Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26183086›Full record

ArticleImplementation science : IS2015

Successful implementation of an enhanced recovery after surgery programme for elective colorectal surgery: a process evaluation of champions' experiences.

Lesley Gotlib Conn, Marg McKenzie, Emily A Pearsall, Robin S McLeod

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Implementation science : IS, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 73 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
73citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

73 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

13 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Lesley Gotlib ConnEvaluative Clinical Sciences, Trauma, Emergency and Critical Care Research Program, Sunnybrook Research Institute, 2075 Bayview Ave., Room K3W-28, Toronto, ON, M4N 3M5, Canada. lesley.gotlibconn@sunnybrook.ca.
Marg McKenzieDepartment of Surgery, Mount Sinai Hospital Joseph and Wolf Lebovic Health Complex, 600 University Avenue, Toronto, ON, M5G 1X5, Canada. mmckenzie@mtsinai.on.ca.
Emily A PearsallDepartment of Surgery, Mount Sinai Hospital Joseph and Wolf Lebovic Health Complex, 600 University Avenue, Toronto, ON, M5G 1X5, Canada. epearsall@mtsinai.on.ca.
Robin S McLeodDepartment of Surgery, and Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, M5T 1P5, Canada. robin.mcleod@cancercare.on.ca.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEnhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) is a multimodal evidence-based approach to patient care that has become the standard in elective colorectal surgery. Implemented globally, ERAS programmes represent a considerable change in practice for many surgical care providers. Our current understanding of specific implementation and sustainability challenges is limited. In January 2013, we began a 2-year ERAS implementation for elective colorectal surgery in 15 academic hospitals in Ontario. The purpose of this study was to understand the process enablers and barriers that influenced the success of ERAS implementation in these centres with a view towards supporting sustainable change.

methodsA qualitative process evaluation was conducted from June to September 2014. Semi-structured interviews with implementation champions were completed, and an iterative inductive thematic analysis was conducted. Following a data-driven analysis, the Normalization Process Theory (NPT) was used as an analytic framework to understand the impact of various implementation processes. The NPT constructs were used as sensitizing concepts, reviewed against existing data categories for alignment and fit.

resultsFifty-eight participants were included: 15 surgeons, 14 anaesthesiologists, 15 nurses, and 14 project coordinators. A number of process-related implementation enablers were identified: champions' belief in the value of the programme, the fit and cohesion of champions and their teams locally and provincially, a bottom-up approach to stakeholder engagement targeting organizational relationship-building, receptivity and support of division leaders, and the normalization of ERAS as everyday practice. Technical enablers identified included effective integration with existing clinical systems and using audit and feedback to report to hospital stakeholders. There was an overall optimism that ERAS implementation would be sustained, accompanied by concern about long-term organizational support.

conclusionsSuccessful ERAS implementation is achieved by a complex series of cognitive and social processes which previously have not been well described. Using the Normalization Process Theory as a framework, this analysis demonstrates the importance of champion coherence, external and internal relationship building, and the strategic management of a project's organization-level visibility as important to ERAS uptake and sustainability.

Indexed as

Quality ImprovementColonColorectal SurgeryElective Surgical ProceduresHumansPostoperative CareProgram DevelopmentProgram EvaluationRectum

Identifiers

PMID26183086
PMCPMC4504167

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.