Surgeon views regarding the adoption of a novel surgical innovation into clinical practice: systematic review.

Nagarjun N Konda, Thomas L Lewis, Hugh N Furness, George W Miller, Andrew J Metcalfe, David R Ellard
Author Information
  1. Nagarjun N Konda: Warwick Clinical Trials Unit, Warwick Medical School, The University of Warwick, Coventry, UK. ORCID
  2. Thomas L Lewis: Department of Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery, King's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
  3. Hugh N Furness: Department of Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery, Imperial College London, London, UK.
  4. George W Miller: Department of Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery, Bart's and the London NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
  5. Andrew J Metcalfe: Warwick Clinical Trials Unit, Warwick Medical School, The University of Warwick, Coventry, UK. ORCID
  6. David R Ellard: Warwick Clinical Trials Unit, Warwick Medical School, The University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The haphazard adoption of new surgical technologies into practice has the potential to cause patient harm and there are many misconceptions in the decision-making behind the adoption of new innovations. The aim of this study was to synthesize factors affecting a surgeon's decision to adopt a novel surgical innovation into clinical practice.
METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed to obtain all studies where surgeon views on the adoption of a novel surgical innovation into clinical practice have been collected. The databases screened were MEDLINE, Embase, Science Direct, Scopus, the Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library of Systematic Reviews (last accessed October 2022). Innovations covered multiple specialties, including cardiac, general, urology, and orthopaedics. The quality of the papers was assessed using a 10-question Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) tool for qualitative research.
RESULTS: A total of 26 studies (including 1112 participants, of which 694 were surgeons) from nine countries satisfied the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Types of study included semi-structured interviews and focus groups, for example. Themes and sub-themes that emerged after a thematic synthesis were categorized using five causal factors (structural, organizational, patient-level, provider-level, and innovation-based). These themes were further split into facilitators and barriers. Key facilitators to adoption of an innovation include improved clinical outcomes, cost-effectiveness, and support from internal and external stakeholders. Barriers to adoption include lack of organizational support and views of senior surgeons.
CONCLUSION: There are multiple complex factors that dynamically interact, affecting the adoption of a novel surgical innovation into clinical practice. There is a need to further investigate surgeon and other stakeholder views regarding the strength of clinical evidence required to support the widespread adoption of a surgical innovation into clinical practice.

References

  1. BMC Health Serv Res. 2011 Dec 16;11:342 [PMID: 22176739]
  2. BMJ. 2006 Jan 14;332(7533):112-4 [PMID: 16410591]
  3. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2022 Oct 03;38(1):e74 [PMID: 36189821]
  4. Lancet. 2009 Sep 26;374(9695):1089-96 [PMID: 19782874]
  5. Br J Neurosurg. 2014 Oct;28(5):606-10 [PMID: 24533591]
  6. Lancet. 2022 May 21;399(10339):1954-1963 [PMID: 35461618]
  7. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2008 Jul 10;8:45 [PMID: 18616818]
  8. Int J Surg. 2017 Mar;39:249-254 [PMID: 28192248]
  9. PLoS Med. 2015 Oct 27;12(10):e1001895 [PMID: 26506244]
  10. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2007 Jan;12(1):42-7 [PMID: 17244397]
  11. Lancet. 2018 Jul 7;392(10141):88-94 [PMID: 29361334]
  12. Ann Surg. 2014 Feb;259(2):273-8 [PMID: 23787218]
  13. Medicine (Baltimore). 2016 Jun;95(25):e3790 [PMID: 27336866]
  14. Ann Surg. 2015 Jan;261(1):81-91 [PMID: 25072435]
  15. Surg Innov. 2006 Dec;13(4):250-6 [PMID: 17227923]
  16. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2012 Nov 27;12:181 [PMID: 23185978]
  17. J Am Coll Radiol. 2020 Nov;17(11):1405-1409 [PMID: 33035503]
  18. Patient Saf Surg. 2018 Jun 04;12:12 [PMID: 29881458]
  19. Implement Sci. 2015 Oct 06;10:140 [PMID: 26444275]
  20. BMJ. 2015 Jan 02;350:g7647 [PMID: 25555855]
  21. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2021 Aug;31(8):947-953 [PMID: 34042514]
  22. BMC Health Serv Res. 2007 Nov 15;7:182 [PMID: 18005409]
  23. Qual Saf Health Care. 2004 Jun;13(3):223-5 [PMID: 15175495]
  24. BMJ. 2013 Jun 18;346:f2820 [PMID: 23778425]
  25. Surgery. 2014 May;155(5):809-25 [PMID: 24787108]
  26. Ann Intern Med. 2020 Jun 2;172(11 Suppl):S137-S144 [PMID: 32479180]
  27. Can J Surg. 2016 Aug;59(4):268-75 [PMID: 27454839]
  28. Healthc (Amst). 2016 Sep;4(3):181-7 [PMID: 27637824]
  29. Soc Sci Med. 2014 Sep;117:125-33 [PMID: 25063968]
  30. BMJ. 2009 Jul 21;339:b2535 [PMID: 19622551]
  31. Ann Surg. 2006 Nov;244(5):686-93 [PMID: 17060760]
  32. Health (London). 2011 Sep;15(5):441-58 [PMID: 21169201]
  33. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2010 Aug;151(2):212-6 [PMID: 20427115]
  34. J Endourol. 2009 Nov;23(11):1893-7 [PMID: 19630483]
  35. Milbank Q. 2004;82(4):581-629 [PMID: 15595944]
  36. BMJ. 2013 Jun 18;346:f3012 [PMID: 23778427]
  37. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2022 Aug;167(2):253-261 [PMID: 34546818]
  38. J Med Eng Technol. 2011 Apr-May;35(3-4):139-48 [PMID: 21314589]
  39. J Neurosurg. 2004 Jan;100(1):2-7 [PMID: 14743905]
  40. J Med Internet Res. 2017 Nov 01;19(11):e367 [PMID: 29092808]
  41. J Am Coll Surg. 2005 Jun;200(6):854-60 [PMID: 15922195]
  42. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2010 Oct;15(4):243-50 [PMID: 20592046]
  43. Lancet. 2012 Nov 17;380(9855):1759-66 [PMID: 23036895]
  44. Ann Surg Oncol. 2007 May;14(5):1662-9 [PMID: 17285395]
  45. Lancet. 2009 Sep 26;374(9695):1097-104 [PMID: 19782875]
  46. Med Decis Making. 2014 Nov;34(8):1006-15 [PMID: 25009191]
  47. Bone Joint J. 2017 Apr;99-B(4):419-420 [PMID: 28385928]
  48. J Surg Res. 2015 Aug;197(2):354-62 [PMID: 25891673]
  49. BMJ Open. 2018 Apr 17;8(4):e020486 [PMID: 29666134]
  50. Implement Sci. 2013 Feb 17;8:22 [PMID: 23414420]
  51. BMJ Open. 2021 Dec 3;11(12):e049234 [PMID: 34862280]
  52. Can J Surg. 2010 Apr;53(2):86-92 [PMID: 20334740]
  53. Surg Innov. 2011 Dec;18(4):379-86 [PMID: 21742665]
  54. Int J Health Plann Manage. 1992 Apr;7(2):133-48 [PMID: 10171260]
  55. Surg Endosc. 2013 Nov;27(11):4009-15 [PMID: 23708726]

MeSH Term

Humans
Databases, Factual
Focus Groups
Surgeons

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0adoptionclinicalsurgicalinnovationpracticenovelviewsfactorssupportnewstudyaffectingsystematicstudiessurgeonSciencemultipleincludingusingsurgeonsorganizationalfacilitatorsincluderegardingBACKGROUND:haphazardtechnologiespotentialcausepatientharmmanymisconceptionsdecision-makingbehindinnovationsaimsynthesizesurgeon'sdecisionadoptMETHODS:literaturesearchperformedobtaincollecteddatabasesscreenedMEDLINEEmbaseDirectScopusWebCochraneLibrarySystematicReviewslastaccessedOctober2022Innovationscoveredspecialtiescardiacgeneralurologyorthopaedicsqualitypapersassessed10-questionCriticalAppraisalSkillsProgrammeCASPtoolqualitativeresearchRESULTS:total261112participants694ninecountriessatisfiedinclusionexclusioncriteriaTypesincludedsemi-structuredinterviewsfocusgroupsexampleThemessub-themesemergedthematicsynthesiscategorizedfivecausalstructuralpatient-levelprovider-levelinnovation-basedthemessplitbarriersKeyimprovedoutcomescost-effectivenessinternalexternalstakeholdersBarrierslackseniorCONCLUSION:complexdynamicallyinteractneedinvestigatestakeholderstrengthevidencerequiredwidespreadSurgeonpractice:review

Similar Articles

Cited By