Introduction of new technologies and decision making processes: A framework to adapt a local health technology decision support program for other local settings

Medical Devices: Evidence and Research

Volumn 6, Issue 1, 2013, Pages 185-193

  Poulin, Paule ^a   Austen, Lea ^a   Scott, Catherine M ^a   Poulin, Michelle ^a   Gall, Nadine ^a   Seidel, Judy ^b   Lafrenière, René ^a  

^a Department of Surgery ^*  (Canada)

^b ALBERTA HEALTH SERVICES   (Canada)

Author keywords

Evidence based medicine; Health technology assessment; Program adaptation; Program development

Indexed keywords

DECISION MAKING PROCESS; EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE; HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS; HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENTS; PROGRAM ADAPTATIONS; PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT; READINESS ASSESSMENT; STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT;

BIOMEDICAL EQUIPMENT; DECISION MAKING; DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEMS; TRANSPLANTATION (SURGICAL);

HEALTH;

ARTICLE; BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT; DECISION MAKING; DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM; ENDOSCOPE; HEALTH CARE SYSTEM; HEALTH TECHNOLOGY DECISION SUPPORT PROGRAM; MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY; PATIENT SAFETY; PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT; PROSTATE SURGERY; ROBOTICS; STERILIZER; SURGICAL EQUIPMENT;

EID: 84887847434     PISSN: None     EISSN: 11791470     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2147/MDER.S51384     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Shemer J, Abadi-Korek I, Seifan A. Medical technology management: bridging the gap between theory and practice. Isr Med Assoc J. 2005;7(4):211-215.
2. Neugebauer EA, Becker M, Buess GF, et al. EAES recommendations on methodology of innovation management in endoscopic surgery. Surg Endosc. 2010;24(7):1594-1615.
3. Aggarwal R, Mytton OT, Greaves F, Vincent C. Technology as applied to patient safety: an overview. Qual Saf Health Care. 2010;19 Suppl 2: 13-18.
4. de Wildt SN, Verzijden R, van den Anker JN, de Hoog M. Information technology cannot guarantee patient safety. BMJ. 2007;334(7598): 851-852.
5. Murphy DG, Bjartell A, Ficarra V, et al. Downsides of robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: limitations and complications. Eur Urol. 2010;57(5):735-746.
6. Wallner PE, Konski A. A changing paradigm in the study and adoption of emerging health care technologies: coverage with evidence development. J Am Coll Radiol. 2008;5(11):1125-1129.
7. Goyen M, Debatin JF. Healthcare costs for new technologies. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2009;36 Suppl 1:S139-S143.
8. Robert G, Greenhalgh T, MacFarlane F, Peacock R. Adopting and assimilating new non-pharmaceutical technologies into health care: a systematic review. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2010;15(4): 243-250.
9. Ladapo JA, Horwitz JR, Weinstein MC, Gazelle GS, Cutler DM. Adoption and spread of new imaging technology: a case study. Health Aff (Millwood). 2009;28(6):w1122-w1132.
10. Gallego G, Fowler S, van Gool K. Decision makers' perceptions of health technology decision making and priority setting at the institutional level. Aust Health Rev. 2008;32(3):520-527.
11. International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment [homepage on the Internet]. INAHTA Health Technology Assessment (HTA) glossary. International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment; 2013. Available from: http://www.inahta.org/Glos-sary/#_Health_Technology_Assessment. Accessed October 23, 2013.
12. McGregor M, Brophy JM. End-user involvement in health technology assessment (HTA) development: a way to increase impact. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2005;21(2):263-267.
13. Hanney S, Buxton M, Green C, Coulson D, Raftery J. An assessment of the impact of the NHS Health Technology Assessment Programme. Health Technol Assess. 2007;11(53):1-180.
14. Raftery J, Hanney S, Green C, Buxton M. Assessing the impact of England's National Health Service R&D Health Technology Assessment program using the "payback" approach. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2009;25(1):1-5.
15. Oortwijn WJ, Hanney SR, Ligtvoet A, et al. Assessing the impact of health technology assessment in The Netherlands. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2008;24(3):259-269.
16. Carpenter D, Nieva V, Albaghal T, Sorra J. Development of a planning tool to guide research dissemination. In: Henriksen K, Battles JB, Marks ES, Lewin DI, editors. Advances in Patient Safety: From Research to Implementation. Rockville, MD, USA: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2005:83-91.
17. Gallego G, Casey R, Norman R, Goodall S. Introduction and uptake of new medical technologies in the Australian health care system: a qualitative study. Health Policy. 2011;102(2-3):152-158.
18. Frønsdal KB, Facey K, Klemp M, Norderhaug IN, Mørland B, Røttingen JA. Health technology assessment to optimize health technology utilization: using implementation initiatives and monitoring processes. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2010;26(3):309-316.
19. Poulin P, Donnon T, Oddone Paolucci E, Schachar N, Jenkins A, Sigalet D. What is health technology assessment (HTA)? An interactive HTA education program for health care practitioners in a local setting. Poster presented at: Annual Conference of the Health Technology Assessment International (HTAi); July 2-5; 2006; Adelaide, Australia.
20. Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health [homepage on the Internet]. Who can submit a request? Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health; 2012. Available from: http://www.cadth.ca/ en/services/who-can-submit-a-request. Accessed October 23, 2013.
21. Lehoux P, Hivon M, Denis JL, Tailliez S. What medical specialists like and dislike about health technology assessment reports. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2009;14(4):197-203.
22. Scott NA, Moga C, Barton P, et al; Alberta Ambassador Program Team. Creating clinically relevant knowledge from systematic reviews: the challenges of knowledge translation. J Eval Clin Pract. 2007;13(4): 681-688.
23. Gagnon M P, Sánchez E, Pons JM. Integration of health technology assessment recommendations into organizational and clinical practice: A case study in Catalonia. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2006;22(2): 169-176.
24. Gallego G, van Gool K, Kelleher D. Resource allocation and health technology assessment in Australia: views from the local level. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2009;25(2):134-140.
25. Poulin P, Austen L, Kortbeek J, Lafrenière R. New technologies and surgical innovation: fve years of a local health technology assessment program in a surgical department. Surg Innov. 2012;19(2):187-199.
26. Poulin P, Austen L, Scott CM, et al. Multi-criteria development and incorporation into decision tools for health technology adoption. J Health Organ Manag. 2013;27(2):246-265.
27. Poulin P, Donnon T, Oddone Paolucci E, Schachar N, Jenkins A, Sigalet D. Interactive HTA Education Program for health care practitioners in local setting. Poster presented at: 2006 Canadian Agencies for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH) Invitational Symposium: From Evidence to Policy to Practice; April 3-5; 2006; Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
28. The ADAPTE Collaboration [homepage on the Internet]. The ADAPTE framework; 2012. Available from: http://www.adapte.org/www/ rubrique/adapte-framework.php. Accessed October 23, 2013.
29. Local Health Technology Assessment Decision Support Program: Review and Adaptation Manual. Available from: http://www.albertahealthservices.ca/hp/if-hp-local-hta-program-review-manual.pdf. Accessed November 1, 2013.
30. Pope C, Ziebland S, Mays N. Qualitative research in health care. Analysing qualitative data. BMJ. 2000;320(7227):114-116.
31. Goetghebeur MM, Wagner M, Khoury H, Levitt RJ, Erickson LJ, Rindress D. Evidence and Value: Impact on DEcisionMaking - the EVIDEM framework and potential applications. BMC Health Serv Res. 2008;8:270.
32. Goetghebeur MM, Wagner M, Khoury H, Rindress D, Grégoire J P, Deal C. Combining multicriteria decision analysis, ethics and health technology assessment: applying the EVIDEM decision-making framework to growth hormone for Turner syndrome patients. Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2010;8:4.
33. Johnson A P, Sikich NJ, Evans G, et al. Health technology assessment: a comprehensive framework for evidence-based recommendations in Ontario. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2009;25(2):141-150.
34. McGregor M. Impact of TAU Reports. Montreal, Quebec, Canada: McGill University Health Centre; 2008. Available from: http://www. mcgill.ca/fles/tau/FINAL_TAU_IMPACT_REPORT_FEB_2008.pdf. Accessed October 23, 2013.
35. Haydar Z, Gunderson J, Ballard DJ, Skoufalos A, Berman B, Nash DB. Accelerating Best Care in Pennsylvania: adapting a large academic system's quality improvement process to rural community hospitals. Am J Med Qual. 2008;23(4):252-258.
36. Graham ID, Harrison MB, Brouwers M, Davies BL, Dunn S. Facilitating the use of evidence in practice: evaluating and adapting clinical practice guidelines for local use by health care organizations. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs. 2002;31(5):599-611.
37. Graham ID, Harrison MB, Lorimer K, et al. Adapting national and international leg ulcer practice guidelines for local use: the Ontario Leg Ulcer Community Care Protocol. Adv Skin Wound Care. 2005;18(6): 307-318.
38. Borenstein J, Chiou CF, Henning JM, et al. Physician attitudes toward strategies to promote the adoption of medical evidence into clinical practice. Am J Manag Care. 2003;9(3):225-234.
39. Maddern GJ, Middleton PF, Tooher R, Babidge WJ. Evaluating new surgical techniques in Australia: the Australian Safety and Effcacy Register of New Interventional Procedures-Surgical experience. Surg Clin North Am. 2006;86(1):115-128, ix-x.
40. Li LC, Grimshaw JM, Nielsen C, Judd M, Coyte PC, Graham ID. Use of communities of practice in business and health care sectors: a systematic review. Implement Sci. 2009;4:27.