Evaluation of the Implementation of Multiple Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Pathways Across a Provincial Health Care System in Alberta, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Importance: Engaging multidisciplinary care teams in surgical practice is important for the improvement of surgical outcomes. Objective: To evaluate the association of multiple Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) pathways with ERAS guideline adherence and outcomes. Design, Setting, and Participants: This quality improvement study compared a pre-ERAS cohort (2013-2017) with a post-ERAS cohort (2014-2018). All patients were from Alberta Health Services in Alberta, Canada, and had available ERAS and up to 1-year postsurgery administrative data. Data collected included age, sex, body mass index, tobacco and alcohol use, diabetes, comorbidity index, and surgical characteristics. Data analysis was performed from May 7, 2020, to February 1, 2021. Interventions: Implementation of 5 ERAS pathways (colorectal, liver, pancreas, gynecologic oncology, and radical cystectomy) across 9 sites. Main Outcomes and Measures: Adherence to ERAS guidelines was measured by the percentage of patients whose care met the common ERAS pathway care element criteria. Surgical procedures were grouped by complexity; complications were classified by severity. Outcome measures for the pre-post-ERAS cohorts included length of stay (LOS), readmission, complications, and mortality. Results: A total of 7757 patients participated in the study, including 984 in the pre-ERAS cohort (median [interquartile range] age, 62 [53-71] years; 526 [53.5%] female) and 6773 in the post-ERAS cohort (median [interquartile range] age, 62 [53-71] years; 3470 [51.2%] male). In the total cohort, care-element adherence improved from 52% to 76% (P < .001), no significant differences were found in serious complications (from 6.2% to 4.9%; P = .08) or 30-day mortality (from 0.71% to 0.93%; P = .50), 1-year mortality decreased from 7.1% to 4.6% (P < .001), mean (SD) LOS decreased from 9.4 (7.0) to 7.8 (5.0) days (P < .001), and 30-day readmission rates were unchanged (from 13.4% to 11.7%; P = .12). After adjustment for patient characteristics, the LOS mean difference decreased 0.71 days (95% CI, -1.13 to -0.29 days; P < .001), with no significant differences in adjusted 30-day readmission (-3.5%; 95% CI, -22.7% to 20.4%; P = .75), serious complications (1.3%; 95% CI, -26.2% to 39.0%; P = .94), or mortality (30-day mortality: 42% [95% CI, -35.4% to 212.3%]; P = .38; 1-year mortality: 8% [95% CI, -20.5% to 46.8%]; P = .62). The adjusted 1-year readmission rate was -15.6% (95% CI, -27.7% to -1.5%; P = .03) in favor of ERAS, and readmission LOS was shorter by 1.7 days (95% CI, -3.3 to -0.1 days; P = .04). Conclusions and Relevance: The results of this quality improvement study suggest that implementation of ERAS across multiple pathways may improve health care practitioner adherence to ERAS guidelines, LOS, and readmission rates at a system level.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".