International Journal of Colorectal Disease

, Volume 34, Issue 11, pp 1865–1870 | Cite as

ERAS, length of stay and private insurance: a retrospective study

  • Diana A. CelioEmail author
  • Roberto Poggi
  • Mike Schmalzbauer
  • Raffaele Rosso
  • Pietro Majno
  • Dimitri Christoforidis
Original Article



Hospital discharge after colorectal resection within an Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) program occurs earlier compared to standard-care postoperative pathways but often later than what objective criteria of “readiness for discharge” could allow. The aim of this study was to analyse reasons and risk factors of such discharge delay.


All elective patients admitted for colorectal resection at the regional Hospital of Lugano in 2014 and 2015 were included. The postoperative day on which patients fulfilled consensus agreed criteria (according to Fiore) for readiness for discharge (POD-F) and the effective day of discharge (POD-D) were determined. We analysed the reasons for discharge delay (POD-D>POD-F) and performed univariate and multivariate analysis to determine risk factors.


One hundred thirty-eight patients were included in the study. Median POD-F was 5 (2–48) days, POD-D was 6 (3–50) days. In 94 patients, POD-D occurred later than POD-F with a median delay of 1 (1–11) days. Reasons for discharge delay were insufficient social support in 13 (14%), patient’s preference in 39 (41%) and medical team preference in 41 (44%). Private insurance (OR 2.61, 95%CI 1.08–6.34, p = 0.034) and patient discharged on a day other than Monday (OR 2.94, 95%CI 1.16–7.14, p = 0.023) were independent predictors for discharge delay.


Even when objective criteria for readiness for discharge have been fulfilled, patients and/or doctors often do not feel comfortable with hospital discharge at this time point. Length of stay, even within an ERAS program, is still influenced by several non-medical factors and is therefore not a precise surrogate marker of outcomes.


ERAS Length of stay Time to readiness for discharge Discharge delay Healthcare insurance 



The authors would like to thank Esther De Krujif for the statistical analysis of the data.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the ethics committee of Ticino (2019–00941 /CE 3482) and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

In accordance with the ethics committee of Ticino, Switzerland, an individual informed consent of all participants was not considered necessary.


  1. 1.
    Khan SA, Ullah S, Ahmed J, Wilson TR, McNaught C, Hartley J, MacFie J (2013) Influence of enhanced recovery after surgery pathways and laparoscopic surgery on health-related quality of life. Color Dis 15:900–907CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kisialeuski M, Pędziwiatr M, Matłok M et al (2015) Enhanced recovery after colorectal surgery in elderly patients. Wideochir Inne Tech Maloinwazyjne 10:30–36PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Pędziwiatr M, Pisarska M, Kisielewski M, Matłok M, Major P, Wierdak M, Budzyński A, Ljungqvist O (2016) Is ERAS in laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer changing risk factors for delayed recovery? Med Oncol 33:25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Varadhan KK, Neal KR, Dejong CHC, Fearon KCH, Ljungqvist O, Lobo DN (2010) The enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) pathway for patients undergoing major elective open colo-rectal surgery: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Clin Nutr 29:434–440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Greco M, Capretti G, Beretta L, Gemma M, Pecorelli N, Braga M (2014) Enhanced recovery program in colorectal surgery: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. World J Surg 38:1531–1541CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lv L, Shao YF, Zhou YB (2012) The enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) pathway for patients undergoing colorectal surgery: an update of meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Int J Color Dis 27:1549–1554CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Eskicioglu C, Forbes SS, Aarts MA, Okrainec A, McLeod RS (2009) Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) programs for patients having colorectal surgery: a meta-analysis of randomized trials. J Gastrointest Surg 13:2321–2329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Pecorelli N, Hershorn O, Baldini G, Fiore JF, Stein BL, Liberman AS, Charlebois P, Carli F, Feldman LS (2017) Impact of adherence to care pathway interventions on recovery following bowel resection within an established enhanced recovery program. Surg Endosc 31:1760–1771CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fiore JF Jr, Browning L, Bialocerkowski A, Gruen RL, Faragher IG, Denehy L (2012) Hospital discharge criteria following colorectal surgery: a sistematic review. Color Dis 14:270–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Castelino T, Fiore JF Jr, Niculiseanu P, Landry T, Augustin B, Feldman LS et al (2016) The effect of early mobilization protocols on postoperative outcomes following abdominal and thoracic surgery: a systematic review. Surgery 159:991–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Maessen J, Dejong CH, Hausel J et al (2007) A protocol is not enough to implement an enhanced recovery programme for colorectal resection. Br J Surg 94:224–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fiore JF Jr, Bialocerkowski A, Browning L, Faragher IG, Denehy L (2012) Criteria to determine readiness for hospital discharge following colorectal surgery: an international consensus using the Delphi technique. Dis Colon Rectum 55:416–423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ngui NK, Hitos K, Ctercteko G (2011) Preoperative factors prolonging the length of stay in elective colorectal surgery. ANZ J Surg 81:624–628CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Levy BF, Scott MJ, Fawcett WJ et al (2009) 23-hour-stay laparoscopic colectomy. Dis Colon Rectum 52:1239–1243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kehlet H, Mogensen T (1999) Hospital stay of 2 days after open sigmoidectomy with a multimodal rehabilitation programme. Br J Surg 86:227–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Delaney CP (2008) Outcome of discharge within 24 to 72 hours after laparoscopic colorecal surgery. Dis Colon Rectum 51:181–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Smart NJ, White P, Allison AS, Ockrim JB, Kennedy RH, Francis NK (2012) Deviation and failure of enhanced recovery after surgery following laparoscopic colorectal surgery: early prediction model. Color Dis 14:e727–e734CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gillissen F, Hoff C, Maessen JM et al (2013) Structured synchronous implementation of an enhanced recovery program in elective colonic surgery in 33 hospitals in the Netherlands. World J Surg 37:1082–1093CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Boulind CE, Yeo M, Burkill C, Witt A, James E, Ewings P, Kennedy RH, Francis NK (2012) Factors predicting deviation from an enhanced recovery programme and delayed discharge after laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Color Dis 14:e103–e110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Cologne KG, Byers S, Rosen DR et al (2016) Factors associated with a short (< 2 days) or long (> 10 days) length of stay after colectomy: a multivariate analysis of over 400 patients. Am Surg 82:960–963PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Schmelzer TM, Mostafa G, Lincourt AE et al (2008) Factors affecting length of stay following colonic resection. J Surg Res 146:195–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Francis NK, Luther A, Salib E, Allanby L, Messenger D, Allison AS, Smart NJ, Ockrim JB (2015) The use of artificial neural networks to predict delayed discharge and readmission in enhanced recovery following laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery. Tech Coloproctol 19:419–428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Fiore JF Jr, Faragher IG, Bialocerkowski A et al (2013) Time to readiness for discharge is a valid and reliable measure of short-term recovery after colorectal surgery. World J Surg 37:2927–2934CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Slieker JC, Clerc D, Hahnloser D, Demartines N, Hübner M (2017) Prospective evaluation of discharge trends after colorectal surgery within an Enhanced Recovery after Surgery pathway. Dig Surg 34:298–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Maessen JM, Dejong CH, Kessels AG et al (2008) Length of stay: an inappropriate readout of the success of enhanced recovery programs. World J Surg 32:971–975CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ihedioha U, Esmail F, Lloyd G et al (2015) Enhanced recovery programmes in colorectal surgery are less enhanced later in the week: an observational study. JRMS open 6:2054270414562983Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Romain B, Grass F, Addor V et al (2016) Impact of weekday surgery on application of enhanced recovery pathway: a retrospective cohort study. BMJ Open 6(10):e011067CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Coolsen MM, Bakens M, van Dam RM et al (2015) Implementing an enhanced recovery program after pancreaticoduodenectomy in elderly patients: is it feasible? World J Surg 39:251–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Dejong CH, van Dam RM (2014) Enhanced recovery programs in liver surgery. World J Surg 38:2683–2684CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Feldman LS, Lee L, Fiore J Jr (2015) What outcomes are important in the assessment of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) pathways? Can J Anaesth 62:120–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Madani A, Fiore JF Jr, Wang Y, Bejjani J, Sivakumaran L, Mata J, Watson D, Carli F, Mulder DS, Sirois C, Ferri LE, Feldman LS (2015) An enhanced recovery pathway reduces duration of stay and complications after open pulmonary lobectomy. Surgery 158:899–908 discussion 908-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Ospedale Regionale di LocarnoLocarnoSwitzerland
  2. 2.Department of AnaesthesiologyRegional Hospital of LuganoLuganoSwitzerland
  3. 3.Regional Hospital of LuganoLuganoSwitzerland
  4. 4.Department of SurgeryRegional Hospital of LuganoLuganoSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations