Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24885669›Full record

Trial reportImplementation science : IS2014

Integration of robotic surgery into routine practice and impacts on communication, collaboration, and decision making: a realist process evaluation protocol.

Rebecca Randell, Joanne Greenhalgh, Jon Hindmarsh, Dawn Dowding, David Jayne, Alan Pearman, Peter Gardner, Julie Croft, Alwyn Kotze

Open access · goldAbstract readClinical Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Implementation science : IS, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed
5.0field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

23 citing papers in PubMed, 61 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Quality of Communication in Robotic Surgery and Surgical Outcomes.JSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons
    Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. IDEAL-compliant implementation of the DexterInnovative surgical sciences · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Frontiers in human factors: embedding specialists in multi-disciplinary efforts to improve healthcare.International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care · 2021
    Article
  13. Article
  14. 'Rise of the Machines': Human Factors and training for robotic-assisted surgery.BMJ surgery, interventions, & health technologies · 2021
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Rebecca RandellSchool of Healthcare, Baines Wing, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, UK. r.randell@leeds.ac.uk.
Joanne Greenhalgh
Jon Hindmarsh
Dawn Dowding
David Jayne
Alan Pearman
Peter Gardner
Julie Croft
Alwyn Kotze
University of Leeds · GBKing's College London · GBLeeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust · GBSt James's University Hospital · GBVisiting Nurse Service of New York · US

Funding

Department of Health 12/5005/04Department of Health HS&DR/12/5005/04Department of Health HS&DR/12/5005/04
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRobotic surgery offers many potential benefits for patients. While an increasing number of healthcare providers are purchasing surgical robots, there are reports that the technology is failing to be introduced into routine practice. Additionally, in robotic surgery, the surgeon is physically separated from the patient and the rest of the team, with the potential to negatively impact teamwork in the operating theatre. The aim of this study is to ascertain: how and under what circumstances robotic surgery is effectively introduced into routine practice; and how and under what circumstances robotic surgery impacts teamwork, communication and decision making, and subsequent patient outcomes. METHODS AND

designWe will undertake a process evaluation alongside a randomised controlled trial comparing laparoscopic and robotic surgery for the curative treatment of rectal cancer. Realist evaluation provides an overall framework for the study. The study will be in three phases. In Phase I, grey literature will be reviewed to identify stakeholders' theories concerning how robotic surgery becomes embedded into surgical practice and its impacts. These theories will be refined and added to through interviews conducted across English hospitals that are using robotic surgery for rectal cancer resection with staff at different levels of the organisation, along with a review of documentation associated with the introduction of robotic surgery. In Phase II, a multi-site case study will be conducted across four English hospitals to test and refine the candidate theories. Data will be collected using multiple methods: the structured observation tool OTAS (Observational Teamwork Assessment for Surgery); video recordings of operations; ethnographic observation; and interviews. In Phase III, interviews will be conducted at the four case sites with staff representing a range of surgical disciplines, to assess the extent to which the results of Phase II are generalisable and to refine the resulting theories to reflect the experience of a broader range of surgical disciplines. The study will provide (i) guidance to healthcare organisations on factors likely to facilitate successful implementation and integration of robotic surgery, and (ii) guidance on how to ensure effective communication and teamwork when undertaking robotic surgery.

Indexed as

CommunicationCooperative BehaviorRoboticsEvidence-Based MedicineHumansInterviews as TopicLaparoscopyRectal NeoplasmsResearch DesignSurgical Procedures, OperativeVideotape Recording

Identifiers

PMID24885669
PMCPMC4017969
OpenAlexW2104461081

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.