Why the study?
While ERAS improves surgical outcomes and costs, how it directly impacts the patient experience remains unclear.
How do enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) and patient-reported outcomes (PRO) impact patient experience and surgical outcomes in thoracic surgery?
How do enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) and patient-reported outcomes (PRO) impact patient experience and surgical outcomes in thoracic surgery?
Integrating patient-reported outcomes with ERAS protocols is essential for delivering patient-centered care and improving the overall patient experience in thoracic surgery.
ERAS may enhance surgical value; leaves open direct effects on patient-centered outcomes in thoracic procedures.
Quality-focused, cost-effective, patient-centered care is at the forefront of current healthcare reform. Recent data show that enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) results in improved surgical outcomes and decreased hospital costs. As a result, ERAS has been widely accepted among multiple surgical subspecialties as a modality for increasing the value of healthcare delivered to our patients. While this objective data is convincing for practitioners and administrators alike, how ERAS directly impacts the patient experience is unclear. Patient reported outcomes (PRO) are starting to drive patterns of healthcare delivery and influence surgical decision-making. In order to improve surgical outcomes and deliver patient-centered care, it is imperative that clinicians start reviewing objective metrics contained within morbidity and mortality data alongside subjective data regarding patients' experience. This article reviews the current data surrounding both ERAS and PROs within thoracic surgery and investigates how the two concepts are ultimately related.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Medbery et al. (2019) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 3 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: