Compliance with enhanced recovery programmes in elective colorectal surgery

Abstract

Abstract Background Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols are often criticized for being difficult to implement outside clinical trials. This audit evaluated compliance with an ERAS protocol and compared it with that during a trial. Methods Compliance was audited by case-note review of 100 consecutive patients undergoing colorectal surgery. This was compared with the compliance in a group of 95 patients who participated in a clinical trial. Results Fewer patients in the audit group than in the study group received preoperative oral carbohydrate loading (61·0 versus 96 per cent; P < 0·001), a transverse incision (25·0 versus 39 per cent; P = 0·037), early fluid and diet reintroduction (73·0 versus 99 per cent; P < 0·001), and non-opiate postoperative oral analgesia (70·0 versus 99 per cent; P < 0·001). Lower non-opiate oral analgesia use in the audit group was not associated with a commensurate increase in opiate use (P = 0·061). There was no difference between groups in length of hospital stay (median (interquartile range) 7 (5–8) versus 6 (5–7) days respectively), septic morbidity or 30-day mortality rates. Conclusion Observance to some aspects of the ERAS protocol was lower outside the clinical trial. However, this made little difference to patient outcome.