↓ Skip to main content

Healthcare professionals’ views of the enhanced recovery after surgery programme: a qualitative investigation

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
31 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
115 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Healthcare professionals’ views of the enhanced recovery after surgery programme: a qualitative investigation
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, August 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12913-017-2547-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Georgia Herbert, Eileen Sutton, Sorrel Burden, Stephen Lewis, Steve Thomas, Andy Ness, Charlotte Atkinson

Abstract

The Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) programme is an approach to the perioperative care of patients which aims to improve outcomes and speed up recovery after surgery. Although the evidence base appears strong for this programme, the implementation of ERAS has been slow. This study aimed to gain an understanding of the facilitating factors and challenges of implementing the programme with a view to providing additional contextual information to aid implementation. The study had a particular focus on the nutritional elements as these have been highlighted as important. The study employed qualitative research methods, guided by the Normalisation Process Theory (NPT) to explore the experiences and opinions of 26 healthcare professionals from a range of disciplines implementing the programme. This study identified facilitating factors to the implementation of ERAS: alignment with evidence based practice, standardising practice, drawing on the evidence base of other specialties, leadership, teamwork, ERAS meetings, patient involvement and education, a pre-operative assessment unit, staff education, resources attached to obtaining The Commissioning for Quality and Innovation (CQUIN) money, the ward layout, data collection and feedback, and adapting the care pathway. A number of implementation challenges were also identified: resistance to change, standardisation affecting personalised patient care, the buy-in of relevant stakeholders, keeping ERAS visible, information provision to patients, resources, palatability of nutritional drinks, aligning different ward cultures, patients going to non-ERAS departments, spreading the programme within the hospital, differences in health issue, and utilising a segmental approach.  CONCLUSIONS: The findings presented here provide useful contextual information from diverse surgical specialties to inform healthcare providers when implementing ERAS in practice. Addressing the challenges and utilising the facilitating factors identified in this study, could speed up the rate at which ERAS is adopted, implemented and embedded.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 115 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 115 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 23 20%
Student > Bachelor 12 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 8%
Researcher 8 7%
Other 19 17%
Unknown 34 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 24 21%
Nursing and Health Professions 23 20%
Psychology 7 6%
Business, Management and Accounting 6 5%
Social Sciences 3 3%
Other 14 12%
Unknown 38 33%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 31 August 2017.
All research outputs
#7,270,848
of 11,682,907 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#2,623
of 3,774 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#150,031
of 263,510 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#79
of 93 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 11,682,907 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,774 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.1. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 263,510 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 93 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.