Introduction:
There is no consensus about the type of instrument with which to assess postoperative recovery or the time points when assessments are most appropriate. Therefore a scoping review was performed with the aims: 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.
Method:
A systematic literature search was conducted by a librarian in CINAHL Plus with Full Text, Ovid MEDLINE, and Web of Science. In total, 5015 studies were identified in the search. The selection process used Covidence systematic review software. The extracted data were summarized and presented in frequency and percent.
Results:
In total, 198 studies were included in the results. 1. We found 20 instruments measuring postoperative recovery. The most common instrument was different versions of Quality of Recovery n=162/198 (81.8%). 2. Most studies performed an assessment on postoperative day 1 ( n=159/195, 81.5%). 3. Thirteen instruments covered physiological, psychological, social and habitual dimensions of postoperative recovery.
Conclusion:
Assessing recovery is important to evaluate and improve perioperative care. We emphasize 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.