Adoption of an innovation to repair aortic aneurysms at a Canadian hospital: a qualitative case study and evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Priority setting in health care is a challenge because demand for services exceeds available resources. The increasing demand for less invasive surgical procedures by patients, health care institutions and industry, places added pressure on surgeons to acquire the appropriate skills to adopt innovative procedures. Such innovations are often initiated and introduced by surgeons in the hospital setting. Decision-making processes for the adoption of surgical innovations in hospitals have not been well studied and a standard process for their introduction does not exist. The purpose of this study is to describe and evaluate the decision-making process for the adoption of a new technology for repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms (endovascular aneurysm repair [EVAR]) in an academic health sciences centre to better understand how decisions are made for the introduction of surgical innovations at the hospital level. METHODS: A qualitative case study of the decision to adopt EVAR was conducted using a modified thematic analysis of documents and semi-structured interviews. Accountability for Reasonableness was used as a conceptual framework for fairness in priority setting processes in health care organizations. RESULTS: There were two key decisions regarding EVAR: the decision to adopt the new technology in the hospital and the decision to stop hospital funding. The decision to adopt EVAR was based on perceived improved patient outcomes, safety, and the surgeons' desire to innovate. This decision involved very few stakeholders. The decision to stop funding of EVAR involved all key players and was based on criteria apparent to all those involved, including cost, evidence and hospital priorities. Limited internal communications were made prior to adopting the technology. There was no formal means to appeal the decisions made. CONCLUSION: The analysis yielded recommendations for improving future decisions about the adoption of surgical innovations. ese empirical findings will be used with other case studies to help develop guidelines to help decision-makers adopt surgical innovations in Canadian hospitals.

How are decisions to introduce new surgical technologies made? Advanced laparoscopic surgery at a Canadian community hospital: A qualitative case study and evaluation.

The introduction of many new surgical technologies is associated with increased costs and uncertainty regarding risks and benefits. Currently, little is known about how decisions are made regarding the adoption of surgical innovations. To study the decision-making process for adoption of advanced laparoscopic surgical procedures at a community hospital in Toronto, Canada, we used qualitative case study methods. Data were collected using semi-structured interviews with key informants. We performed a modified thematic analysis of the data, using the conceptual framework for priority setting known as accountability for reasonableness, which consists of 4 conditions: relevance, publicity, appeals, and enforcement. Several advanced laparoscopic surgical procedures were introduced at the hospital between 2000 and 2005. During that time, there was no structured, explicit process for making decisions about introducing new surgical technologies. Use of the new surgical technologies was relevant, as measured by the perception of patient benefit and alignment with the hospital's strategic priorities. There was no systematic structure in place to oversee publicity, appeals, or enforcement. The decision to adopt advanced laparoscopic surgery at a community hospital in Toronto, Canada, was made primarily on the basis of its relevance to patient care. The process for making decisions about the adoption of new surgical technologies can be improved.

Contrast-enhanced digital mammography: initial clinical experience.

PURPOSE: To investigate the potential of using intravenous contrast material with full-field digital mammography to facilitate the detection and characterization of lesions in the breast. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-two women scheduled for biopsy because they were suspected of having abnormalities at breast imaging underwent imaging with contrast material-enhanced digital mammography. Six sequential images of the affected breast were obtained, with a contrast agent injected intravenously between the time the first and second images were obtained. Image processing included registration and logarithmic subtraction. Lesions were evaluated for the presence, morphology, and kinetics of enhancement. Lesion type, size, and pathologic findings were correlated with the findings at contrast-enhanced digital mammography. RESULTS: At contrast-enhanced digital mammography, enhancement was observed in eight of 10 patients with biopsy-proved cancers. In one case of ductal carcinoma in situ and one case of invasive ductal carcinoma, enhancement was not observed. No enhancement was seen in seven of 12 cases in which lesions were suspected of being malignant at initial imaging but were benign. Morphology generally correlated with the pathologic diagnosis. The kinetics of lesion enhancement showed similarity to that seen with gadolinium-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging but was not consistent. CONCLUSION: The results of this preliminary study suggest that contrast-enhanced digital mammography potentially may be useful in identification of lesions in the mammographically dense breast. Further investigation of contrast-enhanced digital mammography as a diagnostic tool for breast cancer is warranted.