Patients as partners in Enhanced Recovery After Surgery: A qualitative patient-led study

Chelsia Gillis, Marlyn Gill, Nancy Marlett, Gail MacKean, Kathy GermAnn, Loreen Gilmour, Gregg Nelson, Tracy Wasylak, Susan Nguyen, Edamil Araujo, Sandra Zelinsky, Leah Gramlich, Chelsia Gillis, Marlyn Gill, Nancy Marlett, Gail MacKean, Kathy GermAnn, Loreen Gilmour, Gregg Nelson, Tracy Wasylak, Susan Nguyen, Edamil Araujo, Sandra Zelinsky, Leah Gramlich

Abstract

Objectives: Explore the experience of patients undergoing colorectal surgery within an Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) programme. Use these experiential data to inform the development of a framework to support ongoing, meaningful patient engagement in ERAS.

Design: Qualitative patient-led study using focus groups and narrative interviews. Data were analysed iteratively using a Participatory Grounded Theory approach.

Setting: Five tertiary care centres in Alberta, Canada, following the ERAS programme.

Participants: Twenty-seven patients who had undergone colorectal surgery in the last 12 months were recruited through purposive sampling. Seven patients participated in a codesign focus group to set and prioritise the research direction. Narrative interviews were conducted with 20 patients.

Results: Patients perceived that an ERAS programme should not be limited to the perioperative period, but should encompass the journey from diagnosis to recovery. Practical recommendations to improve the patient experience across the surgical continuum, and enhance patient engagement within ERAS included: (1) fully explain every protocol, and the purpose of the protocol, both before surgery and while in-hospital, so that patients can become knowledgeable partners in their recovery; (2) extend ERAS guidelines to the presurgery phase, so that patients can be ready emotionally, psychologically and physically for surgery; (3) extend ERAS guidelines to the recovery period at home to avoid stressful situations for patients and families; (4) consider activating a programme where experienced patients can provide peer support; (5) one size does not fit all; personalised adaptations within the standardised pathway are required.Drawing upon these data, and through consultation with ERAS Alberta stakeholders, the ERAS team developed a matrix to guide sustained patient involvement and action throughout the surgical care continuum at three levels: individual, unit and ERAS system.

Conclusion: This patient-led study generated new insights into the needs of ERAS patients and informed the development of a framework to improve patient experiences and outcomes.

Keywords: Colorectal surgery; Quality in healthcare.

© Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2017. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
The PaCER (Patient and Community Engagement Research) methodology of Set, Collect, Reflect engages patient-participants as partners throughout the research process.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Patient-defined surgical journey. Patient-participants perceived that, to be a programme focused on enhanced recovery, the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery programme should not be limited to the perioperative period, but should encompass the journey from diagnosis to patient-defined recovery.

References

    1. Ljungqvist O, Scott M, Fearon KC. Enhanced recovery after surgery: a review. JAMA Surg 2017;152:292-298 Epub ahead of print 10.1001/jamasurg.2016.4952
    1. Nelson G, Kiyang LN, Crumley ET, et al. . Implementation of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Across a Provincial Healthcare System: The ERAS Alberta Colorectal Surgery Experience. World J Surg 2016;40:1092–103. 10.1007/s00268-016-3472-7
    1. Nguyen T, Chuck A, Wasylak T, et al. . An economic evaluation of the enhanced Recovery after Surgery (ERAS) multi-site implementation program for colorectal surgery in Alberta. Can J Surg 2016;59:6716.
    1. Blazeby JM, Soulsby M, Winstone K, et al. . A qualitative evaluation of patients' experiences of an enhanced recovery programme for colorectal cancer. Colorectal Dis 2010;12:e236–e242. 10.1111/j.1463-1318.2009.02104.x
    1. Bernard H, Foss M. Patient experiences of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS). Br J Nurs 2014;23:100–6. 10.12968/bjon.2014.23.2.100
    1. Aasa A, Hovbäck M, Berterö CM. The importance of preoperative information for patient participation in colorectal surgery care. J Clin Nurs 2013;22:1604–12. 10.1111/jocn.12110
    1. Sibbern T, Bull Sellevold V, Steindal SA, et al. . Patients' experiences of enhanced recovery after surgery: a systematic review of qualitative studies. J Clin Nurs 2017;26 Epub ahead of print 10.1111/jocn.13456
    1. Gustafsson UO, Hausel J, Thorell A, et al. . Adherence to the enhanced recovery after surgery protocol and outcomes after colorectal cancer surgery. Arch Surg 2011;146:571–7. 10.1001/archsurg.2010.309
    1. Marlett N, Emes C. Grey matters: a Guide for Collaborative Research with seniors. Calgary, Alberta: University of Calgary Press, 2010.
    1. Anderson M, McCleary KK. From passengers to co-pilots: patient roles expand. Sci Transl Med 2015;7:291fs25 10.1126/scitranslmed.aac6023
    1. Domecq JP, Prutsky G, Elraiyah T, et al. . Patient engagement in research: a systematic review. BMC Health Serv Res 2014;14:89 10.1186/1472-6963-14-89
    1. Miller JL, Teare SR, Marlett N, et al. . Support for living a Meaningful Life with Osteoarthritis: a Patient-to-Patient Research Study. Patient 2016;9:457–64. 10.1007/s40271-016-0169-9
    1. Simmons OE, Gregory TA. Grounded action: achieving optimal and sustainable change. Forum: Qualitative Social Research 2003;4:27.
    1. Teram E, Schachter CL, Stalker CA. The case for integrating grounded theory and participatory action research: empowering clients to inform professional practice. Qual Health Res 2005;15:1129–40. 10.1177/1049732305275882
    1. Berger R. Now I see it, now I don?t: researcher?s position and reflexivity in qualitative research. Qualitative Research 2015;15:219–34. 10.1177/1468794112468475
    1. Gillard S, Simons L, Turner K, et al. . Patient and public involvement in the coproduction of knowledge: reflection on the analysis of qualitative data in a mental health study. Qual Health Res 2012;22:1126–37. 10.1177/1049732312448541
    1. Gill M, Bagshaw SM, McKenzie E, et al. . Patient and Family Member-Led Research in the Intensive Care Unit: a novel approach to Patient-Centered Research. PLoS One 2016;11:e0160947 10.1371/journal.pone.0160947
    1. Carter N, Bryant-Lukosius D, DiCenso A, et al. . The use of triangulation in qualitative research. Oncol Nurs Forum 2014;41:545–7. 10.1188/14.ONF.545-547
    1. Archer S, Montague J, Bali A. Exploring the experience of an enhanced recovery programme for gynaecological Cancer patients: a qualitative study. Perioper Med 2014;3:2 10.1186/2047-0525-3-2
    1. Bryan S, Dukes S. The enhanced Recovery Programme for stoma patients: an audit. Br J Nurs 2010;19:831–4. 10.12968/bjon.2010.19.13.48859
    1. Fecher-Jones I, Taylor C, experience L. Lived experience, enhanced recovery and laparoscopic colonic resection. Br J Nurs 2015;24:223–8. 10.12968/bjon.2015.24.4.223
    1. Khan S, Wilson T, Ahmed J, et al. . Quality of life and patient satisfaction with enhanced recovery protocols. Colorectal Dis 2010;12:1175–82. 10.1111/j.1463-1318.2009.01997.x
    1. Norlyk A, Harder I. Recovering at home: participating in a fast-track Colon cancer surgery programme. Nurs Inq 2011;18:165–73. 10.1111/j.1440-1800.2011.00519.x
    1. Rymaruk S, Williams J, Kurrimboccus S. Carers' perceptions of the enhanced recovery programme in colorectal surgery. J Perioper Pract 2013;23:246–50.
    1. Short V, Atkinson C, Ness AR, et al. . Patient experiences of perioperative nutrition within an enhanced Recovery after Surgery programme for colorectal surgery: a qualitative study. Colorectal Dis 2016;18:O74–O80. 10.1111/codi.13245
    1. Taylor C, Burch J. Feedback on an enhanced recovery programme for colorectal surgery. Br J Nurs 2011;20:286–90. 10.12968/bjon.2011.20.5.286
    1. Vandrevala T, Senior V, Spring L, et al. . 'Am I really ready to go home?': a qualitative study of patients' experience of early discharge following an enhanced recovery programme for liver resection surgery. Support Care Cancer 2016;24:3447–54. 10.1007/s00520-016-3158-6
    1. Sheddy A. Handbook on Citizen Engagement: Beyond Consultation Canadian Policy Research Network. (retrieved Oct 2016).
    1. Kovacs Burns K, Bellows M, Eigenseher C, et al. . 'Practical' resources to support patient and family engagement in healthcare decisions: a scoping review. BMC Health Serv Res 2014;14:175 10.1186/1472-6963-14-175
    1. Carman KL, Dardess P, Maurer M, et al. . Patient and family engagement: a framework for understanding the elements and developing interventions and policies. Health Aff 2013;32:223–31. 10.1377/hlthaff.2012.1133
    1. Alberta Innovates. Patient engagement Resources. retrieved October 2016.
    1. International Association for Public Participation. P2 practitioner tools. retrieved October 2016.
    1. Lithner M, Johansson J, Andersson E, et al. . Perceived information after surgery for colorectal Cancer--an explorative study. Colorectal Dis 2012;14:1340–50. 10.1111/j.1463-1318.2012.02982.x
    1. Graham ID, Logan J, Harrison MB, et al. . Lost in knowledge translation: time for a map? J Contin Educ Health Prof 2006;26:13–24. 10.1002/chp.47
    1. National Health Service England. Patient and public participation policy. 2015. (Retrieved March 2017).
    1. Mockford C, Staniszewska S, Griffiths F, et al. . The impact of patient and public involvement on UK NHS health care: a systematic review. Int J Qual Health Care 2012;24:28–38. 10.1093/intqhc/mzr066

Source: PubMed

3
Předplatit