New surgical technology: do we know what we are doing?

Maddern, Guy J.

doi:10.5694/mja15.00329

Cited by 5 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 46 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Surgical practice has recently seen a dramatic increase in new technologies and innovations. While several organizations have attempted to evaluate the risks and benefits of new technology, developing uniform criteria that apply across institutions is difficult as each new technology can rapidly disrupt existing rules. In addition, adoption of new technology is not uniform in surgery.…”

Section: Surgery and New Technologymentioning

confidence: 99%

Discussion paper on proposed new regulatory changes on 3D technology: a surgical perspective

Mukherjee

Clark

Wallace

et al. 2019

ANZ Journal of Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Surgery and New Technologymentioning

confidence: 99%

Discussion paper on proposed new regulatory changes on 3D technology: a surgical perspective

Mukherjee

Clark

Wallace

et al. 2019

ANZ Journal of Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Differential use of new therapies with uncertain or unproven benefit also drives variation. The need for a system for controlled introduction and evaluation of new surgical techniques and medical technologies in Australia has been recently highlighted 20 …”

Section: Reasons For Observed Variationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Health care variation: time to act

Duggan

Hargreaves

Scott

et al. 2016

Medical Journal of Australia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary Geographic variation in health care use has been demonstrated in many countries over many years. Such variation can be warranted — in response to patient need or preference for care — or unwarranted. Unwarranted variation raises concerns about equity and appropriateness of care. Recent analyses of health care provision in the Australian atlas of healthcare variation show that when routinely available Australian data are mapped by residence of patient, there are wide variations in rates of use of diagnostic tests, dispensing of prescriptions for a range of indications, surgical procedures and hospital admission rates. Despite the wealth of studies demonstrating variation in care internationally, there is relatively little research that explores the best ways of responding to unwarranted variation. Recommendations for action in the Australian Atlas focus on some approaches that could be used in Australia.

show abstract

Medical innovation laws: an unnecessary innovation

Richards

2016

Aust. Health Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective This paper aims to demonstrate that any suggestion that there is a need for specific innovation laws is flawed. Innovation is central to good medical practice and is adequately supported by current law. Methods The paper reviews the nature of medical innovation and outlines recent attempts in the UK to introduce specific laws aimed at 'encouraging' and 'supporting' innovation. The current legal framework is outlined and the role of the law in relation to medical innovation explored. Results The analysis demonstrates the cyclic relationship between medical advancement and the law and concludes that there is no requirement for specific innovation laws. Conclusions The law not only supports innovation and development in medical treatment but encourages it as central to a functioning medical system. There is no need to introduce specific laws aimed at medical innovation; to do so represents an unnecessary legal innovation and serves to complicate matters. What is known about the topic? Over recent months, there has been a great deal of discussion surrounding the law in the context of medical innovation. This was driven by the attempts in the UK to introduce specific laws in the Medical Innovation Bill. The general subject matter - negligence and the expected standard of care in the provision of treatment - is very well understood, but not in cases where the treatment can be described as innovative. The general rhetoric in both the UK and Australia around the Medical Innovation Bill demonstrates a lack of understanding of the position of the law with regards to innovative treatment. What does this paper add? This paper adds clarity to the debate. It presents the law and explains the manner in which the law can operate around innovative treatment. The paper asserts that medical innovation is both supported and encouraged by existing legal principles. What are the implications for practitioners? The paper presents an argument that can guide the policy position in this area. It also provides clarity around the legal position and expected standard of care for those who are introducing innovative medical treatment.

show abstract

New surgical technology: do we know what we are doing?

Cited by 5 publications

References 46 publications

Discussion paper on proposed new regulatory changes on 3D technology: a surgical perspective

Discussion paper on proposed new regulatory changes on 3D technology: a surgical perspective

Health care variation: time to act

Medical innovation laws: an unnecessary innovation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About