Background Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols are evidence-based, multimodal and patient-centred approach to optimize patient care and experience during their perioperative pathway. It has been shown to be effective in reducing length of hospital stay and improving clinical outcomes. However, evidence on its effective in liver surgery remains weak. The aim of this review is to investigate clinical benefits, cost-effectiveness and compliance to ERAS protocols in liver surgery. Methods A systematic literature search was conducted using CINAHL Plus, EMBASE, MEDLINE, PubMed and Cochrane for randomized control trials (RCTs) and cohort studies published between 2008 and 2019, comparing effect of ERAS protocols and standard care on hospital cost, LOS, complications, readmission, mortality and compliance. Results The search resulted in 6 RCTs and 21 cohort studies of 3739 patients (1777 in ERAS and 1962 in standard care group). LOS was reduced by 2.22 days in ERAS group (MD = −2.22; CI, −2.77 to −1.68; p < 0.00001) compared to the standard care group. Fewer patients in ERAS group experienced complications (RR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.65-0.77; p = < 0.00001). Hospital cost was significantly lower in the ERAS group (SMD = −0.98; CI, −1.37 to-0.58; p < 0.0001). Conclusion Our review concluded that the introduction of ERAS protocols is safe and feasible in hepatectomies, without increasing mortality and readmission rates, whilst reducing LOS and risk of complications, and with a significant hospital cost savings. Laparoscopic approach may be necessary to reduce complication rates in liver surgery. However, further studies are needed to investigate overall compliance to ERAS protocols and its impact on clinical outcomes.

An exploratory study into research utilization is described. Firstly an agreed definition of research utilization was arrived at through consultation with a range of nurses in both academia and clinical practice. Potential factors that may influence research utilization were identified through a review of current research on research utilization and through a period of fieldwork carried out on two hospital wards in Scotland. The findings indicate that research utilization appears to be a complicated issue and cannot be decontextualized or fractionated in order to lead to an understanding but must address multiple factors simultaneously. This paper refers to research that may be utilized in clinical nursing practice rather than in education or nursing management. The impact of research in clinical practice on education and nursing management is not discounted but the focus of this study is on the influence that research may have on the actual delivery of patient care and, in this sense, education and management developments are encompassed.

There has been extensive speculation about the lack of research utilization in nursing but little attempt to quantify this phenomenon outside of North America. The current demands for evidence-based practice necessitate research utilization as one element of the process. As part of a larger project, this study aimed to describe the extent of research utilization by registered nurses in general medical and surgical wards in the Scottish Health Service. A postal survey was conducted for nurses to self-report their level of utilization of 14 research-based practices. The 14 practices represented examples of direct, indirect and methodological utilization of research. A research utilization score was constructed for each of the 14 practices and a total mean score constructed for all 14 practices. A random two-stage stratified sampling resulted in a total sample of 936 nurses from 25 hospitals. A 73% response rate was achieved. The total mean research utilization score for all nurses across all 14 nursing practices suggests that on average, nurses had heard, believed in and were beginning to use the practices. The sampling technique over-represents nurses in large hospitals and charge nurses, hence a weighting calculation on all scores was completed. There was little difference in weighted and unweighted scores. Scores on individual practices ranged from 60% (405/680) of nurses never having heard of a practice to 85% (574/680) always using a practice. This approach provides a valid and reliable method of assessing the extent of nursing research utilization. In several of the practices, nurses are making significant attempts at research-based practice. The level of research utilization compares favourably with research completed in North America and provides a baseline for United Kingdom and other country studies.

No abstract

BackgroundMechanically ventilated patients often develop muscle weakness post-intensive care admission. Current evidence suggests that early mobilisation of these patients can be an effective intervention in improving their outcomes. However, what constitutes early mobilisation in mechanically ventilated patients (EM-MV) remains unclear. We aimed to systematically explore the definitions and activity types of EM-MV in the literature.MethodsWhittemore and Knafl’s framework guided this review. CINAHL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, ASSIA, and Cochrane Library were searched to capture studies from 2000 to 2018, combined with hand search of grey literature and reference lists of included studies. The Critical Appraisal Skills Programme tools were used to assess the methodological quality of included studies. Data extraction and quality assessment of studies were performed independently by each reviewer before coming together in sub-groups for discussion and agreement. An inductive and data-driven thematic analysis was undertaken on verbatim extracts of EM-MV definitions and activities in included studies.ResultsSeventy-six studies were included from which four major themes were inferred: (1) non-standardised definition, (2) contextual factors, (3) negotiated process and (4) collaboration between patients and staff. The first theme indicates that EM-MV is either not fully defined in studies or when a definition is provided this is not standardised across studies. The remaining themes reflect the diversity of EM-MV activities which depends on patients’ characteristics and ICU settings; the negotiated decision-making process between patients and staff; and their interdependent relationship during the implementation.ConclusionsThis review highlights the absence of an agreed definition and on what constitutes early mobilisation in mechanically ventilated patients. To advance research and practice an agreed and shared definition is a pre-requisite.