Patients as partners in Enhanced Recovery after Surgery: A qualitative patient-led study

BMJ Open

Volumn 7, Issue 6, 2017, Pages

  Gillis, Chelsia ^a   Gill, Marlyn ^b   Marlett, Nancy ^a,b   Mackean, Gail ^a   Germann, Kathy ^c   Gilmour, Loreen ^d   Nelson, Gregg ^a   Wasylak, Tracy ^d   Nguyen, Susan ^b   Araujo, Edamil ^b   Zelinsky, Sandra ^b   Gramlich, Leah ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY   (Canada)

^c UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA   (Canada)

^d ALBERTA HEALTH SERVICES   (Canada)

Author keywords

Colorectal surgery; Quality in healthcare

Indexed keywords

ALBERTA; CLINICAL ARTICLE; COLORECTAL SURGERY; CONSULTATION; DIAGNOSIS; DOCTOR PATIENT RELATION; DRAWING; FAMILY STUDY; FEMALE; GROUNDED THEORY; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; INTERVIEW; MALE; NARRATIVE; PATIENT PARTICIPATION; PEER GROUP; PERIOPERATIVE PERIOD; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; REMISSION; SAMPLING; SURGERY; TERTIARY CARE CENTER; ABDOMINAL SURGERY; ADULT; AGED; CLINICAL TRIAL; COLON; INFORMATION PROCESSING; MIDDLE AGED; MULTICENTER STUDY; POSTOPERATIVE CARE; POSTOPERATIVE COMPLICATION; PROGRAM EVALUATION; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH; RECTUM; RECURRENT DISEASE; REHABILITATION; VERY ELDERLY;

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; ALBERTA; COLON; DIGESTIVE SYSTEM SURGICAL PROCEDURES; FEMALE; FOCUS GROUPS; HUMANS; INTERVIEWS AS TOPIC; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PATIENT PARTICIPATION; PERIOPERATIVE CARE; POSTOPERATIVE CARE; POSTOPERATIVE COMPLICATIONS; PRACTICE GUIDELINES AS TOPIC; PROGRAM EVALUATION; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH; RECTUM; RECURRENCE;

EID: 85021297904     PISSN: None     EISSN: 20446055     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-017002     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Ljungqvist O, Scott M, Fearon KC. Enhanced recovery after surgery: a review. JAMA Surg 2017;152:292-298. Epub ahead of print.
2. Nelson G, Kiyang LN, Crumley ET, et al. Implementation of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Across a Provincial Healthcare System: The ERAS Alberta Colorectal Surgery Experience. World J Surg 2016;40:1092-103.
3. Nguyen T, Chuck A, Wasylak T, et al. An economic evaluation of the enhanced Recovery after Surgery (ERAS) multi-site implementation program for colorectal surgery in Alberta. Can J Surg 2016;59:6716.
4. Blazeby JM, Soulsby M, Winstone K, et al. A qualitative evaluation of patients' experiences of an enhanced recovery programme for colorectal cancer. Colorectal Dis 2010;12:e236-e242.
5. Bernard H, Foss M. Patient experiences of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS). Br J Nurs 2014;23:100-6.
6. Aasa A, Hovbäck M, Berterö CM. The importance of preoperative information for patient participation in colorectal surgery care. J Clin Nurs 2013;22:1604-12.
7. Sibbern T, Bull Sellevold V, Steindal SA, et al. Patients' experiences of enhanced recovery after surgery: a systematic review of qualitative studies. J Clin Nurs 2017;26. Epub ahead of print.
8. Gustafsson UO, Hausel J, Thorell A, et al. Adherence to the enhanced recovery after surgery protocol and outcomes after colorectal cancer surgery. Arch Surg 2011;146:571-7.
9. Marlett N, Emes C. Grey matters: a Guide for Collaborative Research with seniors. Calgary, Alberta: University of Calgary Press, 2010.
10. Anderson M, McCleary KK. From passengers to co-pilots: patient roles expand. Sci Transl Med 2015;7:291fs25.
11. Domecq JP, Prutsky G, Elraiyah T, et al. Patient engagement in research: a systematic review. BMC Health Serv Res 2014;14:89.
12. Miller JL, Teare SR, Marlett N, et al. Support for living a Meaningful Life with Osteoarthritis: a Patient-to-Patient Research Study. Patient 2016;9:457-64.
13. Simmons OE, Gregory TA. Grounded action: achieving optimal and sustainable change. Forum: Qualitative Social Research 2003;4:27.
14. Teram E, Schachter CL, Stalker CA. The case for integrating grounded theory and participatory action research: empowering clients to inform professional practice. Qual Health Res 2005;15:1129-40.
15. Berger R. Now I see it, now I dont: researchers position and reflexivity in qualitative research. Qualitative Research 2015;15:219-34.
16. Gillard S, Simons L, Turner K, et al. Patient and public involvement in the coproduction of knowledge: reflection on the analysis of qualitative data in a mental health study. Qual Health Res 2012;22:1126-37.
17. Gill M, Bagshaw SM, McKenzie E, et al. Patient and Family Member-Led Research in the Intensive Care Unit: a novel approach to Patient-Centered Research. PLoS One 2016;11:e0160947.
18. Carter N, Bryant-Lukosius D, DiCenso A, et al. The use of triangulation in qualitative research. Oncol Nurs Forum 2014;41:545-7.
19. Archer S, Montague J, Bali A. Exploring the experience of an enhanced recovery programme for gynaecological Cancer patients: a qualitative study. Perioper Med 2014;3:2.
20. Bryan S, Dukes S. The enhanced Recovery Programme for stoma patients: an audit. Br J Nurs 2010;19:831-4.
21. Fecher-Jones I, Taylor C, experience L. Lived experience, enhanced recovery and laparoscopic colonic resection. Br J Nurs 2015;24:223-8.
22. Khan S, Wilson T, Ahmed J, et al. Quality of life and patient satisfaction with enhanced recovery protocols. Colorectal Dis 2010;12:1175-82.
23. Norlyk A, Harder I. Recovering at home: participating in a fast-track Colon cancer surgery programme. Nurs Inq 2011;18:165-73.
24. Rymaruk S, Williams J, Kurrimboccus S. Carers' perceptions of the enhanced recovery programme in colorectal surgery. J Perioper Pract 2013;23:246-50.
25. Short V, Atkinson C, Ness AR, et al. Patient experiences of perioperative nutrition within an enhanced Recovery after Surgery programme for colorectal surgery: a qualitative study. Colorectal Dis 2016;18:O74-O80.
26. Taylor C, Burch J. Feedback on an enhanced recovery programme for colorectal surgery. Br J Nurs 2011;20:286-90.
27. Vandrevala T, Senior V, Spring L, et al. 'Am I really ready to go home': a qualitative study of patients' experience of early discharge following an enhanced recovery programme for liver resection surgery. Support Care Cancer 2016;24:3447-54.
28. Sheddy A. Handbook on Citizen Engagement: Beyond Consultation. Canadian Policy Research Network. http:// cprn. org/ doc. cfm doc= 1857& l= en (retrieved Oct 2016).
29. Kovacs Burns K, Bellows M, Eigenseher C, et al. 'Practical' resources to support patient and family engagement in healthcare decisions: a scoping review. BMC Health Serv Res 2014;14:175.
30. Carman KL, Dardess P, Maurer M, et al. Patient and family engagement: a framework for understanding the elements and developing interventions and policies. Health Aff 2013;32:223-31.
31. Alberta Innovates. Patient engagement Resources. retrieved October 2016. http://www. Aihealthsolutions. ca/ initiativespartnerships/ spor/ patient-engagement-platform/ patientengagement-resources/
32. International Association for Public Participation. P2 practitioner tools. retrieved October 2016. http://www. iap2. org/ page= A5
33. Lithner M, Johansson J, Andersson E, et al. Perceived information after surgery for colorectal Cancer-an explorative study. Colorectal Dis 2012;14:1340-50.
34. Graham ID, Logan J, Harrison MB, et al. Lost in knowledge translation: time for a map J Contin Educ Health Prof 2006;26:13-24.
35. National Health Service England. Patient and public participation policy. 2015. https://www. england. nhs. uk/ participation/ resources/ docs/ (Retrieved March 2017).
36. Mockford C, Staniszewska S, Griffiths F, et al. The impact of patient and public involvement on UK NHS health care: a systematic review. Int J Qual Health Care 2012;24:28-38.