Improving Gastrointestinal Cancer Care by Enhanced Recovery Protocol Implementation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Enhanced recovery protocols (ERPs) have become the standard of care for patients undergoing elective small bowel surgeries but have not yet been adequately studied in community hospitals. In this study, a multidisciplinary ERP was developed and implemented at a community hospital to include minimal anesthesia, early ambulation and enteral alimentation, and multimodal analgesia. The aim of this study was to determine the effects of the ERP on postoperative length of stay (LOS), readmission (RA) rates following bowel surgery, and postoperative outcomes. Methods: The study design was a retrospective review of patients undergoing major bowel resection at Holy Cross Hospital (HCH) from January 1, 2017 to December 31, 2017. Patient charts for diagnostic-related group (DRG) 329, 330, and 331 were retrospectively reviewed at HCH in 2017 to compare outcomes in ERP versus non-ERP cases. The Medicare claims database (CMS) was also retrospectively reviewed to compare HCH data to the national average LOS and RA for the same DRG codes. Mean values for LOS and RA were statistically compared to determine significant differences between ERP versus non-ERP patients at HCH and national CMS data versus HCH patients. Results: LOS was analyzed for each DRG at HCH. At HCH, for DRG 329, the mean LOS for non-ERP was 13.0833 days (n = 12) versus 3.375 days (n = 8) (P ≤ 0.001) for ERP. For DRG 330, the mean LOS for non-ERP was 10.861 days (n = 36) versus 4.583 days (n = 24) (P ≤ 0.001) for ERP. For DRG 331, the mean LOS for non-ERP was 7.272 days (n = 11) versus 3.348 days (n = 23) (P = 0.004) for ERP. LOS was also compared to national CMS data. The LOS at HCH for DRG 329 improved from the 10th to 90th percentile (n = 238,907); DRG 330 improved from the 10th to the 72nd percentile (n = 285,423); DRG 331 improved from 10th to 54th percentile (n = 126,941) (P < 0.001). The RA at HCH in ERP and non-ERP cases was 3% at 30 and 90 days. CMS RA for DRG 329 was 25.1% at 90 days and 9.9% at 30 days; DRG 330 RA was 18.3% at 90 days and 6.6% at 30 days; DRG 331 RA was 11% at 90 days and 3.9% at 30 days. Conclusion: Implementation of ERP following bowel surgery at HCH significantly improved outcomes, in comparison to non-ERP cases, national CMS data, and Humana data. Further research on ERP for other fields and its impact on outcomes in other community settings is recommended.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".