ArticleSurgical innovation2022
A Framework for Successful Adoption of Surgical Innovation.
Article in Surgical innovation, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Theory and evidence-base for a digital platform for the delivery of language tests during awake craniotomy and collaborative brain mapping.BMJ surgery, interventions, & health technologies · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundInnovation Adoption Frameworks are applied in healthcare industry, but surgical innovation does not follow the same models as medical innovation and it is not always adopted fully by members of the team. PURPOSE: The aim of this paper is to develop a framework for successful adoption of surgical innovation. RESEARCH
designThis paper is inspired by design thinking. Based on a pragmatic research philosophy, a mixed method approach was selected including semi-structured interview and focus groups, following a questionnaire. STUDY SAMPLE: A sample of five specialists in the field (doctors and managers) were selected for interview. Six focus groups were conducted. On average, five people were involved in each focus groups, 30 participants in total, including consultants, senior and junior ward nurses, health care assistant (HCA), cancer nurse specialist, stoma nurses, theatre senior and junior staff. DATA COLLECTION/ANALYSIS: Qualitative data was collected and analyzed using Thematic Analysis.
resultsFollowing a design thinking approach; firstly, an initial Surgical Adoption Model was proposed, based on the existing literature. Then, the challenges, processes and teams involved in Robotic Surgery adoption, an existing surgical innovation in a local NHS hospital, were explored. Five main themes were extracted from interviews and focus groups data -
conclusionsThe Surgical Innovation Framework incorporated the themes extracted from the data. The framework is unique within the field of surgical innovation and is designed with the aim of improving surgical innovation adoption success rate. Future research can trial the framework to evaluate its effectiveness.
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.