» Articles » PMID: 24708824

Exploring the Experience of an Enhanced Recovery Programme for Gynaecological Cancer Patients: a Qualitative Study

Overview
Publisher Biomed Central
Date 2014 Apr 9
PMID 24708824
Citations 10
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: Perioperative enhanced recovery programmes (ERPs), identified as initiatives that improve care and save money, have been adopted by NHS Improvement and are currently being rolled out across many surgical departments within the NHS. To date, five papers have specifically explored patients' experiences of ERPs; none, however, has explored the gynaecological cancer patient experience.

Methods: In total, 14 women (mean age, 66 years) participated in an audio-recorded face-to-face or telephone interview in which they discussed their experience of taking part in an ERP. The resulting data were transcribed verbatim and analysed using interpretative phenomenological analysis.

Results: Two main themes emerged from the analysis. The first, 'Taking part in the programme', highlights two important aspects of the ERP: being given an opportunity to receive information and, following this, to build knowledge about the programme. The theme also explores the challenges associated with the programme, particularly around getting mobile and complying with its demands - the women report experiencing a constant battle between intuition and instruction. The second theme, 'Home', focuses on the role home plays in motivating the patients to aim for an early discharge from hospital. Patients describe their need to return to a suitable home and the need for support from others. They also discuss the importance of the follow-up phone call.

Conclusion: Overall, the patients in this study positively assessed the individual aspects of the ERP, in particular, information resources, the availability of the physiotherapist and the delivery of follow-up phone calls. These findings highlight the importance of developing and maintaining individual aspects of ERPs over time, to ensure their sensitivity and responsiveness to patient needs.

Citing Articles

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) guided gynecologic/oncology surgery - The patient's perspective.

Jenkins E, Crooks R, Sauro K, Nelson G Gynecol Oncol Rep. 2024; 55:101510.

PMID: 39323937 PMC: 11422566. DOI: 10.1016/j.gore.2024.101510.


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

Wang D, Hu Y, Liu K, Liu Z, Chen X, Cao L BMJ Open. 2023; 13(2):e068910.

PMID: 36810180 PMC: 9945048. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-068910.


Evaluation of the impact of an enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) programme on the quality of recovery in patients undergoing a scheduled hysterectomy: a prospective single-centre before-after study protocol (RAACHYS study).

Martin F, Vautrin N, Elnar A, Goetz C, Becret A BMJ Open. 2022; 12(4):e055822.

PMID: 35393312 PMC: 8990258. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-055822.


Experiences of enhanced recovery after surgery in general gynaecology patients: An interpretative phenomenological analysis.

Phillips E, Archer S, Montague J, Bali A Health Psychol Open. 2019; 6(2):2055102919860635.

PMID: 31321068 PMC: 6610470. DOI: 10.1177/2055102919860635.


Comparing the experience of enhanced recovery programme for gynaecological patients undergoing laparoscopic versus open gynaecological surgery: a prospective study.

Lee J, Asher V, Nair A, White V, Brocklehurst C, Traves M Perioper Med (Lond). 2018; 7:15.

PMID: 29983928 PMC: 6020356. DOI: 10.1186/s13741-018-0096-5.


References
1.
Lee L, Arthur A, Avis M . Using self-efficacy theory to develop interventions that help older people overcome psychological barriers to physical activity: a discussion paper. Int J Nurs Stud. 2008; 45(11):1690-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2008.02.012. View

2.
Norlyk A, Harder I . After colonic surgery: The lived experience of participating in a fast-track programme. Int J Qual Stud Health Well-being. 2010; 4:170-80. PMC: 2879969. DOI: 10.1080/17482620903027726. View

3.
Starks H, Trinidad S . Choose your method: a comparison of phenomenology, discourse analysis, and grounded theory. Qual Health Res. 2007; 17(10):1372-80. DOI: 10.1177/1049732307307031. View

4.
Dearnley C . A reflection on the use of semi-structured interviews. Nurse Res. 2005; 13(1):19-28. DOI: 10.7748/nr2005.07.13.1.19.c5997. View

5.
Brasel K, Lim H, Nirula R, Weigelt J . Length of stay: an appropriate quality measure?. Arch Surg. 2007; 142(5):461-5. DOI: 10.1001/archsurg.142.5.461. View