Advertisement

Data Collection and Audit

  • Jonas O. M. Nygren
  • Olle Ljungqvist
Chapter
Part of the Enhanced Recovery book series (ER)

Abstract

There is a growing awareness worldwide that continuous quality improvements and adherence to evidence-based guidelines are of major importance in health care. However, despite universal acceptance of benefit from the measurement of quality in health care, there are currently no generally accepted standards for the benchmarking of performance and quality. The Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Study Group, an international working group, has developed one such system and collected a large international database [1].

Keywords

Clinical Pathway Enhance Recovery After Surgery Continuous Quality Improvement International Working Group Enhance Recovery After Surgery Protocol 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    Maessen J et al. A protocol is not enough to implement an enhanced recovery programme for colorectal resection. Br J Surg. 2007;34(2):224–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mayer EK et al. Appraising the quality of care in surgery. World J Surg. 2009;33(8):1584–93.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Jamtvedt G et al. Audit and feedback: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006;2:CD000259.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Forsetlund L et al. Continuing education meetings and workshops: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009;2:CD003030.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    O’Brien MA et al. Educational outreach visits: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007;4:CD000409.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Farmer AP et al. Printed educational materials: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2008;3:CD004398.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Scott I. What are the most effective strategies for improving quality and safety of health care? Intern Med J. 2009;39(6):389–400.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Levy MM et al. The Surviving Sepsis Campaign: results of an international guideline-based performance improvement program targeting severe sepsis. Crit Care Med. 2010;38(2):367–74.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dindo D, Hahnloser D, Clavien PA. Quality assessment in surgery: riding a lame horse. Ann Surg. 2010;251(4):766–71.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ronellenfitsch U et al. Clinical pathways in surgery: should we introduce them into clinical routine? A review article. Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2008;393(4):449–57.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lemmens L et al. Clinical and organizational content of clinical pathways for digestive ­surgery: a systematic review. Dig Surg. 2009;26(2):91–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lasse K et al. Consensus review of optimal perioperative care in colorectal surgery: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Group recommendations. Arch Surg. 2009;144(10):961–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ahmed J et al. Compliance with enhanced recovery programmes in elective colorectal surgery. Br J Surg. 2010;97(5):754–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gustafsson U et al. Adherence to the enhanced recovery after surgery protocol and outcomes after colorectal cancer surgery. Arch Surg. 2011;146(5):571–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jonas O. M. Nygren
    • 1
  • Olle Ljungqvist
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of SurgeryErsta Hospital and Karolinska Institutet at Danderyds HospitalStockholmSweden
  2. 2.Department of SurgeryÖrebro University HospitalÖrebroSweden

Personalised recommendations