Surgeon views regarding the adoption of a novel surgical innovation into clinical practice: systematic review

BACKGROUND

The haphazard adoption of new surgical technologies into practice has the potential to cause patient harm and there are many misconceptions in the decision-making behind the adoption of new innovations. The aim of this study was to synthesize factors affecting a surgeon's decision to adopt a novel surgical innovation into clinical practice.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed to obtain all studies where surgeon views on the adoption of a novel surgical innovation into clinical practice have been collected. The databases screened were MEDLINE, Embase, Science Direct, Scopus, the Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library of Systematic Reviews (last accessed October 2022). Innovations covered multiple specialties, including cardiac, general, urology, and orthopaedics. The quality of the papers was assessed using a 10-question Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) tool for qualitative research.

RESULTS

A total of 26 studies (including 1112 participants, of which 694 were surgeons) from nine countries satisfied the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Types of study included semi-structured interviews and focus groups, for example. Themes and sub-themes that emerged after a thematic synthesis were categorized using five causal factors (structural, organizational, patient-level, provider-level, and innovation-based). These themes were further split into facilitators and barriers. Key facilitators to adoption of an innovation include improved clinical outcomes, cost-effectiveness, and support from internal and external stakeholders. Barriers to adoption include lack of organizational support and views of senior surgeons.

CONCLUSION

There are multiple complex factors that dynamically interact, affecting the adoption of a novel surgical innovation into clinical practice. There is a need to further investigate surgeon and other stakeholder views regarding the strength of clinical evidence required to support the widespread adoption of a surgical innovation into clinical practice.

National evaluation of trauma teaching for students (NETTS)

Despite the shift towards consultant-led care, many patients with trauma are still seen by junior doctors. Previous research has demonstrated that junior doctors feel unprepared to work in acute care but there is a paucity of recent research in trauma specifically. Thus, a national study is required to investigate the current state of undergraduate trauma teaching and identify specific areas for improvement. Between August and September 2020, a 35-item structured questionnaire was distributed among doctors who graduated from UK medical schools within the last 4 years. The questionnaire retrospectively assessed their experience of trauma teaching at medical school and their confidence to diagnose and manage patients with trauma. 398 responses were recorded from graduates of 39 UK medical schools. With 79.6% reporting only 0-5 hours of bedside trauma teaching and 51.8% reporting less than 20 hours in Accident and Emergency, graduates reported that trauma teaching was deficient compared with other specialties (78.1%). The majority of graduates were not confident in the initial assessment (72.9%) of a patient with trauma and almost all felt that a short course in trauma would be useful (93.7%). 77.4% of students felt that online learning would be beneficial and 92.9% felt that simulation would be useful. There is lack of standardised undergraduate trauma teaching nationally; a formal undergraduate teaching to ensure that new graduates are competent in the management of trauma would be supported by students. It is likely that a blended learning approach, incorporating e-learning with traditional teaching and clinical experience would be well received.

National evaluation of trauma teaching for students (NETTS)

Despite the shift towards consultant-led care, many patients with trauma are still seen by junior doctors. Previous research has demonstrated that junior doctors feel unprepared to work in acute care but there is a paucity of recent research in trauma specifically. Thus, a national study is required to investigate the current state of undergraduate trauma teaching and identify specific areas for improvement. Between August and September 2020, a 35-item structured questionnaire was distributed among doctors who graduated from UK medical schools within the last 4 years. The questionnaire retrospectively assessed their experience of trauma teaching at medical school and their confidence to diagnose and manage patients with trauma. 398 responses were recorded from graduates of 39 UK medical schools. With 79.6% reporting only 0-5 hours of bedside trauma teaching and 51.8% reporting less than 20 hours in Accident and Emergency, graduates reported that trauma teaching was deficient compared with other specialties (78.1%). The majority of graduates were not confident in the initial assessment (72.9%) of a patient with trauma and almost all felt that a short course in trauma would be useful (93.7%). 77.4% of students felt that online learning would be beneficial and 92.9% felt that simulation would be useful. There is lack of standardised undergraduate trauma teaching nationally; a formal undergraduate teaching to ensure that new graduates are competent in the management of trauma would be supported by students. It is likely that a blended learning approach, incorporating e-learning with traditional teaching and clinical experience would be well received.