临床医生对 "加强术后恢复"(ERAS)以提高手术患者安全的看法:澳大利亚全国调查。

IF 2.6 Q1 SURGERY Patient Safety in Surgery Pub Date : 2024-05-23 DOI:10.1186/s13037-024-00397-w
Josephine Lovegrove, Georgia Tobiano, Wendy Chaboyer, Joan Carlini, Rhea Liang, Keith Addy, Brigid M Gillespie
{"title":"临床医生对 \"加强术后恢复\"(ERAS)以提高手术患者安全的看法:澳大利亚全国调查。","authors":"Josephine Lovegrove, Georgia Tobiano, Wendy Chaboyer, Joan Carlini, Rhea Liang, Keith Addy, Brigid M Gillespie","doi":"10.1186/s13037-024-00397-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Surgical patients are at risk of postoperative complications, which may lead to increased morbidity, mortality, hospital length-of-stay and healthcare costs. Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS®) protocols are evidence-based and have demonstrated effectiveness in decreasing complications and associated consequences. However, their adoption in Australia has been limited and the reason for this is unclear. This study aimed to describe clinicians' perceptions of ERAS protocols in Australia.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A national online survey of anaesthetists, surgeons and nurses was undertaken. Invitations to participate were distributed via emails from professional colleges. The 30-item survey captured respondent characteristics, ERAS perceptions, beliefs, education and learning preferences and future planning considerations. The final question was open-ended for elaboration of perceptions of ERAS. Descriptive and inferential statistics were used to describe and compare group differences across disciplines relative to perceptions of ERAS.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The sample included 178 responses (116 nurses, 65.2%; 36 surgeons, 20.2%; 26 anaesthetists, 14.6%) across six states and two territories. More than half (n = 104; 58.8%) had used ERAS protocols in patient care, and most perceived they were 'very knowledgeable' (n = 24; 13.6%) or 'knowledgeable' (n = 71; 40.3%) of ERAS. However, fewer nurses had cared for a patient using ERAS (p <.01) and nurses reported lower levels of knowledge (p <.001) than their medical counterparts. Most respondents agreed ERAS protocols improved patient care and financial efficiency and were a reasonable time investment (overall Md 3-5), but nurses generally recorded lower levels of agreement (p.013 to < 0.001). Lack of information was the greatest barrier to ERAS knowledge (n = 97; 62.6%), while seminars/lectures from international and national leaders were the preferred learning method (n = 59; 41.3%). Most supported broad implementation of ERAS (n = 130; 87.8%).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>There is a need to promote ERAS and provide education, which may be nuanced based on the results, to improve implementation in Australia. Nurses particularly need to be engaged in ERAS protocols given their significant presence throughout the surgical journey. There is also a need to co-design implementation strategies with stakeholders that target identified facilitators and barriers, including lack of support from senior administration, managers and clinicians and resource constraints.</p>","PeriodicalId":46782,"journal":{"name":"Patient Safety in Surgery","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11119013/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Clinicians' perceptions of \\\"enhanced recovery after surgery\\\" (ERAS) protocols to improve patient safety in surgery: a national survey from Australia.\",\"authors\":\"Josephine Lovegrove, Georgia Tobiano, Wendy Chaboyer, Joan Carlini, Rhea Liang, Keith Addy, Brigid M Gillespie\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s13037-024-00397-w\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Surgical patients are at risk of postoperative complications, which may lead to increased morbidity, mortality, hospital length-of-stay and healthcare costs. Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS®) protocols are evidence-based and have demonstrated effectiveness in decreasing complications and associated consequences. However, their adoption in Australia has been limited and the reason for this is unclear. This study aimed to describe clinicians' perceptions of ERAS protocols in Australia.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A national online survey of anaesthetists, surgeons and nurses was undertaken. Invitations to participate were distributed via emails from professional colleges. The 30-item survey captured respondent characteristics, ERAS perceptions, beliefs, education and learning preferences and future planning considerations. The final question was open-ended for elaboration of perceptions of ERAS. Descriptive and inferential statistics were used to describe and compare group differences across disciplines relative to perceptions of ERAS.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The sample included 178 responses (116 nurses, 65.2%; 36 surgeons, 20.2%; 26 anaesthetists, 14.6%) across six states and two territories. More than half (n = 104; 58.8%) had used ERAS protocols in patient care, and most perceived they were 'very knowledgeable' (n = 24; 13.6%) or 'knowledgeable' (n = 71; 40.3%) of ERAS. However, fewer nurses had cared for a patient using ERAS (p <.01) and nurses reported lower levels of knowledge (p <.001) than their medical counterparts. Most respondents agreed ERAS protocols improved patient care and financial efficiency and were a reasonable time investment (overall Md 3-5), but nurses generally recorded lower levels of agreement (p.013 to < 0.001). Lack of information was the greatest barrier to ERAS knowledge (n = 97; 62.6%), while seminars/lectures from international and national leaders were the preferred learning method (n = 59; 41.3%). Most supported broad implementation of ERAS (n = 130; 87.8%).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>There is a need to promote ERAS and provide education, which may be nuanced based on the results, to improve implementation in Australia. Nurses particularly need to be engaged in ERAS protocols given their significant presence throughout the surgical journey. There is also a need to co-design implementation strategies with stakeholders that target identified facilitators and barriers, including lack of support from senior administration, managers and clinicians and resource constraints.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":46782,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Patient Safety in Surgery\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11119013/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Patient Safety in Surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13037-024-00397-w\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"SURGERY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Patient Safety in Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13037-024-00397-w","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:手术患者面临术后并发症的风险,这可能导致发病率、死亡率、住院时间和医疗费用的增加。术后恢复强化方案(ERAS®)以证据为基础,在减少并发症和相关后果方面效果显著。然而,这些方案在澳大利亚的应用却很有限,原因尚不清楚。本研究旨在描述澳大利亚临床医生对 ERAS 协议的看法:方法:对麻醉师、外科医生和护士进行了一次全国性在线调查。专业学院通过电子邮件发出了参与邀请。调查共 30 个项目,包括受访者的特征、对 ERAS 的看法、信念、教育和学习偏好以及对未来规划的考虑。最后一个问题是开放式的,用于阐述对 ERAS 的看法。我们使用了描述性和推论性统计方法来描述和比较各学科对 ERAS 的看法的群体差异:样本包括六个州和两个地区的 178 份答复(护士 116 份,占 65.2%;外科医生 36 份,占 20.2%;麻醉师 26 份,占 14.6%)。半数以上(104 人;58.8%)的护士在患者护理中使用过 ERAS 协议,大多数护士认为自己对 ERAS "非常了解"(24 人;13.6%)或 "了解"(71 人;40.3%)。然而,使用过ERAS护理病人的护士人数较少(P 结论):有必要在澳大利亚推广ERAS并提供教育(根据结果可能会有细微差别),以改善ERAS的实施情况。鉴于护士在整个手术过程中的重要作用,他们尤其需要参与ERAS方案。此外,还需要与利益相关者共同制定实施策略,针对已发现的促进因素和障碍,包括缺乏高级行政人员、管理人员和临床医生的支持以及资源限制等。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Clinicians' perceptions of "enhanced recovery after surgery" (ERAS) protocols to improve patient safety in surgery: a national survey from Australia.

Background: Surgical patients are at risk of postoperative complications, which may lead to increased morbidity, mortality, hospital length-of-stay and healthcare costs. Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS®) protocols are evidence-based and have demonstrated effectiveness in decreasing complications and associated consequences. However, their adoption in Australia has been limited and the reason for this is unclear. This study aimed to describe clinicians' perceptions of ERAS protocols in Australia.

Methods: A national online survey of anaesthetists, surgeons and nurses was undertaken. Invitations to participate were distributed via emails from professional colleges. The 30-item survey captured respondent characteristics, ERAS perceptions, beliefs, education and learning preferences and future planning considerations. The final question was open-ended for elaboration of perceptions of ERAS. Descriptive and inferential statistics were used to describe and compare group differences across disciplines relative to perceptions of ERAS.

Results: The sample included 178 responses (116 nurses, 65.2%; 36 surgeons, 20.2%; 26 anaesthetists, 14.6%) across six states and two territories. More than half (n = 104; 58.8%) had used ERAS protocols in patient care, and most perceived they were 'very knowledgeable' (n = 24; 13.6%) or 'knowledgeable' (n = 71; 40.3%) of ERAS. However, fewer nurses had cared for a patient using ERAS (p <.01) and nurses reported lower levels of knowledge (p <.001) than their medical counterparts. Most respondents agreed ERAS protocols improved patient care and financial efficiency and were a reasonable time investment (overall Md 3-5), but nurses generally recorded lower levels of agreement (p.013 to < 0.001). Lack of information was the greatest barrier to ERAS knowledge (n = 97; 62.6%), while seminars/lectures from international and national leaders were the preferred learning method (n = 59; 41.3%). Most supported broad implementation of ERAS (n = 130; 87.8%).

Conclusion: There is a need to promote ERAS and provide education, which may be nuanced based on the results, to improve implementation in Australia. Nurses particularly need to be engaged in ERAS protocols given their significant presence throughout the surgical journey. There is also a need to co-design implementation strategies with stakeholders that target identified facilitators and barriers, including lack of support from senior administration, managers and clinicians and resource constraints.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.80
自引率
8.10%
发文量
37
审稿时长
9 weeks
期刊最新文献
Association between postoperative complications and hospital length of stay: a large-scale observational study of 4,495,582 patients in the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) registry. Improving surgical technical skills for emergency fixation of unstable pelvic ring fractures: an experimental study using a pelvic ring fracture simulator. Efficacy of a novel oxygen scavenger mask in reducing local oxygen concentrations below the surgical fire risk threshold: an experimental proof-of-concept study. Unintentionally retained lap sponge mimicking an ovarian cyst two years after Caesarean section in a 37-year old patient: case report of a rare "never event" in Sudan. Opioid exit plans for tapering postoperative pain control in noncancer patients: a systematic review.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1