Issues in patients’ experiences of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) : a systematic review of qualitative evidence

Abstract

ObjectiveTo explore patients’ experiences of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) and to identify issues in the implementation of ERAS from the patient’s perspective.DesignThe systematic review and qualitative analysis were based on the Joanna Briggs Institute’s methodology for conducting synthesis.Data sourcesRelevant studies published in four databases, that is, Web of Science, PubMed, Ovid Embase and the Cochrane Library, were systematically searched, and some studies were supplemented by key authors and reference lists.Study selectionThirty-one studies were identified, involving 1069 surgical patients enrolled in the ERAS programme. The inclusion and exclusion criteria were formulated based on the Population, Interest of phenomena, Context, Study design criteria recommended by the Joanna Briggs Institute to determine the scope of article retrieval. The inclusion criteria were as follows: ERAS patients’ experiences; qualitative data; English language and published from January 1990 to August 2021.Data extractionData were extracted from relevant studies using the standardised data extraction tool from Joanna Briggs Institute Qualitative Assessment and Review Instrument for qualitative research.Data synthesisThe themes in the structure dimension are as follows: (1) patients cared about the timeliness of healthcare professionals’ help; (2) patients cared about the professionalism of family care; and (3) patients misunderstood and worried about the safety of ERAS. The themes in the process dimension are as follows: (1) patients needed adequate and accurate information from healthcare professionals; (2) patients needed to communicate adequately with healthcare professionals; (3) patients hoped to develop a personalised treatment plan and (4) patients required ongoing follow-up services. The theme in the outcome dimension is as follows: patients wanted to effectively improve severe postoperative symptoms.ConclusionsEvaluating ERAS from the patient’s perspective can reveal the omissions and deficiencies of healthcare professionals in clinical care so that problems in patients’ recovery process can be solved in a timely manner, reducing potential barriers to the implementation of ERAS.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42021278631.