Innovation or rebranding, acute care surgery diffusion will continue.

Courtney E Collins, Patricia L Pringle, Heena P Santry
Author Information
  1. Courtney E Collins: Department of Surgery, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, Massachusetts.
  2. Patricia L Pringle: Department of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.
  3. Heena P Santry: Department of Surgery, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, Massachusetts. Electronic address: heena@santry.org.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Patterns of adoption of acute care surgery (ACS) as a strategy for emergency general surgery (EGS) care are unknown.
METHODS: We conducted a qualitative study comprising face-to-face interviews with senior surgeons responsible for ACS at 18 teaching hospitals chosen to ensure diversity of opinions and practice environment (three practice types [community, public or charity, and university] in each of six geographic regions [Mid-Atlantic, Midwest, New England, Northeast, South, and West]). Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using NVivo (QSR International, Melbourne, Australia). We applied the methods of investigator triangulation using an inductive approach to develop a final taxonomy of codes organized by themes related to respondents' views on the future of ACS as a strategy for EGS. We applied our findings to a conceptual model on diffusion of innovation.
RESULTS: We found a paradox between ACS viewed as a health care delivery innovation versus a rebranding of comprehensive general surgery. Optimism for the future of ACS because of increased desirability for trauma and critical care careers as well as improved EGS outcomes was tempered by fear over lack of continuity, poor institutional resources, and uncertainty regarding financial viability. Our analysis suggests that the implementation of ACS, whether a true health care delivery innovation or an innovative rebranding, fits into the Rogers' diffusion of innovation theory.
CONCLUSIONS: Despite concerns over resource allocation and the definition of the specialty, from the perspective of senior surgeons deeply entrenched in executing this care delivery model, ACS represents the new face of general surgery that will likely continue to diffuse from these early adopters.

Keywords

References

  1. Bull Am Coll Surg. 2007 Nov;92(11):8-17 [PMID: 18041231]
  2. Issue Brief Cent Stud Health Syst Change. 2007 Nov;(115):1-4 [PMID: 18051263]
  3. Injury. 2008 Jan;39(1):93-101 [PMID: 17888435]
  4. J Public Health Manag Pract. 2008 Mar-Apr;14(2):99-108 [PMID: 18287914]
  5. J Trauma. 2008 Apr;64(4):955-65; discussion 965-8 [PMID: 18404062]
  6. J Am Coll Surg. 2008 Jul;207(1):43-8 [PMID: 18589360]
  7. N Engl J Med. 2008 Oct 30;359(18):1921-31 [PMID: 18971493]
  8. J Hosp Med. 2009 Sep;4(7):433-40 [PMID: 19753573]
  9. J Am Coll Surg. 2009 Oct;209(4):421-4 [PMID: 19801314]
  10. J Am Coll Surg. 2009 Oct;209(4):446-452.e4 [PMID: 19801317]
  11. Acad Med. 2009 Dec;84(12):1775-87 [PMID: 19940588]
  12. Am J Surg. 2009 Dec;198(6):798-803 [PMID: 19969132]
  13. Arch Surg. 2010 May;145(5):445-50 [PMID: 20479342]
  14. J Trauma. 2010 Sep;69(3):640-3; discussion 643-4 [PMID: 20838135]
  15. Acad Emerg Med. 2010 Dec;17(12):1374-82 [PMID: 21091822]
  16. J Surg Res. 2011 Apr;166(2):e143-7 [PMID: 21227465]
  17. J Am Coll Surg. 2011 Aug;213(2):284-93 [PMID: 21601487]
  18. J Trauma. 2011 Aug;71(2):442-6 [PMID: 21825946]
  19. World J Surg. 2011 Dec;35(12):2660-7 [PMID: 22002495]
  20. Am J Surg. 2011 Dec;202(6):779-85; discussion 785-6 [PMID: 22137137]
  21. J Am Coll Surg. 2012 Feb;214(2):156-63 [PMID: 22153352]
  22. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2012 Jan;72(1):94-9 [PMID: 22310121]
  23. J Am Coll Surg. 2012 Nov;215(5):715-21 [PMID: 22863794]
  24. J Am Coll Surg. 2013 Jan;216(1):167 [PMID: 23246029]
  25. J Am Coll Surg. 2013 Feb;216(2):298-301 [PMID: 23195202]
  26. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2013 Feb;74(2):463-8; discussion 468-9 [PMID: 23354239]
  27. Implement Sci. 2013;8:22 [PMID: 23414420]
  28. Surgery. 2014 May;155(5):809-25 [PMID: 24787108]
  29. Health Mark Q. 2014;31(2):97-114 [PMID: 24878401]
  30. J Trauma. 2000 Mar;48(3):433-7; discussion 437-8 [PMID: 10744280]
  31. J Trauma. 2001 Oct;51(4):633-7; discussion 637-8 [PMID: 11586151]
  32. Arch Surg. 2002 May;137(5):515-20 [PMID: 11982462]
  33. Br J Gen Pract. 2002 Jun;52(479):459-62 [PMID: 12051209]
  34. J Trauma. 2004 Jan;56(1):7-12 [PMID: 14749559]
  35. J Am Coll Surg. 2004 Jul;199(1):96-101 [PMID: 15217636]
  36. N Engl J Med. 1996 Aug 15;335(7):514-7 [PMID: 8672160]
  37. Arch Surg. 2005 Jan;140(1):74-9 [PMID: 15655209]
  38. J Trauma. 2005 Mar;58(3):614-6 [PMID: 15761359]
  39. J Gen Intern Med. 2005 Mar;20(3):226-33 [PMID: 15836525]
  40. J Trauma. 2005 May;58(5):906-10 [PMID: 15920401]
  41. Am Surg. 2005 Aug;71(8):633-8; discussion 638-9 [PMID: 16217944]
  42. J Am Coll Surg. 2005 Dec;201(6):925-32 [PMID: 16310697]
  43. Ann Surg. 2006 Oct;244(4):498-504 [PMID: 16998358]
  44. Surgery. 2007 Mar;141(3):304-6 [PMID: 17349837]
  45. Surgery. 2007 Mar;141(3):327-9 [PMID: 17349843]
  46. Am J Surg. 2007 Dec;194(6):758-63; discussion 763-4 [PMID: 18005767]

Grants

  1. 8KL2TR000160-03/NCATS NIH HHS
  2. UL1 TR000161/NCATS NIH HHS
  3. R01 HS022694/AHRQ HHS
  4. UL1RR031982/NCRR NIH HHS
  5. 1KL2RR031981-01 (02)/NCRR NIH HHS
  6. KL2 TR000160/NCATS NIH HHS
  7. KL2 RR031981/NCRR NIH HHS
  8. UL1 RR031982/NCRR NIH HHS
  9. L30 GM102882/NIGMS NIH HHS

MeSH Term

Attitude of Health Personnel
Critical Care
Delivery of Health Care
Diffusion of Innovation
Emergency Treatment
General Surgery
Humans
Interviews as Topic
Organizational Innovation
Qualitative Research
Specialties, Surgical
United States

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0careACSsurgeryinnovationdeliverygeneralEGSdiffusionrebrandingacutestrategyseniorsurgeonspracticeusingappliedfuturemodelhealthallocationwillcontinueHealthBACKGROUND:PatternsadoptionemergencyunknownMETHODS:conductedqualitativestudycomprisingface-to-faceinterviewsresponsible18teachinghospitalschosenensurediversityopinionsenvironmentthreetypes[communitypubliccharityuniversity]sixgeographicregions[Mid-AtlanticMidwestNewEnglandNortheastSouthWest]InterviewsrecordedtranscribedanalyzedNVivoQSRInternationalMelbourneAustraliamethodsinvestigatortriangulationinductiveapproachdevelopfinaltaxonomycodesorganizedthemesrelatedrespondents'viewsfindingsconceptualRESULTS:foundparadoxviewedversuscomprehensiveOptimismincreaseddesirabilitytraumacriticalcareerswellimprovedoutcomestemperedfearlackcontinuitypoorinstitutionalresourcesuncertaintyregardingfinancialviabilityanalysissuggestsimplementationwhethertrueinnovativefitsRogers'theoryCONCLUSIONS:DespiteconcernsresourcedefinitionspecialtyperspectivedeeplyentrenchedexecutingrepresentsnewfacelikelydiffuseearlyadoptersInnovationAcuteDiffusionResourceSurgery

Similar Articles

Cited By (8)