Identifying Surgical Innovation

Rogers, Wendy; Lotz, Mianna; Hutchison, Katrina; Pourmoslemi, Aydin; Eyers, A. A.

doi:10.1097/sla.0b013e31829ccc5f

Cited by 56 publications

(36 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…IDEAL defines innovation as "a new or modified surgical procedure that differs from currently accepted local practice, the outcomes of which have not been described and which may entail risk to the patient" [4]. Critics claim this definition is overly broad [40], fails to distinguish between variation and research, and lacks practical utility [70]. Since correctly identifying when innovation is occurring is central to effective oversight, this is potentially a serious limitation [33].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Conceptualising Surgical Innovation: An Eliminativist Proposal

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Improving surgical interventions is key to improving outcomes. Ensuring the safe and transparent translation of such improvements is essential. Evaluation and governance initiatives, including the IDEAL framework and the Macquarie Surgical Innovation Identification Tool have begun to address this. Yet without a definition of innovation that allows non-surgeons to identify when it is occurring, these initiatives are of limited value. A definition seems elusive, so we undertook a conceptual study of surgical innovation. This indicated common conceptual areas in discussions of (surgical) innovation, that we categorised alliteratively under the themes of "purpose" (about drivers of innovation), "place" (about contexts of innovation), "process" (about differentiating innovation), "product" (about tangible and intangible results of innovation) and "person" (about personal factors and viewpoint). These conceptual areas are used in varying-sometimes contradictory-ways in different discussions. Highlighting these conceptual areas of surgical innovation may be useful in clarifying what should be reported in registries of innovation. However our wider conclusion was that the term "innovation" carries too much conceptual baggage to inform normative inquiry about surgical practice. Instead, we propose elimination of the term "innovation" from serious discourse aimed at evaluation and regulation of surgery. In our view researchers, philosophers and policy-makers should consider what it is about surgical activity that needs attention and develop robust definitions to identify these areas: for our own focus on transparency and safety, this means finding criteria that can objectively identify certain risk profiles during the development of surgery.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Conceptualising Surgical Innovation: An Eliminativist Proposal

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…6 The lack of clarity surrounding what constitutes surgical innovations makes them difficult to identify, particularly when they do not involve the purchase of new equipment or tools. 8 Currently, there is no gold standard for identifying innovation in surgery, which means hospitals may not have adequate processes for its management. 6 Identifying surgical innovation is central to ensuring its safety.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Macquarie Surgical Innovation Identification Tool (MSIIT): a study protocol for a usability and pilot test

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionMedicine relies on innovation to continually improve. However, innovation is potentially risky, and not all innovations are successful. Therefore, it is important to identify innovations prospectively and provide support, to make innovation as safe and effective as possible. The Macquarie Surgical Innovation Identification Tool (MSIIT) is a simple checklist designed as a practical tool for hospitals to identify planned surgical innovations. This project aims to test the usability and pilot the use of the MSIIT in a surgical setting.Methods and analysisThe project will run in two phases at two Australian hospitals, one public and one private. Phase I will involve interviews, focus groups and a survey of hospital administrators and surgical teams to assess the usability and system requirements for the use of the MSIIT. Current practice regarding surgical innovation within participating hospitals will be mapped, and the best implementation strategy for MSIIT completion will be established. Phase II will involve trialling the MSIIT for each surgery within the trial period by various surgical personnel. Follow-up interviews, focus groups and a survey will be conducted with trial participants to collect feedback on their experience of using the MSIIT during the trial period. Comparative data on rates of surgical innovation during the trial period will also be gathered from existing hospital systems and compared to the rates identified by the MSIIT.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval has been obtained. The results of this study will be presented to interested health services and other stakeholders, presented at conferences and published in a peer-reviewed MEDLINE-indexed journal.

show abstract

“…However, a recent study showing the results of interviews with 18 surgeons on what is innovation, showed that (the interviewed) surgeons hold no uniform view of surgical innovation, and that there is no agreement on the distinction between innovation and research. [19] …”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This difficulty defining surgical innovation was also observed when surgeons were asked to define and identify surgical innovation. [19] Clearly, some uniformity on what exactly is surgical innovation is a prerequisite when considering to launch surgical oversight committees. Otherwise it remains ambivalent which kinds of innovation should or should not be submitted for review.…”

Section: Discussion: Toward a Learning Health Care System?mentioning

confidence: 99%