Identifying surgical innovation: A qualitative study of surgeons' views

Annals of Surgery

Volumn 259, Issue 2, 2014, Pages 273-278

  Rogers, Wendy A ^a   Lotz, Mianna ^a   Hutchison, Katrina ^a   Pourmoslemi, Aydin ^a   Eyers, Anthony ^a  

^a MACQUARIE UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

Author keywords

ethics; qualitative research; surgeon views; surgical innovation; surgical variation

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; AUSTRALIA; BASIC RESEARCH; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE; HUMAN; MALE; MEDICAL ETHICS; PATIENT CARE; PATIENT SAFETY; PEER GROUP; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROFESSIONAL STANDARD; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH; RESEARCH ETHICS; RISK ASSESSMENT; SEMI STRUCTURED INTERVIEW; SURGEON; SURGICAL TECHNIQUE;

EID: 84892902572     PISSN: 00034932     EISSN: 15281140     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e31829ccc5f     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. Biffl WL, Spain DA, Reitsma AM, et al. Responsible development and application of surgical innovations: a position statement of the society of university surgeons. J Am Coll Surg. 2008;206:1204-1209.
2. Morreim H, Mack MJ, Sade RM. Surgical innovation: too risky to remain unregulated? Ann Thorac Surg. 2006;82:1957-1965.
3. Reitsma AM, Moreno JD. Ethics of Innovative Surgery: US surgeons' definitions, knowledge, and attitudes. In: Reitsma AM, Moreno JD, eds. Ethical Guidelines for Innovative Surgery. Hagerstown, Maryland: University Publishing Group; 2006:173-198.
4. Barkun JS, Aronson JK, Feldman LS, et al. Evaluation and stages of surgical innovations. Lancet. 2009;374:1089-1096.
5. McCulloch P, Altman DG, Campbell WB, et al. No surgical innovation without evaluation: the IDEAL recommendations. Lancet. 2009;374:1105-1112.
6. Patton MQ. Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods. 2nd ed. Newbury Park, CA: Sage; 1990:181.
7. GilchristVJ.Key informant interviews. In: Crabtree BF,MillerWL, eds. Doing Qualitative Research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage; 1992:70-89.
8. Marshall MN. The key informant technique. Fam Pract. 1996;13:92-97.
9. Strauss A, Corbin J. Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 1998: 136.
10. Crabtree BF, Miller WL. A template approach to text analysis: developing and using codebooks. In: Crabtree BF, Miller WL, eds. Doing Qualitative Research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage; 1992:95.
11. King N. Using templates in the thematic analysis of text. In: Cassell C, Symon G, eds. Essential Guide to Qualitative Methods in Organizational Research. London: Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2004:256-270.
12. Reitsma AM, Moreno JD. Ethical regulations for innovative surgery: the last frontier? J Am Coll Surg. 2002;194:792-801.
13. Thavaneswaran P, et al. A review of policies and processes for the introduction of new interventional procedures. ASERNIP-S Report No.
14. Adelaide, South Australia: ASERNIP-S, July 2007. http://www.surgeons. org/media/291153/Guidelines-review.pdf. Accessed June 14, 2013.
15. Krummel TM. What is surgery? Semin Pediatr Surg. 2006;15:237-241.
16. Riskin DJ, Longaker MT, Gertner M, et al. Innovation in surgery: a historical perspective. Ann Surg. 2006;244:686-693.
17. Strasberg SM, Ludbrook PA. Who oversees innovative practice? Is there a structure that meets the monitoring needs of new techniques? J Am Coll Surg. 2003;196:938-948.
18. Jones JW. Ethics of rapid surgical technological advancement. Ann Thorac Surg. 2000;69:676-677.
19. Kornetsky S. Innovation Versus Research: Guidelines, Concepts and Procedures for Differentiation. Boston, MA: The Clinical Investigation Policy and Procedure Manual; 2012.
20. Mastroianni AC. Liability, regulation and policy in surgical innovation: the cutting edge of research and therapy. Health Matrix. 2006;16:351-442.