4.2 Article

Enhanced recovery from obstetric surgery: a UK survey of practice

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijoa.2013.11.006

关键词

Enhanced recovery; Elective; Caesarean section

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: In the UK earlier discharge of patients following elective caesarean section would require that more patients are discharged the day after surgery. The introduction of enhanced recovery in other specialties has resulted in shorter postoperative stay. We surveyed current UK practice to find whether this was consistent with enhanced recovery and what changes units would need to introduce to establish such a programme. Methods: We conducted an Obstetric Anaesthetists' Association approved electronic survey of all the UK lead obstetric anaesthetists between March and May 2013. Results: A response rate of 81% was achieved with 96% of those who responded supporting the concept of enhanced recovery. Only 4% of units routinely discharged their patients on day one. There were a number of practices consistent with enhanced recovery. Postoperative pain was controlled by regular paracetamol (97%) and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (100% when not contraindicated), with oral opioids (68%) being used for breakthrough pain. Over 70% of units allowed minimal interruption of perioperative oral intake and 72% of units mobilised their patients within 12 h of surgery or when the neuraxial block had worn off. In contrast, a minority of units monitored patient temperature in theatre (27%) or used active warming (18%), and 28% routinely removed the urinary catheter within 12 h of surgery or when the neuraxial block had worn off. Regarding neonatal recovery, only 23% reported using delayed cord clamping and 53% used skin-to-skin contact in theatre. Conclusion: Most obstetric units support the concept of enhanced recovery following caesarean section and many could introduce a programme for elective surgery with relatively small changes in patient care. (C) 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据