You are here

  • Home
  • Archive
  • Volume 8, Issue 4
  • Adoption of a novel surgical innovation into clinical practice: protocol for a qualitative systematic review examining surgeon views

Article Text

Article menu

Download PDFPDF

XML
Surgery
Protocol
Adoption of a novel surgical innovation into clinical practice: protocol for a qualitative systematic review examining surgeon views
  1. Thomas L Lewis1,
  2. Hugh N Furness2,
  3. George W Miller3,
  4. Nicholas Parsons4,
  5. Kate Seers5,
  6. Martin Underwood6,
  7. Andrew J Metcalfe1,6
  1. 1 Department of Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery, University Hospital Coventry & Warwick, Coventry, UK
  2. 2 St George’s University of London, London, UK
  3. 3 Dept. of Surgery, St Thomas’s Hospital, London, UK
  4. 4 Statistics and Epidemiology Unit, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK
  5. 5 Warwick Research in Nursing, Division of Health Sciences, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK
  6. 6 Warwick Clinical Trials Unit, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK
  1. Correspondence to Thomas L Lewis; tlewis{at}doctors.org.uk

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.

  • surgery
  • qualitative research
  • change management
  • surgical innovation
  • systematic review
  • diffusion of innovation

This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-020486

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    Strengths and limitations of this study

    • This is a protocol for a systematic review of current literature exploring surgeons’ views of an adoption of innovation in surgery.

    • It will use robust methodology to synthesise the research in this area.

    • The scope will be to inform policy and practice and improve patient care by understanding and thus potentially reducing the gap between evidence and clinical practice.

    • The first limitation might be the paucity of research available in this area.

    • The second limitation is that the synthesis relies on the data presented in each of the included reports which may not reflect the full analysis of the original data.

    Introduction and rationale  

    Innovations in surgical care have substantially improved patients’ quality and length of life.1 Innovation in surgery has led to new instruments, equipment, operative procedures and science which all contribute to reduced morbidity and mortality.2 3 Examples include laparoscopic or robotic procedures, changes in theatre practice and novel surgical implants.

    The introduction and adoption of surgical innovations should be based on evidence-based principles rather than trial and error. The stages of surgical innovation are described using the IDEAL (Innovation, Development, Exploration, Assessment, Long term) framework which has been designed with the complexity of surgical interventions in mind.4–6

    There are many definitions of surgical innovation.7 We have used the definition used by the IDEAL framework which describes an innovative procedure in surgery as ‘a new or modified surgical procedure that differs from currently accepted local practice, the outcomes of which have not been described, and which may entail risk to the patient’.8 The IDEAL framework also describes the adoption of an innovation into practice as ‘the increase in the number of overall surgeons doing the procedure over time, which will occur until it is either accepted by surgeons or discarded’.8

    There are many complex factors affecting the adoption and diffusion of innovation into clinical practice.9 10 There are a number of models and frameworks which attempt to explain how these factors affect the spread of novel innovations in healthcare.9–14 While many of these frameworks can be broadly applied to the field of surgery, the specific factors affecting adoption of surgical innovations into clinical practice are not as well understood. Historical data assessing the adoption rates of various laparoscopic procedures, do not correlate well with these models.15 Other newer theories include the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology which originate from the theory of reasoned action.16

    It is clear that there are multiple factors affecting adoption of surgical innovations including perceived clinical effectiveness, cost, patient demand, manufacturer promotion and surgeon preference among others.14 Surgical procedures are often introduced on an ad hoc basis by individual surgeons therefore leading to variation in the adoption of clinically effective innovations. This has a number of clinical consequences, most notably development of a gap between between scientific evidence and clinical practice.

    Studies suggest that about 30%–40% of patients do not receive care according to present scientific evidence, and about 20%–25% of care provided is not needed or is potentially harmful.17 18 Ensuring that patients receive care according to the best scientific evidence will reduce patient morbidity and mortality, and will also lead to improved cost efficiency for the National Health Service (NHS). For example, the change in clinical practice following the Distal Radius Acute Fracture Fixation Trial (DRAFFT) trial is estimated to save NHS £1.6 m per year in implant costs alone. The more expensive plate technology had been in use for over 10 years by the time DRAFFT was published, at a huge cost to NHS.19

    Understanding surgeons’ perceptions of the challenges experienced introducing a novel surgical innovation can give new insights into what factors are taken into account when deciding whether or not to adopt an innovation in surgery. This will provide deeper insights into the adoption, implementation and diffusion of surgical innovations in hospitals in general.

    Objectives

    The aim of this systematic review is to explore the evidence regarding surgeon views of adoption of novel surgical innovations. This review will synthesise published qualitative evidence regarding the factors that affect surgeon decision making to adopt a novel surgical intervention.

    Methods and design

    Population

    This systematic review will include qualitative studies that investigate surgeons’ views on what influences their decision to adopt a novel surgical technology. Only studies relating to the adoption of novel surgical innovations in humans will be included. Interventions related to the field of dentistry will be excluded. We will use the definition of surgical innovation as described by the IDEAL framework.4

    Study design

    This qualitative systematic review will be a narrative synthesis.20–22 Qualitative data from mixed methods studies will be screened for inclusion and included if the qualitative component is relevant. The review protocol has been registered on the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO CRD42017076715) database.23 This protocol has been written in line with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA)-P guidelines.24

    Search strategy

    The search strategy will use a three-stage protocol (figure 1). We will first undertake an initial limited search of MEDLINE with analysis of the text words contained in the titles and abstracts to identify a list of keywords and index terms. We will run our searches using all the identified keywords and index terms customised to the different databases. We will supplement this with forward and backward citation tracking of key papers. Studies will be restricted to the English language and from database inception to July 2017, inclusive. The databases that will be searched are MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library of Systematic Reviews. A sample search strategy for MEDLINE has been provided as online supplementary appendix 1. We will supplement this with a search of the grey literature for theses and reports including empirical data.

    Supplementary file 1

    Figure 1
    Figure 1

    A schematic of the search process of the proposed systematic review.

    Study selection

    Qualitative studies will be independently assessed by two reviewers (TLL and HNF/GWM) and reported using the PRISMA flow diagram.25 We will only include data from full published papers, reports and theses reporting empirical data. We will not include data published in abstract form only. Foreign language papers will not be included. Two reviewers will independently screen titles and abstracts, and retrieved papers to identify included studies. Any disagreements that arise between the reviewers will be resolved through discussion and if necessary consultation with a third senior reviewer (AM or KS). Study selection will be documented and summarised in a PRISMA-compliant flow chart.

    Inclusion criteria

    Studies will only be included if they meet the following inclusion criteria:

    • Report on the adoption of a novel innovation into clinical practice

    • The innovation described meets the IDEAL framework definition of a surgical innovation8

    • Include the views of at least one surgeon in the qualitative analysis

    • The innovation needed to be considered novel at the time of investigation

    Quality assessment

    To minimise bias two reviewers (TLL and HNF) will independently extract data from included studies. Any disagreement will be referred to a third reviewer. All included articles will be subject to critical appraisal using a Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) tool.26 There are recognised issues assessing the quality parameters of qualitative studies, however, the 10-item CASP tool is commonly used for this purpose in qualitative systematic reviews.27 28 Studies will be grouped into low quality (0–3 points), medium quality (4–7 points) and high quality (8–10 points). Articles will not be excluded on the basis of quality so that the review will capture both theoretical and empirical contributions from the study. The quality of each study will be specifically considered during data analysis.

    Data extraction

    Data extraction will be conducted by two authors (TLL and HNF) and use a purpose-designed proforma. Screening and extraction of data records will be managed in Covidence—a web-based systematic review manager.29 Extracted material will reflect the inclusion criteria and the designated aims of the review, derived from the article as a whole. Disagreements will be resolved by discussion with a senior member of the team (AM or KS). Information will be gathered on: author; year of publication; country of study; study type; setting; relevant background and impetus for the study; methodological approach and specified methods; surgeon characteristics and demographics including the type of novel surgical technology; main findings including pertinent themes relating to surgeon perspectives regarding the factors that affect a decision to adopt novel surgical technology and/or procedures; strengths and limitations and key relevant discussion points.

    Data synthesis

    Data will be analysed using thematic synthesis to generate descriptive and analytical themes.20 Two reviewers will independently identify themes and any disagreements will be resolved by a senior member of the project team (KS). Given the anticipated yield of a small heterogeneous body of evidence meeting the eligibility criteria for the review, a narrative-based summary is planned. This study will consider both the theoretical and empirical contributions from each study, and will synthesise the full current body of literature on this important topic. Where possible, associations between the different themes will be identified and grouped into higher-order themes, which will be used to answer the review questions. If possible, these themes will be categorised according to a pre-existing framework describing the adoption or implementation of innovations in healthcare.

    The descriptive or conceptual outputs will be related to the research questions and objectives. The results of this review will been guided by the Enhancing Transparency of Reporting the Synthesis of Qualitative Research framework.30 We will also use and clearly document confidence in the review findings using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation and Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research (GRADE-CERQual) approach .31 32 This framework will consider the methodological limitations, relevance, coherence and adequacy of the data to address potential concerns regarding the validity, and confidence of each research finding.

    Discussion

    Understanding the complexity of adoption of novel treatments or innovations in healthcare is a challenge, despite the recognised benefits such an understanding would have on reducing the gap between evidence and clinical practice.18

    Surgeon preference is one of many factors which has been identified to be crucial in determining the adoption of a new surgical innovation.33 To the best of our knowledge, this study will be the first to collate and summarise the current evidence base regarding surgeons’ views and preferences about adoption of novel surgical technology into clinical practice. The findings from this study will potentially benefit patients, surgeons, hospitals, device manufacturers, commissioning bodies and policy makers by providing an evidence base that could be used to inform service design and delivery with regard to adoption of surgical innovation. The findings of this paper will also be of use to researchers in the field to set future research priorities.

    The findings from the review will inform an empirical qualitative study exploring surgeon and other stakeholder views regarding the adoption of novel surgical technology and procedures into clinical practice.

    Acknowledgments

    The authors thank Sam Johnson from the University of Warwick library for her help in developing the search strategy.

    References

    1. 1.↵
      2. Finks JF ,
      3. Osborne NH ,
      4. Birkmeyer JD
      . Trends in hospital volume and operative mortality for high-risk surgery. N Engl J Med 2011;364:2128–37.doi:10.1056/NEJMsa1010705
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    2. 2.↵
      2. Ergina PL ,
      3. Cook JA ,
      4. Blazeby JM , et al
      . Challenges in evaluating surgical innovation. Lancet 2009;374:1097–104.doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(09)61086-2
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    3. 3.↵
      2. Riskin DJ ,
      3. Longaker MT ,
      4. Gertner M , et al
      . Innovation in surgery: a historical perspective. Ann Surg 2006;244:686–93.doi:10.1097/01.sla.0000242706.91771.ce
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    4. 4.↵
      2. McCulloch P ,
      3. Altman DG ,
      4. Campbell WB , et al
      . No surgical innovation without evaluation: the IDEAL recommendations. Lancet 2009;374:1105–12.doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(09)61116-8
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    5. 5.↵
      2. Ergina PL ,
      3. Barkun JS ,
      4. McCulloch P , et al
      . IDEAL framework for surgical innovation 2: observational studies in the exploration and assessment stages. BMJ 2013;346:f3011.doi:10.1136/bmj.f3011
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    6. 6.↵
      2. Cook JA ,
      3. McCulloch P ,
      4. Blazeby JM , et al
      . IDEAL framework for surgical innovation 3: randomised controlled trials in the assessment stage and evaluations in the long term study stage. BMJ 2013;346:f2820.doi:10.1136/bmj.f2820
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    7. 7.↵
      2. Rogers WA ,
      3. Lotz M ,
      4. Hutchison K , et al
      . Identifying surgical innovation. Ann Surg 2014;259:273–8.doi:10.1097/SLA.0b013e31829ccc5f
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    8. 8.↵
      2. Barkun JS ,
      3. Aronson JK ,
      4. Feldman LS , et al
      . Evaluation and stages of surgical innovations. Lancet 2009;374:1089–96.doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(09)61083-7
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    9. 9.↵
      2. Rogers EM
      . Diffusion of Innovations Theory. 5th edn: New York Free Press, 2003.
    10. 10.↵
      2. Greenhalgh T ,
      3. Robert G ,
      4. Macfarlane F , et al
      . Diffusion of innovations in service organizations: systematic review and recommendations. Milbank Q 2004;82:581–629.doi:10.1111/j.0887-378X.2004.00325.x
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    11. 11.↵
      2. Robert G ,
      3. Greenhalgh T ,
      4. MacFarlane F , et al
      . Adopting and assimilating new non-pharmaceutical technologies into health care: a systematic review. J Health Serv Res Policy 2010;15:243–50.doi:10.1258/jhsrp.2010.009137
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    12. 12.↵
      2. Chaudoir SR ,
      3. Dugan AG ,
      4. Barr CH
      . Measuring factors affecting implementation of health innovations: a systematic review of structural, organizational, provider, patient, and innovation level measures. Implement Sci 2013;8:22.doi:10.1186/1748-5908-8-22
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    13. 13.↵
      2. Greenhalgh T ,
      3. Wherton J ,
      4. Papoutsi C , et al
      . Beyond adoption: a new framework for theorizing and evaluating nonadoption, abandonment, and challenges to the scale-up, spread, and sustainability of health and care technologies. J Med Internet Res 2017;19:e367.doi:10.2196/jmir.8775
    14. 14.↵
      2. Wilson CB
      . Adoption of new surgical technology. BMJ 2006;332:112–4.doi:10.1136/bmj.332.7533.112
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    15. 15.↵
      2. Miller DC ,
      3. Wei JT ,
      4. Dunn RL , et al
      . Trends in the diffusion of laparoscopic nephrectomy. JAMA 2006;295:2476.doi:10.1001/jama.295.21.2480
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    16. 16.↵
      2. Benmessaoud C ,
      3. Kharrazi H ,
      4. MacDorman KF , et al
      . Facilitators and barriers to adopting robotic-assisted surgery: contextualizing the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. PLoS One 2011;6:e16395.doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0016395
    17. 17.↵
      2. Brownson RC ,
      3. Colditz GA ,
      4. Proctor EK
      . Dissemination and implementation research in health: translating science to practice, 2012.
    18. 18.↵
      2. Grol R ,
      3. Grimshaw J
      . From best evidence to best practice: effective implementation of change in patients' care. Lancet 2003;362:1225–30.doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(03)14546-1
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    19. 19.↵
      2. Costa ML ,
      3. Jameson SS ,
      4. Reed MR
      . Do large pragmatic randomised trials change clinical practice?: assessing the impact of the Distal Radius Acute Fracture Fixation Trial (DRAFFT). Bone Joint J 2016;98-B:410–3.doi:10.1302/0301-620X.98B3.36730
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    20. 20.↵
      2. Thomas J ,
      3. Harden A
      . Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol 2008;8:45.doi:10.1186/1471-2288-8-45
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    21. 21.↵
      2. Popay J ,
      3. Roberts H ,
      4. Sowden A , et al
      . Narrative synthesis in systematic reviews: a product from the ESRC methods programme. 93: ESRC Methods Program, 2006.
    22. 22.↵
      2. Snilstveit B ,
      3. Oliver S ,
      4. Vojtkova M
      . Narrative approaches to systematic review and synthesis of evidence for international development policy and practice. J Dev Effect 2012;4:409–29.doi:10.1080/19439342.2012.710641
      OpenUrlCrossRef
    23. 23.↵
      2. Lewis TL ,
      3. Miller G ,
      4. Furness H , et al
      . 2017. A systematic review examining surgeon views regarding the adoption of novel surgical innovation into clinical practice. PROSPERO (CRD42017076715). http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?ID=CRD42017076715.
    24. 24.↵
      2. Shamseer L ,
      3. Moher D ,
      4. Clarke M , et al
      . Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation. BMJ 2015;349:g7647.doi:10.1136/bmj.g7647
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    25. 25.↵
      2. Moher D ,
      3. Liberati A ,
      4. Tetzlaff J , et al
      . Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med 2009;6:e1000097.doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    26. 26.↵
      CASP Qualitative Checklist. Critical appraisal skills programme. 2017 http://www.casp-uk.net/checklists (accessed 10 Sep 2017).
    27. 27.↵
      2. Dixon-Woods M ,
      3. Shaw RL ,
      4. Agarwal S , et al
      . The problem of appraising qualitative research. Qual Saf Health Care 2004;13:223–5.doi:10.1136/qshc.2003.008714
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    28. 28.↵
      2. Dixon-Woods M ,
      3. Sutton A ,
      4. Shaw R , et al
      . Appraising qualitative research for inclusion in systematic reviews: a quantitative and qualitative comparison of three methods. J Health Serv Res Policy 2007;12:42–7.doi:10.1258/135581907779497486
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    29. 29.↵
      Covidence. Covidence - online systematic review software. 2017 https://www.covidence.org/ (accessed 28 Aug 2017).
    30. 30.↵
      2. Tong A ,
      3. Flemming K ,
      4. McInnes E , et al
      . Enhancing transparency in reporting the synthesis of qualitative research: ENTREQ. BMC Med Res Methodol 2012;12:181.doi:10.1186/1471-2288-12-181
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    31. 31.↵
      2. Lewin S ,
      3. Glenton C ,
      4. Munthe-Kaas H , et al
      . PLOS Medicine Staff. Correction: Using Qualitative Evidence in Decision Making for Health and Social Interventions: An Approach to Assess Confidence in Findings from Qualitative Evidence Syntheses (GRADE-CERQual). PLoS Med 2016;13:e1002065.doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1002065
    32. 32.↵
      2. Lewin S ,
      3. Bohren M ,
      4. Rashidian A , et al
      . Applying GRADE-CERQual to qualitative evidence synthesis findings-paper 2: how to make an overall CERQual assessment of confidence and create a Summary of Qualitative Findings table. Implement Sci 2018;13(Suppl 1):10.doi:10.1186/s13012-017-0689-2
      OpenUrl
    33. 33.↵
      2. Davey SM ,
      3. Craven MP ,
      4. Meenan BJ , et al
      . Surgeon opinion on new technologies in orthopaedic surgery. J Med Eng Technol 2011;35:139–48.doi:10.3109/03091902.2011.554596
      OpenUrlPubMed

    Footnotes

    • Twitter @thomasllewis

    • Contributors TLL designed the systematic review with inputs from HNF, GWM, NP, KS, MU and AM. TLL drafted the review protocol with inputs from HNF, GWM, NP, KS, MU and AM. All authors approved the final protocol.

    • Funding This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Patient consent Not required.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.