Patient education about recovery after colorectal surgery: systematic scoping review

Patient experiences of left-sided colorectal resection by robotic, conventional laparoscopic and open approaches: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Robotic surgery (RS) is increasingly employed in colorectal surgical practice, widening the range of surgical techniques offered to patients. We investigated the perceptions of patients with colorectal cancer in relation to RS, open surgery (OS) and conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS), to identify ideas or assumptions which, in the context of shared surgeon-patient decision-making, may affect the resultant choice of surgical technique. We also investigated salient factors affecting patients' perioperative experience, including those of RS patients, to guide improvements in care and preoperative patient preparation.

METHODS

This study was conducted on patients who underwent resection of left-sided colorectal cancer at a large UK teaching hospital from November 2020 to July 2021. Purposive sampling was used to ensure a roughly equal proportion of patients who underwent RS, CLS and OS. The patients included in the study participated in semi-structured interviews six weeks postoperatively. The interview schedule allowed discussion around patients' experience of their surgery and postoperative recovery, and their perceptions of surgical techniques. Interview transcripts were coded manually using inductive thematic analysis, and analyst triangulation was employed to refine coding schemes and ensure reliability of emerging themes.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven patients were recruited to the study; RS n = 9 (median age 69 [range 60-80] years); CLS n = 10 (median age 72 [range 32-82] years; OS n = 8 (median age 71 [range 60-75] years). Patients understood the technological benefits of RS but were concerned by a risk of technological failure causing patient harm. OS was understood to be associated with more pain and longer recovery than RS or CLS. Patients perceived CLS to be more technically challenging compared with OS. Less pain and smaller wounds than expected were significant positive factors in the experience of RS and CLS patients specifically. Complications and emotional impact were significant factors in the experience of all groups, for which many patients felt underprepared.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients generally have a positive view of RS and technical innovation in surgery. Concerns mostly centred around failure of technology. Many patients felt unprepared for significant factors in their perioperative experience. Surgeons and healthcare providers should be prepared to address patients' perceptions and expectations of colorectal surgery preoperatively.

Guidelines for Perioperative Care in Elective Abdominal and Pelvic Surgery at Primary and Secondary Hospitals in Low-Middle-Income Countries (LMIC's): Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Society Recommendation

Background

This is the first Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS®) Society guideline for primary and secondary hospitals in low–middle-income countries (LMIC’s) for elective abdominal and gynecologic care.

Methods

The ERAS LMIC Guidelines group was established by the ERAS® Society in collaboration with different representatives of perioperative care from LMIC’s. The group consisted of seven members from the ERAS® Society and eight members from LMIC’s. An updated systematic literature search and evaluation of evidence from previous ERAS® guidelines was performed by the leading authors of the Colorectal (2018) and Gynecologic (2019) surgery guidelines (Gustafsson et al in World J Surg 43:6592–695, Nelson et al in Int J Gynecol Cancer 29(4):651–668). Meta-analyses randomized controlled trials (RCTs), prospective and retrospective cohort studies from both HIC’s and LMIC’s were considered for each perioperative item. The members in the LMIC group then applied the current evidence and adapted the recommendations for each intervention as well as identifying possible new items relevant to LMIC’s. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation system (GRADE) methodology was used to determine the quality of the published evidence. The strength of the recommendations was based on importance of the problem, quality of evidence, balance between desirable and undesirable effects, acceptability to key stakeholders, cost of implementation and specifically the feasibility of implementing in LMIC’s and determined through discussions and consensus.

Results

In addition to previously described ERAS® Society interventions, the following items were included, revised or discussed: the Surgical Safety Checklist (SSC), preoperative routine human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) testing in countries with a high prevalence of HIV/AIDS (CD4 and viral load for those patients that are HIV positive), delirium screening and prevention, COVID 19 screening, VTE prophylaxis, immuno-nutrition, prehabilitation, minimally invasive surgery (MIS) and a standardized postoperative monitoring guideline.

Conclusions

These guidelines are seen as a starting point to address the urgent need to improve perioperative care and to effect data-driven, evidence-based care in LMIC’s.

Attitudes towards Enhanced Recovery after Surgery (ERAS) interventions in colorectal surgery: nationwide survey of Australia and New Zealand colorectal surgeons

BACKGROUND

Whilst Enhanced Recovery after Surgery (ERAS) has been widely accepted in the international colorectal surgery community, there remains significant variations in ERAS programme implementations, compliance rates and best practice recommendations in international guidelines.

METHODS

A questionnaire was distributed to colorectal surgeons from Australia and New Zealand after ethics approval. It evaluated specialist attitudes towards the effectiveness of specific ERAS interventions in improving short term outcomes after colorectal surgery. The data were analysed using a rating scale and graded response model in item response theory (IRT) on Stata MP, version 15 (StataCorp LP, College Station, TX).

RESULTS

Of 300 colorectal surgeons, 95 (31.7%) participated in the survey. Of eighteen ERAS interventions, this study identified eight strategies as most effective in improving ERAS programmes alongside early oral feeding and mobilisation. These included pre-operative iron infusion for anaemic patients (IRT score = 7.82 [95% CI: 6.01-9.16]), minimally invasive surgery (IRT score = 7.77 [95% CI: 5.96-9.07]), early in-dwelling catheter removal (IRT score = 7.69 [95% CI: 5.83-9.01]), pre-operative smoking cessation (IRT score = 7.68 [95% CI: 5.49-9.18]), pre-operative counselling (IRT score = 7.44 [95% CI: 5.58-8.88]), avoiding drains in colon surgery (IRT score = 7.37 [95% CI: 5.17-8.95]), avoiding nasogastric tubes (IRT score = 7.29 [95% CI: 5.32-8.8]) and early drain removal in rectal surgery (IRT score = 5.64 [95% CI: 3.49-7.66]).

CONCLUSIONS

This survey has demonstrated the current attitudes of colorectal surgeons from Australia and New Zealand regarding ERAS interventions. Eight of the interventions assessed in this study including pre-operative iron infusion for anaemic patients, minimally invasive surgery, early in-dwelling catheter removal, pre-operative smoking cessation, pre-operative counselling, avoidance of drains in colon surgery, avoiding nasogastric tubes and early drain removal in rectal surgery should be considered an important part of colorectal ERAS programmes.

Stakeholders' Perspectives on eHealth Support in Colorectal Cancer Survivorship: Qualitative Interview Study

Background

eHealth interventions may represent the way forward in following up patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) after hospital discharge to support them in coping with the illness, strengthen their self-management, and increase their quality of life. By involving end users of eHealth in cocreation processes when designing eHealth solutions, an acceptable and relevant product can be secured. Stakeholders’ perspectives could aid in closing the gap between research-developed products and the implementation of eHealth services in real-life scenarios.

Objective

This study aims to explore the views of patients with CRC, their informal caregivers, and health care professionals (HCPs) on information technology and the design of eHealth support in CRC care.

Methods

A qualitative, explorative design was used to conduct 31 semistructured individual interviews with 41% (13/31) patients with CRC, 29% (9/31) informal caregivers, and 29% (9/31) HCPs recruited from the gastrosurgical ward of a university hospital in southwestern Norway. A semistructured interview guide was used for data collection, and the data were analyzed by systematic text condensation.

Results

Participants described the diverse experiences of patients with CRC seeking web-based information. Age and digital competence were highlighted as influencers of the use of information technology. Patients rarely received advice from HCPs about relevant and secure websites containing information on CRC diagnosis and treatment. Features of desired eHealth interventions in following up patients with CRC were patient education, health monitoring, and communication with HCPs.

Conclusions

Several elements affect the activities of patients with CRC seeking health information. Age, inexperience with computer technology, and lack of access to web-based health information may reduce the ability of patients with CRC to engage in decision-making processes regarding illness and treatment. An eHealth service for patients with CRC should comprise features for information, education, and support for self-management and should aim to be individually adapted to the patient’s age and digital competence. Involving end users of eHealth services is necessary to ensure high-quality tailored services that are perceived as user friendly and relevant to the end users.

Information needs for recovery after colorectal surgery: a patient focus group study

AIM

The provision of information to patients is an important part of recovery after colorectal surgery. This study aimed to define patient information needs, barriers to effective understanding and insights into how information provision may be improved.

METHOD

A patient focus group was convened. This comprised a broad, convenience sample of 11 participants from across the United Kingdom with experience of major colorectal surgery. A semistructured topic guide was used to facilitate discussion about previous experiences of information provision and how this may be improved. Data were analysed thematically and are presented as major themes.

RESULTS

Overall, participants felt that their information needs are poorly prioritized by healthcare professionals. Barriers to understanding and retaining information include highly emotional situations (such as receiving bad news) and inappropriate information design (such as the use of inaccessible language). Participants expressed how information resources should: (a) address patients' individual information needs; (b) empower patients to take an active role in their recovery; (c) support patients with meaningful education and sign-posted resources; and (d) recognize patients' heightened need for information during recovery at home.

CONCLUSION

This study provides key insights into the information needs of patients undergoing colorectal surgery. These should inform the development of future information resources, whose format, timing and design are currently supported by low-quality evidence.