Katrina Hutchison1, Wendy Rogers, Anthony Eyers, Mianna Lotz. 1. *Department of Philosophy, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia †Australian School of Advanced Medicine, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This article presents an original definition of surgical innovation and a practical tool for identifying planned innovations. These will support the responsible introduction of surgical innovations. BACKGROUND: Frameworks developed for the safer introduction of surgical innovations rely upon identifying cases of innovation; oversight cannot occur unless innovations are identified. However, there is no consensus among surgeons about which interventions they consider innovative; existing definitions are vague and impractical. METHODS: Using conceptual analysis, this article synthesizes findings from relevant literature, and from qualitative research with surgeons, to develop an original definition of surgical innovation and a tool for prospectively identifying planned surgical innovations. The tool has been developed in light of feedback from health care professionals, surgeons, and policy makers. RESULTS: This definition of innovation distinguishes between variations, introduction of established interventions, and innovations in surgical techniques or use of devices. It can be applied easily and consistently, is sensitive to the key features of innovation (newness and degree of change), is prospective, and focuses on features relevant to safety and evaluation. The accompanying tool is deliberately broad so that appropriate supports may, if necessary, be provided each time that a surgeon does something "new." CONCLUSIONS: The definition presented in this article overcomes a number of practical challenges. The definition and tool will be of value in supporting responsible surgical innovation, in particular, through the prospective identification of planned innovations.
OBJECTIVES: This article presents an original definition of surgical innovation and a practical tool for identifying planned innovations. These will support the responsible introduction of surgical innovations. BACKGROUND: Frameworks developed for the safer introduction of surgical innovations rely upon identifying cases of innovation; oversight cannot occur unless innovations are identified. However, there is no consensus among surgeons about which interventions they consider innovative; existing definitions are vague and impractical. METHODS: Using conceptual analysis, this article synthesizes findings from relevant literature, and from qualitative research with surgeons, to develop an original definition of surgical innovation and a tool for prospectively identifying planned surgical innovations. The tool has been developed in light of feedback from health care professionals, surgeons, and policy makers. RESULTS: This definition of innovation distinguishes between variations, introduction of established interventions, and innovations in surgical techniques or use of devices. It can be applied easily and consistently, is sensitive to the key features of innovation (newness and degree of change), is prospective, and focuses on features relevant to safety and evaluation. The accompanying tool is deliberately broad so that appropriate supports may, if necessary, be provided each time that a surgeon does something "new." CONCLUSIONS: The definition presented in this article overcomes a number of practical challenges. The definition and tool will be of value in supporting responsible surgical innovation, in particular, through the prospective identification of planned innovations.
Authors: Christin Hoffmann; Sina Hossaini; Sian Cousins; Natalie Blencowe; Angus G K McNair; Jane M Blazeby; Kerry N L Avery; Shelley Potter; Rhiannon Macefield Journal: Int J Surg Protoc Date: 2021-11-12
Authors: Darren L Scroggie; Daisy Elliott; Sian Cousins; Kerry Nl Avery; Jane M Blazeby; Natalie S Blencowe Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2022-02-11 Impact factor: 3.006
Authors: Jesmond Zahra; Sangeetha Paramasivan; Natalie S Blencowe; Sian Cousins; Kerry Avery; Johnny Mathews; Barry G Main; Angus G K McNair; Robert Hinchliffe; Jane M Blazeby; Daisy Elliott Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2020-11-06 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Daisy Elliott; Cynthia Ochieng; Marcus Jepson; Natalie S Blencowe; Kerry Nl Avery; Sangeetha Paramasivan; Sian Cousins; Anni Skilton; Peter Hutchinson; David Jayne; Martin Birchall; Jane M Blazeby; Jenny L Donovan; Leila Rooshenas Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2021-06-16 Impact factor: 2.692