Literature DB >> 23404074

Outcomes from a postgraduate biomedical technology innovation training program: the first 12 years of Stanford Biodesign.

Todd J Brinton1, Christine Q Kurihara, David B Camarillo, Jan B Pietzsch, Julian Gorodsky, Stefanos A Zenios, Rajiv Doshi, Christopher Shen, Uday N Kumar, Anurag Mairal, Jay Watkins, Richard L Popp, Paul J Wang, Josh Makower, Thomas M Krummel, Paul G Yock.   

Abstract

The Stanford Biodesign Program began in 2001 with a mission of helping to train leaders in biomedical technology innovation. A key feature of the program is a full-time postgraduate fellowship where multidisciplinary teams undergo a process of sourcing clinical needs, inventing solutions and planning for implementation of a business strategy. The program places a priority on needs identification, a formal process of selecting, researching and characterizing needs before beginning the process of inventing. Fellows and students from the program have gone on to careers that emphasize technology innovation across industry and academia. Biodesign trainees have started 26 companies within the program that have raised over $200 million and led to the creation of over 500 new jobs. More importantly, although most of these technologies are still at a very early stage, several projects have received regulatory approval and so far more than 150,000 patients have been treated by technologies invented by our trainees. This paper reviews the initial outcomes of the program and discusses lessons learned and future directions in terms of training priorities.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23404074      PMCID: PMC3759560          DOI: 10.1007/s10439-013-0761-2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Biomed Eng        ISSN: 0090-6964            Impact factor:   3.934


  5 in total

Review 1.  DEVELOPMENTAL SEQUENCE IN SMALL GROUPS.

Authors:  B W TUCKMAN
Journal:  Psychol Bull       Date:  1965-06       Impact factor: 17.737

2.  The SNaP system: biomechanical and animal model testing of a novel ultraportable negative-pressure wound therapy system.

Authors:  Kenton D Fong; Dean Hu; Shaundra Eichstadt; Deepak M Gupta; Moshe Pinto; Geoffrey C Gurtner; Michael T Longaker; H Peter Lorenz
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg       Date:  2010-05       Impact factor: 4.730

3.  Comparative effectiveness of mechanically and electrically powered negative pressure wound therapy devices: a multicenter randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  David G Armstrong; William A Marston; Alexander M Reyzelman; Robert S Kirsner
Journal:  Wound Repair Regen       Date:  2012 May-Jun       Impact factor: 3.617

4.  Failure strength of lumbar spinous processes loaded in a tension band model.

Authors:  S Raymond Golish; Louie Fielding; Vijay Agarwal; Jenni Buckley; Todd F Alamin
Journal:  J Neurosurg Spine       Date:  2012-05-04

Review 5.  Teaching biomedical technology innovation as a discipline.

Authors:  Paul G Yock; Todd J Brinton; Stefanos A Zenios
Journal:  Sci Transl Med       Date:  2011-07-20       Impact factor: 17.956

  5 in total
  20 in total

1.  Systems Delivery Innovation for Alzheimer Disease.

Authors:  Nicholas T Bott; Clifford C Sheckter; Daniel Yang; Stephanie Peters; Brian Brady; Scooter Plowman; Soo Borson; Bruce Leff; Robert M Kaplan; Terry Platchek; Arnold Milstein
Journal:  Am J Geriatr Psychiatry       Date:  2018-09-28       Impact factor: 4.105

2.  A Forward Move: Interfacing Biotechnology and Physical Therapy In and Out of the Classroom.

Authors:  Randy D Trumbower; Steven L Wolf
Journal:  Phys Ther       Date:  2019-05-01

Review 3.  The Business Engineering Surgical Technologies (BEST) teaching method: incubating talents for surgical innovation.

Authors:  V de Ruijter; P Halvax; B Dallemagne; L Swanström; J Marescaux; S Perretta
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2014-07-04       Impact factor: 4.584

4.  The Effectiveness of Hands-on Health Informatics Skills Exercises in the Multidisciplinary Smart Home Healthcare and Health Informatics Training Laboratories.

Authors:  A H Sapci; H A Sapci
Journal:  Appl Clin Inform       Date:  2017-12-22       Impact factor: 2.342

5.  Institutional culture is the key to team science.

Authors:  Sandra Soo-Jin Lee; Anna Jabloner
Journal:  Nat Biotechnol       Date:  2017-12-08       Impact factor: 54.908

6.  An Extended Hackathon Model for Collaborative Education in Medical Innovation.

Authors:  Jason K Wang; Ravinder D Pamnani; Robson Capasso; Robert T Chang
Journal:  J Med Syst       Date:  2018-10-17       Impact factor: 4.460

Review 7.  Entrepreneurship and Innovation in Health Sciences Education: a Scoping Review.

Authors:  Tanishq Suryavanshi; Sam Lambert; Sarrah Lal; Alvin Chin; Teresa M Chan
Journal:  Med Sci Educ       Date:  2020-08-12

8.  A Novel Clinically Immersive Pre-doctoral Training Program for Engineering in Surgery and Intervention: Initial Realization and Preliminary Results.

Authors:  Michael I Miga; Robert F Labadie
Journal:  Biomed Eng Educ       Date:  2021-06-07

9.  The Surgical Program in Innovation (SPIN): A Design and Prototyping Curriculum for Surgical Trainees.

Authors:  Daniel J Wong; David Miranda-Nieves; Prathima Nandivada; Madhukar S Patel; Daniel A Hashimoto; Daniel O Kent; José Gómez-Márquez; Samuel J Lin; Henry J Feldman; Elliot L Chaikof
Journal:  Acad Med       Date:  2021-09-01       Impact factor: 7.840

10.  Addressing challenges of training a new generation of clinician-innovators through an interdisciplinary medical technology design program: Bench-to-Bedside.

Authors:  Patrick D Loftus; Craig T Elder; Troy D'Ambrosio; John T Langell
Journal:  Clin Transl Med       Date:  2015-04-19
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.