Dataset Information

Adoption of a novel surgical innovation into clinical practice: protocol for a qualitative systematic review examining surgeon views.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Efficient adoption of clinically effective novel surgical innovations has great potential benefits for patients. Factors affecting the adoption of surgical innovation are not well understood and proposed models of adoption do not accurately correlate with historical evidence. This protocol is for a systematic review that aims to identify the qualitative evidence relating to surgeon views regarding the adoption of novel surgical innovation into clinical practice.

Methods and analysis

A systematic review following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidance will be performed. Two independent reviewers will search the following databases: MEDLINE, Embase, Science Direct, Scopus, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library of Systematic Reviews. Inclusion criteria are studies which report on the views of surgeons who adopt a novel surgical innovation into clinical practice. Each article will be screened for inclusion and assessed according to a Critical Appraisal Skills Programme tool. Data will be synthesised and analysed according to thematic analysis. Given the anticipated yield of a small heterogeneous body of evidence meeting the eligibility criteria for the review, a narrative-based summary is planned.

Ethics and dissemination

This review does not require formal ethical approval as it does not involve direct patient contact or patient-identifiable data. The results of this review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at relevant conferences. The results will also inform an empirical qualitative study exploring surgeon and other stakeholder views regarding the introduction of novel surgical technology and procedures into clinical practice.

Prospero registration number

CRD42017076715.

SUBMITTER: Lewis TL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5905758 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Adoption of a novel surgical innovation into clinical practice: protocol for a qualitative systematic review examining surgeon views.

Lewis Thomas L TL Furness Hugh N HN Miller George W GW Parsons Nicholas N Seers Kate K Underwood Martin M Metcalfe Andrew J AJ

BMJ open 20180417 4

<h4>Introduction</h4>Efficient adoption of clinically effective novel surgical innovations has great potential benefits for patients. Factors affecting the adoption of surgical innovation are not well understood and proposed models of adoption do not accurately correlate with historical evidence. This protocol is for a systematic review that aims to identify the qualitative evidence relating to surgeon views regarding the adoption of novel surgical innovation into clinical practice.<h4>Methods a ...[more]

PMID: 29666134

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesLittle is known about how innovative surgical procedures are introduced and discussed with patients. This qualitative study aimed to explore perspectives on information provision and consent prior to innovative surgical procedures.DesignQualitative study involving semi-structured interviews. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed and analysed thematically.Participants42 interviews were conducted (26 surgeons and 16 governance representatives).SettingSurgeons and governance representatives recruited from various surgical specialties and National Health Service (NHS) Trusts across England, UK.ResultsParticipants stated that if a procedure was innovative, patients should be provided with additional information extending beyond that given during routine surgical consultations. However, difficulty defining innovation had implications for whether patients were informed about novel components of surgery and how the procedure was introduced (ie, as part of a research study, trust approval or in routine clinical practice). Furthermore, data suggest surgeons found it difficult to establish what information is essential and how much detail is sufficient, and governance surrounding written and verbal information provision differed between NHS Trusts. Generally, surgeons believed patients held a view that 'new' was best and reported that managing these expectations could be difficult, particularly if patient views aligned with their own.ConclusionsThis study highlights the challenges of information provision and obtaining informed consent in the context of innovative surgery, including establishing if and how a procedure is truly innovative, determining the key information to discuss with patients, ensuring information provision is objective and balanced, and managing patient expectations and preferences. This suggests that surgeons may require support and training to discuss novel procedures with patients. Further work should capture consultations where new procedures are discussed with patients and patients' views of these information exchanges.

Project description:Pharmacy practice has evolved to include direct patient care and interprofessional team models. Proper documentation of training and certification is required to verify eligibility for providing specialized services and for reimbursement. The objectives of this study were to assess pharmacists' views and perceptions on credentialing with respect to (1) familiarity and perceived importance of credentialing; (2) satisfaction with current credentialing tracking systems; and (3) challenges in adopting a centralized credentialing platform. This study used a cross-sectional, survey design to examine pharmacist perceptions of credentialing. The survey, distributed by the American Pharmacists Association from November 18, 2017 to December 2, 2017, consisted of 11 demographic items and 22 items about familiarity, importance, satisfaction and current systems of credentialing in pharmacy practice. Descriptive statistics were used to characterize the sample and outcome variables. Content analysis was conducted on freeform responses. Data were analyzed from 446 (7.3%) completed surveys of the 6,144 distributed. Respondents were primarily represented by pharmacists from chain stores (29.6%), outpatient clinics (16.6%), and academic settings (15.2%). Job titles included staff pharmacist (33.9%), clinical pharmacist (21.3%), and manager positions (18.3%). Nine of 10 pharmacists reported familiarity with credentialing and considered credentialing as important to the pharmacy profession. Majority agreed with the importance of having a centralized online platform to store credentialing information (96.1%) and to obtain reimbursement (97.1%). Poor integration of data among different platforms (16%) was a common reason for dissatisfaction with current tracking systems. Most respondents (96.5%) were willing to provide information necessary for credentialing; however, over half were concerned about security of the information. This study was among the first to examine pharmacist perceptions of credentialing. Pharmacists in this study were familiar with and responsive to participating in credentialing process. They were also supportive of having a centralized credentialing system, but held reservations about security of information.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:There is limited published literature exploring how the personality traits of surgeons may influence preoperative decision making, particularly in the context of visceral/abdominal surgery. Multiple validated personality scoring systems exist and have been used to describe surgeon personalities previously. The degree to which each trait is expressed by abdominal surgeons is neither currently known, nor the impact of these traits on postoperative outcomes. The protocol has been written in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols checklist. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:The search strategy has been developed by a Health Scientist Librarian in collaboration with the review team. The search was conducted on 1st October 2019.Database subject headings and text words relating to 'abdominal/general surgeons', 'personality', 'postoperative outcomes' and 'decision making' formed the basis of our literature search strategy; the MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycInfo and Cochrane databases will be searched. Three reviewers will independently screen and appraise articles, with a fourth reviewer utilised if disagreements arise.A systematic narrative synthesis will be performed, with information presented in text and table format. These will summarise the findings and characteristics of any included studies. Using guidance from the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, the reviewers will describe the potential relationship and findings between studies using the narrative synthesis. Studies will only be reported if they are felt to have low or mid-levels of bias. Studies felt to display high levels of bias will be excluded. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:This study does not require ethical approval. The formal systematic review will be submitted for peer reviewed publication and presented at relevant conferences. The methods may inform future reviews in other surgical specialties regarding surgeon personality. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER:CRD42019151375.

Project description:The aim of the present article was to systematically review the ethics of surgical innovation and introduce the components of the learning health care system to guide future research and debate on surgical innovation.Although the call for evidence-based practice in surgery is increasingly high on the agenda, most surgeons feel that the format of the randomized controlled trial is not suitable for surgery. Innovation in surgery has aspects of, but should be distinguished from both research and clinical care and raises its own ethical challenges.To answer the question "What are the main ethical aspects of surgical innovation?", we systematically searched PubMed and Embase. Papers expressing an opinion, point of view, or position were included, that is, normative ethical papers.We included 59 studies discussing ethical aspects of surgical innovation. These studies discussed 4 major themes: oversight, informed consent, learning curve, and vulnerable patient groups. Although all papers addressed the ethical challenges raised by surgical innovation, surgeons hold no uniform view of surgical innovation, and there is no agreement on the distinction between innovation and research. Even though most agree to some sort of oversight, they offer different alternatives ranging from the formation of new surgical innovation committees to establishing national registries. Most agree that informed consent is necessary for innovative procedures and that surgeons should be adequately trained to assure their competence to tackle the learning curve problem. All papers agree that in case of vulnerable patients, alternatives must be found for the informed consent procedure.We suggest that the concept of the learning health care system might provide guidance for thinking about surgical innovation. The underlying rationale of the learning health care system is to improve the quality of health care by embedding research within clinical care. Two aspects of a learning health care system might particularly enrich the necessary future discussion on surgical innovation: integration of research and practice and a moral emphasis on "learning activities." Future research should evaluate whether the learning health care system and its adjacent moral framework provides ethical guidance for evidence-based surgery.

Project description:STUDY DESIGN:Surgeon survey. OBJECTIVE:To examine factors influencing surgeons' definition of instability in grade 1 degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS) and assess treatment preferences for both stable and unstable DS. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA:DS treatment options are broadly classified as decompression with or without fusion. In surgical decision-making, "instability" is frequently considered as a key factor. However, no consensus on the definition of instability exists. METHODS:A survey was conducted to ascertain the minimum amounts of static translation, dynamic translation, and angulation change that surgeons considered significant for determining instability. The importance of other clinical and radiographic features were also assessed, and respondents' standard treatment for stable and unstable DS. RESULTS:Out of 226 respondents, 99% deemed dynamic translation moderately to extremely influential for determining instability, whereas only 55% found static translation as important. The most prevalent cut-off values for dynamic (57%) and static translation (32%) were at least 2-4?mm and for angulation change at least 10-15 degrees (43%). Facet angulation was considered moderately to extremely important to determine instability by 69% of the surgeons, disk height by 67%, patient age by 64%, severity of stenosis by 55%, severity of back pain by 50%, patient-reported function by 49%, pelvic incidence by 47%, and severity of neurogenic claudication by 42%.Decompression with fusion was the preferred treatment method for unstable DS in 99% of the respondents. For stable DS, 40% would still perform fusion, whereas 60% preferred treatment with decompression-alone. Those who preferred fusion for stable DS reported significantly lower thresholds for static (P<0.001) and dynamic translation (P=0.004) for their determination of instability. CONCLUSIONS:Clear consensus regarding the definition of instability does not exist. Dynamic translation is the most agreed-upon parameter of influence. Treatment preferences vary for stable DS, but for unstable cases there is broad consensus to perform fusion. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE:Level II.

Project description:BackgroundGenetic screening (GS), defined as the clinical testing of a population to identify asymptomatic individuals with the aim of providing those identified as high risk with prevention, early treatment, or reproductive options. Genetic screening (GS) improves patient outcomes and is accessible to the community. Family physicians (FPs) are ideally placed to offer GS. There is a need for FPs to adopt GS to address anticipated genetic specialist shortages.ObjectiveTo explore FP attitudes, perceived roles, motivators and barriers, towards GS; and explore similarities and differences between private and public sector FPs.MethodsWe developed a semi-structured interview guide using existing literature. We interviewed private and public sector FPs recruited by purposive, convenience and snowballing strategies, by telephone or video to theme saturation. All sessions were audio-recorded, transcribed and coded for themes by two independent researchers with an adjudicator.ResultsThirty FPs were interviewed (15 private, 15 public). Theme saturation was reached for each group. A total of 12 themes (6 common, 3 from private-practice participants, 3 public-employed participants) emerged. Six common major themes emerged: personal lack of training and experience, roles and relevance of GS to family medicine, reluctance and resistance to adding GS to practice, FP motivations for adoption, patient factors as barrier, and potential solutions. Three themes (all facilitators) were unique to the private group: strong rapport with patients, high practice autonomy, and high patient literacy. Three themes (all barriers) were unique to the public group: lack of control, patients' lower socioeconomic status, and rigid administrative infrastructure.ConclusionFPs are motivated to incorporate GS but need support for implementation. Policy-makers should consider the practice setting when introducing new screening functions. Strategies to change FP behaviours should be sensitive to their sense of autonomy, and the external factors (either as facilitators or as barriers) shaping FP practices in a given clinical setting.

Dataset Information

Adoption of a novel surgical innovation into clinical practice: protocol for a qualitative systematic review examining surgeon views.

Introduction

Methods and analysis

Ethics and dissemination

Prospero registration number

Publications

Adoption of a novel surgical innovation into clinical practice: protocol for a qualitative systematic review examining surgeon views.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets