ArticleBMC health services research2007
Adoption of an innovation to repair aortic aneurysms at a Canadian hospital: a qualitative case study and evaluation.
Article in BMC health services research, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Surgeon views regarding the adoption of a novel surgical innovation into clinical practice: systematic review.BJS open · 2024Pooled it
- Article
- Decision making for early surgical technology adoption into Canada's healthcare system: a scoping review of the decision-making criteria, challenges, and opportunities.International journal of technology assessment in health care · 2023Article
- Discussing surgical innovation with patients: a qualitative study of surgeons' and governance representatives' views.BMJ open · 2020Article
- Conceptualising Surgical Innovation: An Eliminativist Proposal.Health care analysis : HCA : journal of health philosophy and policy · 2020Article
- Article
- Evidence use in decision-making on introducing innovations: a systematic scoping review with stakeholder feedback.Implementation science : IS · 2017Article
- Review
- Setting Healthcare Priorities at the Macro and Meso Levels: A Framework for Evaluation.International journal of health policy and management · 2015Review
- Setting healthcare priorities in hospitals: a review of empirical studies.Health policy and planning · 2015Review
- Surgical process improvement tools: defining quality gaps and priority areas in gastrointestinal cancer surgery.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2014Article
- Three-dimensional aortic aneurysm model and endovascular repair: an educational tool for surgical trainees.The International journal of angiology : official publication of the International College of Angiology, Inc · 2008Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPriority 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.
methodsA 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.
resultsThere 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.
conclusionThe 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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.