Development and implementation of an institutional enhanced recovery program data process

What defines the "value" of robotic surgery for patients with gastrointestinal cancers? Perspectives from a U.S. Cancer Center

The use of robotic surgery has experienced rapid growth across diverse medical conditions, with a notable emphasis on gastrointestinal cancers. The advanced technologies incorporated into robotic surgery platforms have played a pivotal role in enabling the safe performance of complex procedures, including gastrectomy and pancreatectomy, through a minimally invasive approach. However, there exists a noteworthy gap in high-level evidence demonstrating that robotic surgery for gastric and pancreatic cancers has substantial benefits compared to traditional open or laparoscopic methods. The primary impediment hindering the broader implementation of robotic surgery is its cost. The escalating healthcare expenses in the United States have prompted healthcare providers and payors to explore patient-centered, value-based healthcare models and reimbursement systems that embrace cost-effectiveness. Thus, it is important to determine what defines the value of robotic surgery. It must either maintain or enhance oncological quality and improve complication rates compared to open procedures. Moreover, its true value should be apparent in patients' expedited recovery and improved quality of life. Another essential aspect of robotic surgery's value lies in minimizing or even eliminating opioid use, even after major operations, offering considerable benefits to the broader public health landscape. A quicker return to oncological therapy has the potential to improve overall oncological outcomes, while a speedier return to work not only alleviates individual financial distress but also positively impacts societal productivity. In this article, we comprehensively review and summarize the current landscape of health economics and value-based care, with a focus on robotic surgery for gastrointestinal cancers.

Challenges and successes in implementing an integrated electronic patient record (HIVE) at the Manchester University National Health Service Foundation Trust, England: 1000+ legacy systems, 10 hospitals, one electronic patient record

BACKGROUND

The Manchester University National Health Service (NHS) Foundation Trust (MFT) is one of the largest NHS Trusts in England. Historically, the Trust has had very mixed clinical record keeping, including over 1000 individual information systems. None of these health information technology systems had the full functionality of an integrated electronic patient record (EPR). MFT evolved to its current size and complexity with a vision to improve patient care in Greater Manchester by adopting a Trust-wide EPR. The EPR "Go Live" occurred in September 2022.

AIM

To describe the process of EPR integration as it reflected and impacted upon MFT's health information management (HIM) teams.

METHOD

MFT worked through a 2-year readiness program of work. This included technical readiness, software development and migration planning. Migration of data from the approximately 1000 systems was a major undertaking, during which access to the clinical history and ongoing operational reporting needed to be maintained. Pre-implementation requirements were outlined, a change management program was implemented, and the overall implementation was managed to tight timelines.

DISCUSSION

"Go Live" was achieved for the EPIC EPR product (HIVE) within MFT. Legacy systems are still in the process of being decommissioned and staff are transacting within HIVE. Significant changes in processes and reporting continue to be made, despite some challenges.

CONCLUSION

The Trust delivered the single largest EPIC European "Go live." Lessons learnt continue to be identified. The impact of what the EPR means for the HIM function is described.

Evaluating Implementation Costs of an Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Protocol in Colorectal Surgery: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols have been well documented in the current literature to improve healthcare outcomes by decreasing length of stay, resource utilization, and morbidity without increasing readmission rates or complications. This subsequently leads to a net decrease in hospital costs. However, the initial costs of implementing such a program have not been well described, which is crucial information for hospitals with less resources. The aim of this study was to provide a cohesive review of the current literature for the costs of implementing a colorectal surgery ERAS protocol.

METHODS

A comprehensive review was conducted on five databases (Google Scholar, Web of Science, PROSPERO, PubMed, and Cochrane) with the assistance of a professional librarian. All relevant English articles published between 1995 and June 2021 were screened for eligibility prior to inclusion in the review. Cost data were converted to US dollars based on the exchange rate at the end time of the study period for standardization.

RESULTS

Seven studies were included for review. The studies evaluated a range of 50-1295 patients through their respective ERAS programs, which were followed for 5 to 22 months. ERAS implementation costs ranged from $57 to $1536 per patient. Components for each ERAS program varied for each study, but ultimately, the greatest costs were attributed to personnel.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite data heterogeneity and inconsistencies between cost breakdowns, a majority of the implementation cost was found to be secondary to personnel. This review demonstrates the need for a more standardized approach for reporting ERAS implementation costs through an open database as well as a potential streamlining of the ERAS protocol to facilitate implementation in institutions with less financial resources.