Conceptualising Surgical Innovation: An Eliminativist Proposal

Development of a core data set for describing, measuring and reporting the learning curve in studies of novel invasive procedures: study protocol

INTRODUCTION

The introduction of novel surgical techniques and procedures remains poorly regulated and standardised. Although the learning curve associated with invasive procedures is a critical part of innovation, it is currently inconsistently defined, measured and reported. This study aims to develop a core data set that can be applied in all studies describing or measuring the learning curve in novel invasive procedures.

METHODS

A core data set will be developed using methods adapted from the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials initiative. The study will involve three phases: (1) Identification of a comprehensive list of data items through (a) an umbrella review of existing systematic reviews on the learning curve in surgery and (b) qualitative interviews with key stakeholders. (2) Key stakeholders (eg, clinical innovators, clinicians, patients, methodologists, statisticians, journal editors and governance representatives) will complete a Delphi survey to score the importance of each data item, generating a shortened list. (3) Consensus meeting(s) with stakeholders to discuss and agree on the final core data set.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study is approved by an Institutional Ethics Committee at the University of Bristol (ref: 111362). Participants will complete written informed consent to participate. Dissemination strategies include scientific meeting presentations, peer-reviewed journal publications, patient engagement events, use of social media platforms, workshops and other events.

Examining the application of the IDEAL framework in the reporting and evaluation of innovative invasive procedures: secondary qualitative analysis of a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

The development of new surgical procedures is fundamental to advancing patient care. The Idea, Developments, Exploration, Assessment and Long-term (IDEAL) framework describes study designs for stages of innovation. It can be difficult to apply due to challenges in defining and identifying innovative procedures. This study examined how the IDEAL framework is operationalised in real-world settings; specifically, the types of innovations evaluated using the framework and how authors justify their choice of IDEAL study design.

DESIGN

Secondary qualitative analysis of a systematic review.

DATA SOURCES

Citation searches (Web of Science and Scopus) identified studies following the IDEAL framework and citing any of the ten key IDEAL/IDEAL_D papers.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Studies of invasive procedures/devices of any design citing any of the ten key IDEAL/IDEAL_D papers.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

All relevant text was extracted. Three frameworks were developed, namely: (1) type of innovation under evaluation; (2) terminology used to describe stage of innovation and (3) reported rationale for IDEAL stage.

RESULTS

48 articles were included. 19/48 described entirely new procedures, including those used for the first time in a different clinical context (n=15/48), reported as IDEAL stage 2a (n=8, 53%). Terminology describing stage of innovation was varied, inconsistent and ambiguous and was not defined. Authors justified their choice of IDEAL study design based on limitations in published evidence (n=36) and unknown feasibility and safety (n=32) outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Identifying stage of innovation is crucial to inform appropriate study design and governance decisions. Authors' rationale for choice of IDEAL stage related to the existing evidence base or lack of sufficient outcome data for procedures. Stage of innovation was poorly defined with inconsistent descriptions. Further work is needed to develop methods to identify innovation to inform practical application of the IDEAL framework. Defining the concept of innovation in terms of uncertainty, risk and degree of evidence may help to inform decision-making.

Innovation in surgery

The process of innovation is always valuable and can lead to great advances, both intended and unanticipated. However, the outcomes must always be carefully examined in terms of metric which considers more than could ever be tested in a RCT.

Understanding Outcomes After Major Surgery

The global volume of surgery is increasing. Adverse outcomes after surgery have resource implications and long-term impact on quality of life and consequently represent a significant and underappreciated public health issue. Standardization of outcome reporting is essential for evidence synthesis, risk stratification, perioperative care planning, and to inform shared decision-making. The association between short- and long-term outcomes, which persists when corrected for base-line risk, has significant implications for patients and providers and warrants further investigation. Candidate mechanisms include sustained inflammation and reduced physician activity, which may, in the future, be mitigated by targeted interventions.

Development of a conceptual framework for reporting modifications in surgical innovation: scoping review

BACKGROUND

Innovative surgical procedures and devices are often modified throughout their development and introduction into clinical practice. A systematic approach to reporting modifications may support shared learning and foster safe and transparent innovation. Definitions of 'modifications', and how they are conceptualized and classified so they can be reported and shared effectively, however, are lacking. This study aimed to explore and summarize existing definitions, perceptions, classifications and views on modification reporting to develop a conceptual framework for understanding and reporting modifications.

METHODS

A scoping review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines. Targeted searches and two database searches were performed to identify relevant opinion pieces and review articles. Included were articles relating to modifications to surgical procedures/devices. Data regarding definitions, perceptions and classifications of modifications, and views on modification reporting were extracted verbatim. Thematic analysis was undertaken to identify themes, which informed development of the conceptual framework.

RESULTS

Forty-nine articles were included. Eight articles included systems for classifying modifications, but no articles reported an explicit definition of modifications. Some 13 themes relating to perception of modifications were identified. The derived conceptual framework comprises three overarching components: baseline data about modifications, details about modifications and impact/consequences of modifications.

CONCLUSION

A conceptual framework for understanding and reporting modifications that occur during surgical innovation has been developed. This is a first necessary step to support consistent and transparent reporting of modifications, to facilitate shared learning and incremental innovation of surgical procedures/devices. Testing and operationalization is now needed to realize the value of this framework.

A Core Outcome Set for Seamless, Standardized Evaluation of Innovative Surgical Procedures and Devices (COHESIVE): A Patient and Professional Stakeholder Consensus Study

OBJECTIVE

To develop a COS, an agreed minimum set of outcomes to measure and report in all studies evaluating the introduction and evaluation of novel surgical techniques.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Agreement on the key outcomes to measure and report for safe and efficient surgical innovation is lacking, hindering transparency and risking patient harm.

METHODS

(I) Generation of a list of outcome domains from published innovation-specific literature, policy/regulatory body documents, and surgeon interviews; (II) Prioritization of identified outcome domains using an international, multi-stakeholder Delphi survey; (III) Consensus meeting to agree the final COS. Participants were international stakeholders, including patients/public, surgeons, device manufacturers, regulators, trialists, methodologists, and journal editors.

RESULTS

A total of 7972 verbatim outcomes were identified, categorized into 32 domains, and formatted into survey items/questions. Four hundred ten international participants (220 professionals, 190 patients/public) completed at least one round 1 survey item, of which 153 (69.5%) professionals and 116 (61.1%) patients completed at least one round 2 item. Twelve outcomes were scored "consensus in" ("very important" by ≥70% of patients and professionals) and 20 "no consensus." A consensus meeting, involvingcontext: modifications, unexpected disadvantages, device problems, technical procedure completion success, patients' experience relating to the procedure being innovative, surgeons'/operators' experience. Other domains relate to intended benefits, whether the overall desired effect was achieved and expected disadvantages.

CONCLUSIONS

The COS is recommended for use in all studies before definitive randomized controlled trial evaluation to promote safe, transparent, and efficient surgical innovation.

Shared Learning Utilizing Digital Methods in Surgery to Enhance Transparency in Surgical Innovation: Protocol for a Scoping Review

BACKGROUND

Surgical innovation can lead to important improvements in patient outcomes. Currently, information and knowledge about novel procedures and devices are disseminated informally and in an unstandardized way (eg, through social media). This can lead to ineffective and inefficient knowledge sharing among surgeons, which can result in the harmful repetition of mistakes and delay in the uptake of promising innovation. Improvements are needed in the way that learning in surgical innovation is shared through the development of novel, real-time methods, informed by a contemporary and comprehensive investigation of existing methods.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this scoping review is to explore the application of existing digital methods for training/education and feedback to surgeons in the context of performing invasive surgical procedures. This work will (1) summarize existing methods for shared learning in surgery and how they are characterized and operationalized, (2) examine the impact of their application, and (3) explore their benefits and barriers to implementation. The findings of this scoping review will inform the development of novel, real-time methods to optimize shared learning in surgical innovation.

METHODS

This study will adhere to the recommended guidelines for conducting scoping reviews. A total of 6 different searches will be conducted within multiple sources (2 electronic databases, journals, social media, gray literature, commercial websites, and snowball searches) to comprehensively identify relevant articles and data. Searches will be limited to articles published in the English language within the last 5 years. Wherever possible, a 2-stage study selection process will be followed whereby the eligibility of articles will be assessed through the title, abstract, and full-text screening independently by 2 reviewers. Inclusion criteria will be articles providing data on (1) fully qualified theater staff involved in performing invasive procedures, (2) one or more methods for shared learning (ie, digital means for training/education and feedback), and (3) qualitative or quantitative evaluations of this method. Data will be extracted (10% double data extraction by an independent reviewer) into a piloted proforma and analyzed using descriptive statistics, narrative summaries, and principles of thematic analysis.

RESULTS

The study commenced in October 2021 and is planned to be completed in 2023. To date, systematic searches were applied to 2 electronic databases (MEDLINE and Web of Science) and returned a total of 10,093 records. The results of this scoping review will be published as open access in a peer-reviewed journal.

CONCLUSIONS

This scoping review of methods for shared learning in surgery is, to our knowledge, the most comprehensive and up-to-date investigation that maps current information on this topic. Ultimately, efficient and effective sharing of information and knowledge of novel procedures and devices has the potential to optimize the evaluation of early-phase surgical research and reduce harmful innovation.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

PRR1-10.2196/37544.

Qualitative documentary analysis of guidance on information provision and consent for the introduction of innovative invasive procedures including surgeries within NHS organisations' policies in England and Wales

OBJECTIVE

To review guidance, included in written local UK National Health Service (NHS) organisation policies, on information provision and consent for the introduction of new invasive procedures- including surgeries, and devices (IPs/Ds).

DESIGN

A qualitative documentary analysis of data on patient information provision and consent extracted from policies for the introduction of IP/Ds from NHS organisations in England and Wales.

SETTING

NHS trusts in England and health boards in Wales, UK.

PARTICIPANTS

Between December 2017 and July 2018, 150 acute trusts in England and 7 health boards in Wales were approached for their policies for the introduction of new IP/Ds. In total, 123 policies were received, 11 did not fit the inclusion criteria and a further policy was included from a trust website resulting in 113 policies included for review.

RESULTS

From the 113 policies, 22 did not include any statements on informed consent/information provision or lacked guidance on the information to be provided to patients and were hence excluded. Consequently, 91 written local NHS policies were included in the final dataset. Within the guidance obtained, variation existed on disclosure of the procedure's novelty, potential risks, benefits, uncertainties, alternative treatments and surgeon's experience. Few policies stated that clinicians should discuss the existing evidence associated with a procedure. Additionally, while the majority of policies referred to patients needing written information, this was often not mandated and few policies specified the information to be included.

CONCLUSIONS

Nearly a fifth of all the policies lacked guidance on information to be provided to patients. There was variability in the policy documents regarding what patients should be told about innovative procedures. Further research is needed to ascertain the information and level of detail appropriate for patients when considering innovative procedures. A core information set including patients' and clinicians' views is required to address variability around information provision/consent for innovative procedures.

Understanding stage of innovation of invasive procedures and devices: protocol for a systematic review and thematic analysis

INTRODUCTION

Surgical innovation has generally occurred in an unstandardised manner. This has led to unnecessary exposure of patients to harm, research waste and inadequate evidence. The IDEAL (Idea, Development, Exploration, Assessment, Long-term follow-up) Collaboration provided a set of recommendations for evaluating surgical innovations based on their stage of innovation. Despite further refinements and guidance, adoption of the IDEAL recommendations has been slow; an important reason may be that determining the stage of innovation is often difficult. To facilitate evaluation of surgical innovations, there is a need for a detailed insight into what stage of innovation means, and how it can be determined. The aim of this study is to understand the concept of stage of innovation as reported in the literature.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

A systematic review is being conducted. Ovid MEDLINE and Embase databases were searched from their inception until July 2021 using an iteratively developed strategy based on the concepts of stage of innovation, invasive procedures or devices and guidance. Articles were included if they described an approach to evaluating surgical innovations in stages, described a method for determining stage of innovation, described indicators of stage of innovation, defined stages or described potential sources of stage-related information. Conference abstracts and non-English language articles were excluded. Other articles were detected from citations within included articles and suggestions from experts in surgical innovation. Data will be extracted regarding approaches to evaluating surgical innovations, methods for determining stage of innovation, indicators of stage of innovation, definitions of stages and potential sources of stage-related information. A thematic analysis will be conducted, and findings summarised in a narrative report.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval will not be required. This systematic review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at appropriate conferences.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42021270812.

Surgical innovation in LMICs-The perspective from India

Surgical Innovations are central to surgical progress, and have led to exponential growth in various fields of Surgery. Surgical Innovations in Lower and Middle Income Countries are the result of creativity of frontline health workers in search of simple, safe and ethical solutions for their unique challenges. The key lies in: 'simplifying the idea/technique/device' to find patients' needs-driven low-cost innovative surgical solutions; which can be used on a wider scale to achieve health equity for underserved populations. Local surgeons understand the difficulties and nuances of various problems and can provide local-evidence-based customized solutions for their patients' health problems. We developed a Surgical Innovation Ecosystem allowing us to see difficulties as opportunities, learn from everyone and conduct research on what is 'important' rather than what is 'interesting'. Barriers to Surgical Innovations in Lower and Middle Income Countries are well known; however, a roadmap to overcome these barriers is now available. The right balance has to be found between encouraging creativity and innovation while maintaining ethical awareness and responsibility to patients. Introduction and adoption of Surgical Innovations are governed by evidence-based principles and have to undergo a rigorous and scientific evaluation. Science of Surgical Innovations has finally come of age and is getting its due recognition and the pioneering innovators are receiving the much needed appreciation and support.

Value, transparency, and inclusion: A values-based study of patient involvement in musculoskeletal research

Background

Patient and public involvement work (PPI) is essential to good research practice. Existing research indicates that PPI offers benefits to research design, conduct, communication, and implementation of findings. Understanding how PPI works and its value helps to provide information about best practice and highlight areas for further development. This study used a values-based approach to reporting PPI at a Research Unit focused on musculoskeletal conditions within a UK medical school.

Methods

The study was conducted between October 2019 and January 2020 using Gradinger’s value system framework as a theoretical basis. The framework comprises three value systems each containing five clusters. All PPI members and researchers who had attended PPI groups were invited to participate. Participants completed a structured questionnaire based on the value system framework; PPI members also provided further information through telephone interviews. Data were deductively analysed using a framework approach with data mapped onto value systems.

Results

Twelve PPI members and 17 researchers took part. Views about PPI activity mapped onto all three value systems. PPI members felt empowered to provide their views, and that their opinions were valued by researchers. It was important to PPI members that they were able to ‘give back’ and to do something positive with their experiences. Researchers would have liked the groups to be more representative of the wider population, patients highlighted that groups could include more younger members. Researchers recognised the value of PPI, and the study highlighted areas where researchers members might benefit from further awareness.

Conclusions

Three areas for development were identified: (i) facilitating researcher engagement in training about the value and importance of PPI in research; (ii) support for researchers to reflect on the role that PPI plays in transparency of healthcare research; (iii) work to further explore and address aspects of diversity and inclusion in PPI.

Reporting Modifications in Surgical Innovation: A Systematic Scoping Review Protocol

INTRODUCTION

Innovation in surgery drives improvements to patient care. New surgical procedures and devices typically undergo a series of modifications as they are developed and refined during their introduction into clinical practice. These changes should ideally be reported and shared between surgeon-innovators to promote efficient, safe and transparent innovation. Currently, agreement on how modifications should be defined, conceptualised and classified, so they can be reported and shared efficiently and transparently, is lacking. The aim of this review is to examine and summarise existing literature on definitions, perceptions and classifications of modifications to surgical procedures/devices, including views on how to measure and report them. The findings will inform future work to standardise reporting and sharing of modifications in surgical innovation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic scoping review will be conducted adhering to PRISMA-ScR guidelines. Included articles will focus on review articles and opinion pieces relevant to modifications to new surgical procedures or devices introduced to clinical practice. Methods to identify relevant literature will include systematic searches in MEDLINE (Ovid version), targeted internet searches (Google Scholar) and snowball searches. A two-stage screening process (titles/abstracts/keywords and full-texts) will use specified exclusion/inclusion criteria to identify eligible articles. Data on how modifications are i) defined, ii) perceived, and iii) classified, and iv) views on how modifications should be measured and reported, will be extracted verbatim. Inductive thematic analysis will be applied to extracted data where appropriate. Results will be presented as a narrative summary including descriptive characteristics of included articles. Findings will inform a preliminary conceptual framework to facilitate the systematic reporting and sharing of modifications to novel procedures and devices.

HIGHLIGHTS

This work will generate an in-depth understanding of how modifications are currently defined, perceived and classified, and views on how they may be reported, in the context of surgical innovation.Rigorous and comprehensive search methods will be applied to identify a wide range of diverse data sources for inclusion in the review.A summary of existing relevant literature on modifications is a necessary step to inform development of a framework for transparent, real-time reporting and sharing of modifications in future studies of innovative invasive procedures/devices.

How Do Academic Otolaryngologists Decide to Implement New Procedures Into Practice?

OBJECTIVE

To identify barriers and facilitators to adoption of a new surgical procedure via an implementation science framework to characterize associated socioemotional, clinical, and decision-making processes.

STUDY DESIGN

Qualitative study with a semistructured interview approach.

SETTING

Large tertiary care referral center.

METHODS

Academic otolaryngologists with at least 2 years of practice were identified and interviewed. Transcripts were thematically coded and separated into steps in the clinical pathway. Synthesis of major themes characterized facilitators and barriers to uptake of a new surgical technique.

RESULTS

Of 22 otolaryngologists, 19 were interviewed (85% male). They had a median 18 years of practice (interquartile range, 7.8-26.3), and 65% were subspecialty trained. In the decision to implement a new procedure, improving patient outcomes and addressing unmet clinical needs facilitated adoption, whereas costs and adopting profit-driven technologies without improved outcomes were barriers. In patient consults, establishing trust facilitated implementation of new techniques; barriers included participants' hesitation to communicate about the unknowns of a new procedure. Intraoperatively, little change to existing workflow or improved efficiency facilitated adoption, while a substantial learning curve for the new procedure was a barrier. Achieving favorable outcomes and patient satisfaction sustained implementation of new procedures. Too few referrals or indications for the new procedure hindered implementation.

CONCLUSION

Our study demonstrates that innovation in otolaryngology is often an individual iterative process that providers pursue to improve patients' outcomes. Although models for the oversight of surgical innovation emphasize the need for evidence, obtaining sufficient numbers of providers and patients to generate evidence remains a challenge in specialty surgical practice.

From vision to action: Canadian leadership in ethics and neurotechnology

This chapter explores the complex neuroethical aspects of neurosurgery and neuromodulation in the context of Canadian healthcare and innovation, as seen through the lens of the Pan Canadian Neurotechnology Ethics Consortium (PCNEC). Highlighted are key areas of ethical focus, each with its own unique challenges: technical advances, readiness and risk, vulnerable populations, medico-legal issues, training, and research. Through an exploration of Canadian neurotechnological practice from these various clusters, we provide a critical review of progress, describe opportunities to address areas of debate, and seek to foster ethical innovation. Underpinning this comprehensive review are the fundamental principles of solution-oriented, practical neuroethics, with beneficence and justice at the core. In our view, it is a moral imperative that neurotechnological advancements include a delineation of ethical priorities for future guidelines, oversight, and interactions.