[The application of rapid rehabilitation model of multidisciplinary cooperation in cesarean section and the evaluation of health economics]

The research frontier of cesarean section recovery: A bibliometric analysis

Background

Cesarean section (CS) has become an effective means to solve dystocia and some obstetric complications, and to save the lives of women and perinatal women. Disparities in quality obstetric care and rehabilitation in CS result from differences in health care systems across regions, and more scientific and reasonable rehabilitation programmes and management measures will benefit more parturient and newborns worldwide who must take CS. In this study, we performed a bibliometric analysis to collect a graphical representation of the CS recovery.

Methods

A total of 995 documents of CS recovery were retrieved from the Web of Science Core Collection (WOSCC) on December 31, 2021, and then VOS viewer 1.6.18 was used for visual analysis.

Results

Over the last 20 years, the researches of CS recovery have gradually increased and it will continue to grow in the next period. Anesthesia and Analgesia is the most popular journal in CS recovery. Most of the representative achievements are concentrated in the relevant institutions of European and American countries, Brendan Carvalho and Ian J. Wrench are among the outstanding scholars in this field, but the overall outcome is limited by limited regional work and lack of broad cooperation and representation. "CS," "surgery," "management," "recovery," "enhanced recovery," and "risk factors" are high frequency keywords, and there is a close relationship between "management" and "enhanced recovery" around the CS and they also become one of the key factors to regulate the condition of patients.

Conclusion

This work firstly analyzed the research condition of CS recovery by a bibliometric analysis. According to the practice guideline, it produces some outstanding representative productions, which involves enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) and will continue to be the focus of researchers. More substantive research articles and large-scale clinical studies may greatly enhance the scientific value, and it is necessary to strengthen the ERAS guideline and cooperation between researchers, generate broader consensus and results, and ultimately provide help for CS recovery.

What Do We Know About Teamwork in Chinese Hospitals? A Systematic Review

Background and Objective: Improving quality of care is one of the primary goals in current Chinese hospital reforms. Teamwork can play an essential role. Characteristics of teamwork and interventions for improving teamwork in hospitals have been widely studied. However, most of these studies are from a Western context; evidence from China is scarce. Because of the contextual differences between China and Western countries, empirical evidence on teamwork from Western hospitals may have limited validity in China. This systematic review aims to advance the evidence base and understanding of teamwork in Chinese hospitals. Methods: Both English (i.e., Embase, Medline, and Web of Science) and Chinese databases (i.e., CNKI, CQVIP, and Wanfang) were searched for relevant articles until February 6, 2020. We included the studies that empirically researched teamwork in Chinese hospitals. Studies were excluded if they (1) were not conducted in hospitals in Mainland China, (2) did not research teamwork on team interventions, (3) were not empirical, (4) were not written in English or Chinese, (5) were not published in peer-reviewed journals, and (6) were not conducted in teams that provide direct patient care. Both deductive and inductive approaches were used to analyze data. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) was used to assess their methodological quality. Results: A total of 70 articles (i.e., 39 English articles and 31 Chinese articles) were included. The results are presented in two main categories: Teamwork components and Team interventions. The evidence regarding the relationships among inputs, processes, and outcomes is scarce and mostly inconclusive. The only conclusive evidence shows that females perceive better team processes than males. Similar types of training and tools were introduced as can be found in Western literature, all showing positive effects. In line with the Chinese health reforms, many of the intervention studies regard the introduction of multidisciplinary teams (MDTs). The evidence on the implementation of MDTs reveals that they have led to lower complication rates, shorter hospital stays, higher diagnosis accuracy, efficiency improvement, and a variety of better disease-specific clinical outcomes. Evidence on the effect on patient survival is inconclusive. Conclusion: The Chinese studies on teamwork components mainly focus on the input-process relationship. The evidence provided on this relationship is, however, mostly inconclusive. The intervention studies in Chinese hospitals predominantly focus on patient outcomes rather than organizational and employee outcomes. The introduction of training, tools, and MDTs generally shows promising results. The evidence from primary hospitals and rural areas, which are prioritized in the health reforms, is especially scarce. Advancing the evidence base on teamwork, especially in primary hospitals and rural areas, is needed and can inform policy and management to promote the health reform implementation. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42020175069, identifier CRD42020175069.

Comprehensive economic evaluation of enhanced recovery after surgery in hepatectomy

BACKGROUND

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) is attracting extensive attention and being widely applied to reduce postoperative stress and accelerate recovery. However, the economic benefits of ERAS are less clarified at the social level. We aimed to assess the economic impact of ERAS in hepatectomy from the perspectives of patients, hospitals and society, as well as identify the approach to create the economic benefits of ERAS.

METHODS

By combining the literature and national statistical data, the cost-effectiveness framework was clarified, and parameter values were determined. Cost-effectiveness analysis, cost-benefit analysis and cost-minimisation analysis were used to compare ERAS and conventional treatment from the perspectives of patients, hospitals and society. The capital flow diagram was used to analyse the change between them.

RESULTS

ERAS significantly reduced the economic burden of disease on patients ($8935.02 vs $10,470.02). The hospital received an incremental benefit in ERAS (the incremental benefit cost ratio value is 1.09), and the total social cost was reduced ($5958.67 vs $6725.80). Capital flow diagram analysis demonstrated that the average daily cost per capita in the ERAS group increased ($669.51 vs $589.98), whereas the benefits depended on the reduction of hospital stay and productivity loss.

CONCLUSION

The mechanism by which ERAS works is to reduce the average length of stay, thereby reducing the economic burden and productivity loss on patients and promoting the hospital bed turnover rate. Therefore, ERAS should further focus on accelerating the rehabilitation process, and more economic support (such as subsidies) should be given to hospitals to carry out ERAS.

The Clinical Efficacy and Safety of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery for Cesarean Section: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials and Observational Studies

Background: Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) has been adopted in some maternity units and studied extensively in cesarean section (CS) in the last years, showing encouraging results in clinic practice. However, the present evidence assessing the effectiveness of ERAS for CS remains weak, and there is a paucity in the published literature, especially in improving maternal outcomes. Our study aimed to systematically evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of ERAS protocols for CS.

Methods: A systematic literature search using Embase, PubMed, and the Cochrane Library was carried out up to October 2020. The appropriate randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies applying ERAS for patients undergoing CS were included in this study, comparing the effect of ERAS protocols with conventional care on length of hospital stay (LOS), readmission rate, incidence of postoperative complications, postoperative pain score, postoperative opioid use, and cost of hospitalization. All statistical analyses were conducted with the RevMan 5.3 software.

Results: Ten studies (four RCTs and six observational studies) involving 16,391 patients were included. ERAS was associated with a decreased LOS (WMD −7.47 h, 95% CI: −8.36 to −6.59 h, p < 0.00001) and lower incidence of postoperative complications (RR: 0.50, 95% CI: 0.37 to 0.68, p < 0.00001). Moreover, pooled analysis showed that postoperative pain score (WMD: −1.23, 95% CI: −1.32 to −1.15, p < 0.00001), opioid use (SMD: −0.46, 95% CI: −0.58 to −0.34, p < 0.00001), and hospital cost (SMD:−0.54, 95% CI: −0.63 to −0.45, p < 0.00001) were significantly lower in the ERAS group than in the conventional care group. No significant difference was observed with regard to readmission rate (RR: 0.86, 95% CI: 0.48 to 1.54, p = 0.62).

Conclusions: The available evidence suggested that ERAS applying to CS significantly reduced postoperative complications, lowered the postoperative pain score and opioid use, shortened the hospital stay, and potentially reduced hospital cost without compromising readmission rates. Therefore, protocols implementing ERAS in CS appear to be effective and safe. However, the results should be interpreted with caution owing to the limited number and methodological quality of included studies; hence, future large, well-designed, and better methodological quality studies are needed to enhance the body of evidence.