Search

Background: Surgical patients are at risk of postoperative complications, which may lead to increased morbidity, mortality, hospital length-of-stay and healthcare costs. Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS®) protocols are evidence-based and have demonstrated effectiveness in decreasing complications and associated consequences. However, their adoption in Australia has been limited and the reason for this is unclear. This study aimed to describe clinicians' perceptions of ERAS protocols in Australia. Methods: A national online survey of anaesthetists, surgeons and nurses was undertaken. Invitations to participate were distributed via emails from professional colleges. The 30-item survey captured respondent characteristics, ERAS perceptions, beliefs, education and learning preferences and future planning considerations. The final question was open-ended for elaboration of perceptions of ERAS. Descriptive and inferential statistics were used to describe and compare group differences across disciplines relative to perceptions of ERAS. Results: The sample included 178 responses (116 nurses, 65.2%; 36 surgeons, 20.2%; 26 anaesthetists, 14.6%) across six states and two territories. More than half (n = 104; 58.8%) had used ERAS protocols in patient care, and most perceived they were 'very knowledgeable' (n = 24; 13.6%) or 'knowledgeable' (n = 71; 40.3%) of ERAS. However, fewer nurses had cared for a patient using ERAS (p <.01) and nurses reported lower levels of knowledge (p <.001) than their medical counterparts. Most respondents agreed ERAS protocols improved patient care and financial efficiency and were a reasonable time investment (overall Md 3–5), but nurses generally recorded lower levels of agreement (p.013 to < 0.001). Lack of information was the greatest barrier to ERAS knowledge (n = 97; 62.6%), while seminars/lectures from international and national leaders were the preferred learning method (n = 59; 41.3%). Most supported broad implementation of ERAS (n = 130; 87.8%). Conclusion: There is a need to promote ERAS and provide education, which may be nuanced based on the results, to improve implementation in Australia. Nurses particularly need to be engaged in ERAS protocols given their significant presence throughout the surgical journey. There is also a need to co-design implementation strategies with stakeholders that target identified facilitators and barriers, including lack of support from senior administration, managers and clinicians and resource constraints. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Unwarranted clinical variations in radical prostatectomy (RP) procedures are frequently reported, yet less attention is given to the variations in associated costs. This issue can further widen disparities in access to care and provoke questions about the overall value of the procedure. The present paper aimed to delve into the disparities in hospital, medical provider and out-of-pocket costs for RP procedures in Australia, discussing plausible causes and potential policy opportunities. Methods: A retrospective cohort study using Medibank Private claims data for RP procedures conducted in Australian hospitals between 1 January 2015 and 31 December 2020 was undertaken. Results: Considerable variations in both medical provider and out-of-pocket costs were observed across the country, with variations evident between different states or territories. Particularly striking were the discrepancies in the costs charged by medical providers, with a notable contrast between the 10th and 90th percentiles revealing a substantial difference of A$9925. Hospitals in Australia exhibited relatively comparable charges for RP procedures. Conclusions: Initiatives such as enhancing transparency regarding individual medical provider costs and implementing fee regulations with healthcare providers may be useful in curbing the variations in RP procedure costs. What is known about the topic? Unwarranted clinical variations in radical prostatectomy procedures are well documented in the literature; however, variations in cost are less widely reported. What does this paper add? This paper aims to highlight the cost variations in radical prostatectomy procedures in Australia, discussing their plausible causes, implications and proposing potential policy opportunities. What are the implications for practitioners? Excessive fees imposed by medical providers may contribute to inequalities in healthcare access. Enhancing transparency of individual medical provider costs and implementing fee regulations may be useful in controlling unwarranted variations in procedure costs. This article belongs to the Special Issue: Value-based Healthcare. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]