Key result
Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) programmes reduce patient mortality, morbidity, and length of stay, though sustaining the optimal >80% compliance target remains challenging.
Why the study?
To provide a brief summary of the progress of enhanced recovery over the last 5 to 10 years and set out what the future might hold for such programmes.
Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) programs improve patient outcomes and reduce length of stay, though achieving the necessary >80% compliance remains a clinical challenge.
May support ERAS adoption to improve perioperative outcomes; leaves open strategies for sustaining >80% compliance.
Purpose of Review To provide a brief summary of the progress of enhanced recovery over the last 5 to 10 years and set out what the future might hold for such programmes. Recent Findings There has been significant progress in the adoption of enhanced recovery programmes across multiple surgical specialities. However there is still difficulty in sustaining a target of > 80% compliance, which has been identified through research as the optimal level to observe best patient results. With increasing interest in perioperative medicine and prehabilitation, more focus is being put into enhanced recovery programmes. Summary The evidence continues to support the use of enhanced recovery programmes to reduce patient mortality, morbidity and length of stay and therefore saving cost and resource. However more progress needs to be made in adoption and compliance to these programmes. In the future, advances in technology may aid programme implementation and data collection.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Greenshields et al. (2020) conducted a review in Surgical patients. Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) programmes vs. Standard care was evaluated. Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) programmes reduce patient mortality, morbidity, and length of stay, though sustaining the optimal >80% compliance target remains challenging.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: