dejong CH, Hausel J, Nygren J, Lassen K, Andersen J, Kessels AG, Revhaug A, Kehlet H, Ljungqvist O, Fearon KC, von Meyenfeldt MF. A protocol is not enough to implement an enhanced recovery programme for colorectal resection. Br J Surg. 2007;94(2):224–31.
Fearon KC, Ljungqvist O, Von Meyenfeldt M, Revhaug A, Dejong CH, Lassen K, Nygren J, Hausel J, Soop M, Andersen J, Kehlet H. Enhanced recovery after surgery: a consensus review of clinical care for patients undergoing colonic resection. Clin Nutr. 2005;24(3):466–77.
Hendry PO, Hausel J, Nygren J, Lassen K, Dejong CH, Ljungqvist O, Fearon KC, Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Study Group. Determinants of outcome after colorectal resection within an enhanced recovery programme. Br J Surg. 2009;96(2):197–205.
Rona K, Choi J, Sigle G, Kidd S, Ault G, Senagore AJ. Enhanced recovery protocol: implementation at a county institution with limited resources. Am Surg. 2012;78(10):1041–4.
Sammour T, Zargar-Shoshtari K, Bhat A, Kahokehr A, Hill AG. A programme of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) is a cost-effective intervention in elective colonic surgery. N Z Med J. 2010;123(1319):61–70.
Asgeirsson T, Jrebi N, Feo L, Kerwel T, Luchtefeld M, Senagore AJ. Incremental cost of complications in colectomy: a warranty guided approach to surgical quality improvement. Am J Surg. 2014;207(3):422–6. discussion 425–6.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Senagore, A.J. (2015). Enhanced Recovery Programs: Making the Business Case. In: Feldman, L., Delaney, C., Ljungqvist, O., Carli, F. (eds) The SAGES / ERAS® Society Manual of Enhanced Recovery Programs for Gastrointestinal Surgery. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20364-5_19
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20364-5_19
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-20363-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-20364-5
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)