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

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.

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

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.

Publication fate of abstracts presented at British association of clinical anatomists annual meetings.

Dissemination of research is an integral part of the scientific process. Failure to disseminate research limits the scope for critical appraisal and potentially wastes valuable resources. The gold standard for dissemination of research is peer-reviewed publication following presentation at a national meeting. The primary objective of this study was quantitative assessment of the abstracts presented at British Association of Clinical Anatomists (BACA) summer and winter meetings with regards to the rates of subsequent publication and comparison to other medical specialties. Published abstracts from the summer and winter meetings of BACA between the years of 2000 and 2014 were analyzed. MEDLINE was searched to identify peer-reviewed publications arising from each presented abstract. In total, 1,807 abstracts were presented between the years of 2000 and 2014. The mean number of abstracts presented each year was 60.2, (range 26-157). In total, 20.4% of abstracts were subsequently published in MEDLINE-indexed journals with a median publication time of 19 months. The mean number of cadaveric prosections was 45.2 ± 78.8, (range 1-960). Analysis of abstracts focusing on radiographic imaging found the mean number of scans was 224.4 ± 807.1, (range 1-6,439). Biannual meetings of BACA are a forum for the presentation of high-quality anatomical research. BACA meeting abstracts have generally reduced publication rates compared to some surgical specialty meetings; however, there is no analysis available for an equivalent anatomical meeting. Further work should try to identify reasons that may hinder or limit subsequent publication of the anatomy abstracts presented at BACA. Clin. Anat. 30:133-139, 2017. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.