• Maria Jaensson, Ulrica Nilsson, and Karuna Dahlberg.
• Faculty of Medicine and Health, School of Health Sciences, Örebro University, Örebro, Sweden.
• Br J Anaesth. 2022 Jul 1; 129 (1): 92-103.

BackgroundThere is no consensus about the type of instrument with which to assess postoperative recovery or the time points when assessments are most appropriate. It is also unclear whether instruments measure the four dimensions of postoperative recovery, that is physical, psychological, social, and habitual recovery. This scoping review had three objectives: (1) to identify and describe instruments used in clinical trials to assess postoperative recovery; (2) to determine how, when, and the number of times postoperative recovery was measured; and (3) to explore whether the four dimensions of postoperative recovery are represented in the identified instruments.MethodsA literature search was conducted in CINAHL, MEDLINE, and Web of Science. The search terms were related to three search strands: postoperative recovery, instrument, and clinical trials. The limits were English language and publication January 2010 to November 2021. In total, 5015 studies were identified.ResultsA total of 198 studies were included in the results. We identified 20 instruments measuring postoperative recovery. Different versions of Quality of Recovery represented 81.8% of the included instruments. Postoperative recovery was often assessed at one time point (47.2%) and most often on postoperative day 1 (81.5%). Thirteen instruments had items covering all four dimensions of postoperative recovery.ConclusionsAssessing recovery is important to evaluate and improve perioperative care. We emphasise the importance of choosing the right instrument for the concept studied and, if postoperative recovery is of interest, of assessing more than once. Ideally, instruments should include all four dimensions to cover the whole recovery process.Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.

8 keywords...

hide…