Patient experience in the implementation of enhanced recovery after surgery strategy after radical gastric cancer surgery.
10.3760/cma.j.cn441530-20211115-00463
- Author:
Shi Qi WANG
1
;
Bo LIAN
1
;
Man GUO
1
;
Wei HUANG
1
;
Qin LI
1
;
Min WANG
1
;
Ju LU
1
;
Ying LIU
1
;
Gang JI
1
;
Qing Chuan ZHAO
1
Author Information
1. Xijing Hospital of Digestive Diseases, Xijing Hospital, Fourth Military Medical University, Xi'an 710032, China.
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- MeSH:
Enhanced Recovery After Surgery;
Female;
Gastrectomy;
Humans;
Length of Stay;
Male;
Pain;
Patient Outcome Assessment;
Postoperative Complications/surgery*;
Prospective Studies;
Retrospective Studies;
Stomach Neoplasms/surgery*;
Treatment Outcome
- From:
Chinese Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery
2022;25(7):582-589
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective: To investigate the experience of patients in the implementation of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) strategy after radical gastrectomy and the factors affecting the treatment experience. Methods: A prospective cohort study was carried out. Patients who were diagnosed with gastric cancer by pathology and underwent radical gastrectomy at the Xijing Digestive Disease Hospital from December 2019 to December 2020 were consecutively enrolled. Those who received emergency surgery, residual gastric cancer surgery, preoperative neoadjuvant chemotherapy, non-curative tumor resection, intraperitoneal metastasis, or other malignant tumors were excluded. Patients' expectation and experience during implementation were investigated by questionnaires. The questionnaire included three main parts: patients' expectation for ERAS, patients' experience during the ERAS implementation, and patients' outcomes within 30 days after discharge. The items on the expectation and experience were ranked from 0 to 10 by patients, which indicated to be unsatisfied/unimportant and satisfied/important respectively. According to their attitudes towards the ERAS strategy, patients were divided into the support group and the reject group. Patients' expectation and experience of hospital stay, and the clinical outcomes within 30 days after discharge were compared between the two groups. Categorical data were reported as number with percentage and the quantitative data were reported as mean with standard deviation, or where appropriate, as the median with interquartile range (Q1, Q3). Categorical data were compared using the Chi-squared test or Fisher's exact test, where appropriate. For continuous data, Student's t test or Mann-Whitney U test were used. Complication was classified according to Clavien-Dindo classification. Results: Of the included 112 patients (88 males and 24 females), aged (57.8±10.0) years, 35 patients (31.3%) were in the support group and 77 (68.7%) in the reject group. Anxiety was detected in 56.2% (63/112) of the patients with score >8. The admission education during the ERAS implementation improved the patients' cognitions of the ERAS strategy [M(Q1, Q3) score: 8 (4, 10) vs. 2 (0, 5), Z=-7.130, P<0.001]. The expected hospital stay of patients was longer than the actual stay [7 (7, 10) days vs. 6 (6, 7) days, Z=-4.800, P<0.001]. During the ERAS implementation, patients had low score in early mobilization [3 (1, 6)] and early oral intake [5 (2.25, 8)]. Fifty-eight (51.8%) patients planned the ERAS implementation at home after discharge, while 32.1% (36/112) preferred to stay in hospital until they felt totally recovered. Compared with the reject group, the support group had shorter expected hospital stay [7 (6, 10) days vs. 10 (7, 15) days, Z=-2.607, P=0.009], and higher expected recovery-efficiency score [9 (8, 10) vs. 7(5, 9), Z=-3.078, P=0.002], lower expected less-pain score [8 (6, 10) vs. 6 (5, 9) days, Z=-1.996, P=0.046], expected faster recovery of physical strength score [8 (6, 10) vs. 6 (4, 9), Z=-2.200, P=0.028] and expected less drainage tube score [8 (8, 10) vs. 8 (5, 10), Z=-2.075, P=0.038]. Worrying about complications (49.1%) and self-recognition of not recovery (46.4%) were the major concerns when assessing the experience toward ERAS. During the follow-up, 105 patients received follow-up calls. There were 57.1% (60/105) of patients who experienced a variety of discomforts after discharge, including pain (28.6%), bloating (20.0%), nausea (12.4%), fatigue (7.6%), and fever (2.9%). Within 30 days after discharge, 6.7% (7/105) of patients developed Clavien-Dindo level I and II operation-associated complications, including poor wound healing, intestinal obstruction, intraperitoneal bleeding, and wound infection, all of which were cured by conservative treatment. There were no complications of level III or above in the whole group after surgery. Compared with the support group, more patients in the reject group reported that they had not yet achieved self-expected recovery when discharged [57.1% (44/77) vs. 22.9% (8/35), χ2=11.372, P<0.001], and expected to return to their daily lives [39.0% (30/77) vs. 8.6% (3/35), χ2=10.693, P<0.001], with statistically significant differences (all P<0.05). Only 52.4% (55/105) of patients returned home to continue rehabilitation, and the remaining patients chose to go to other hospitals to continue their hospitalization after discharge, with a median length of stay of 7 (7, 9) days. Compared with the reject group, the support group had a higher proportion of home rehabilitation [59.7% (12/33) vs. 36.4% (43/72), χ2=4.950, P=0.026], and shorter time of self-perceived postoperative full recovery [14 (10, 20) days vs. 15 (14, 20) days, Z=2.100, P=0.036], with statistically significant differences (all P<0.05). Conclusions: Although ERAS has promoted postoperative rehabilitation while ensuring surgical safety, it has not been unanimously recognized by patients. Adequate rehabilitation education, good analgesia, good physical recovery, and early removal of drainage tubes may improve the patient's experience of ERAS.
