{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.020905923344947737, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.680232558139535, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
ERAS and patient reported outcomes in thoracic surgery: a review of current data.

Quality-focused, cost-effective, patient-centered care is at the forefront of current healthcare reform. Recent data show that enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) results in improved surgical outcomes and decreased hospital costs. As a result, ERAS has been widely accepted among multiple surgical subspecialties as a modality for increasing the value of healthcare delivered to our patients. While this objective data is convincing for practitioners and administrators alike, how ERAS directly impacts the patient experience is unclear. Patient reported outcomes (PRO) are starting to drive patterns of healthcare delivery and influence surgical decision-making. In order to improve surgical outcomes and deliver patient-centered care, it is imperative that clinicians start reviewing objective metrics contained within morbidity and mortality data alongside subjective data regarding patients' experience. This article reviews the current data surrounding both ERAS and PROs within thoracic surgery and investigates how the two concepts are ultimately related.