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

Nagarjun N Konda; Thomas L Lewis; Hugh N Furness; George W Miller; Andrew J Metcalfe; David R Ellard

doi:10.1093/bjsopen/zrad141

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

BJS Open. 2024 Jan 3;8(1):zrad141. doi: 10.1093/bjsopen/zrad141.

Authors

Nagarjun N Konda^{1

2}, Thomas L Lewis³, Hugh N Furness⁴, George W Miller⁵, Andrew J Metcalfe^{1

2}, David R Ellard^{1

2}

Affiliations

¹ Warwick Clinical Trials Unit, Warwick Medical School, The University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.
² Department of Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery, University Hospitals Coventry & Warwickshire, Coventry, UK.
³ Department of Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery, King's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
⁴ Department of Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery, Imperial College London, London, UK.
⁵ Department of Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery, Bart's and the London NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.

Abstract

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.

Publication types

Systematic Review

MeSH terms

Databases, Factual
Focus Groups
Humans
Surgeons*