Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31203248›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2019

Factors supporting and constraining the implementation of robot-assisted surgery: a realist interview study.

Rebecca Randell, Stephanie Honey, Natasha Alvarado, Joanne Greenhalgh, Jon Hindmarsh, Alan Pearman, David Jayne, Peter Gardner, Arron Gill, Alwyn Kotze and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 58 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  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

11 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Rebecca RandellSchool of Healthcare, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-5856-4912
Stephanie HoneyLeeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Natasha AlvaradoSchool of Healthcare, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Joanne GreenhalghSchool of Sociology and Social Policy, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Jon HindmarshSchool of Management and Business, Kings College London, London, UK.
Alan PearmanCentre for Decision Research, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
David JayneSchool of Medicine, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Peter GardnerSchool of Psychology, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Arron GillGeoffrey Giles Theatres, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, UK.
Alwyn KotzeDepartment of Anaesthesia, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, UK.
Dawn DowdingSchool of Health Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
University of Leeds · GBLeeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust · GBKing's College London · GBManchester Academic Health Science Centre · GB

Funding

Department of Health 12/5005/04Medical Research Council MC_G1002457
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo capture stakeholders' theories concerning how and in what contexts robot-assisted surgery becomes integrated into routine practice.

designA literature review provided tentative theories that were revised through a realist interview study. Literature-based theories were presented to the interviewees, who were asked to describe to what extent and in what ways those theories reflected their experience. Analysis focused on identifying mechanisms through which robot-assisted surgery becomes integrated into practice and contexts in which those mechanisms are triggered.

settingNine hospitals in England where robot-assisted surgery is used for colorectal operations.

participantsForty-four theatre staff with experience of robot-assisted colorectal surgery, including surgeons, surgical trainees, theatre nurses, operating department practitioners and anaesthetists.

resultsInterviewees emphasised the importance of support from hospital management, team leaders and surgical colleagues. Training together as a team was seen as beneficial, increasing trust in each other's knowledge and supporting team bonding, in turn leading to improved teamwork. When first introducing robot-assisted surgery, it is beneficial to have a handpicked dedicated robotic team who are able to quickly gain experience and confidence. A suitably sized operating theatre can reduce operation duration and the risk of de-sterilisation. Motivation among team members to persist with robot-assisted surgery can be achieved without involvement in the initial decision to purchase a robot, but training that enables team members to feel confident as they take on the new tasks is essential.

conclusionsWe captured accounts of how robot-assisted surgery has been introduced into a range of hospitals. Using a realist approach, we were also able to capture perceptions of the factors that support and constrain the integration of robot-assisted surgery into routine practice. We have translated these into recommendations that can inform future implementations of robot-assisted surgery.

Indexed as

Digestive System Surgical ProceduresPatient Care TeamProcedures and Techniques UtilizationRobotic Surgical ProceduresStaff DevelopmentChange ManagementColonic DiseasesEducationEnglandHumansNeeds AssessmentOrganizational InnovationSocial Perceptionimplementationrealist evaluationrobot-assisted surgeryrobotic surgery

Identifiers

PMID31203248
PMCPMC6589012
OpenAlexW2947772928

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.