Adoption of an innovation to repair aortic aneurysms at a Canadian hospital: a qualitative case study and evaluation

Abstract

Priority setting in health care is a challenge because demand for services exceeds available resources. The increasing demand for less invasive surgical procedures by patients, health care institutions and industry, places added pressure on surgeons to acquire the appropriate skills to adopt innovative procedures. Such innovations are often initiated and introduced by surgeons in the hospital setting. Decision-making processes for the adoption of surgical innovations in hospitals have not been well studied and a standard process for their introduction does not exist. The purpose of this study is to describe and evaluate the decision-making process for the adoption of a new technology for repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms (endovascular aneurysm repair [EVAR]) in an academic health sciences centre to better understand how decisions are made for the introduction of surgical innovations at the hospital level.

References

1. McKneally MF, Daar AS: Introducing new technologies: protecting subjects of surgical innovation and research. World J Surg 2003, 27:930-934. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

2. Martin DK, Walton N, Singer PA: Priority setting in surgery: improve the process and share the learning. World J Surg 2003, 27:962-966. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

3. Wilson CB: Adoption of new surgical technology. BMJ 2006, 332:112-114. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | PubMed Central Full Text

4. Huckman RS, Pisano GP: Turf battles in coronary revascularization. N Engl J Med 2005, 352:857-859. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

5. Meakins JL: Innovation in surgery: the rules of evidence. Am J Surg 2002, 183:399-405. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

6. Shaw E: Looking through the retrospectoscope in the era of evidence-based medicine. J Clin Oncol 1997, 15:1289-1290. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

7. Haines SJ: Randomized clinical trials in the evaluation of surgical innovation. J Neurosurg 1979, 51:5-11. PubMed Abstract

8. Emanuel EJ, Wendler D, Killen J, Grady C: What makes clinical research in developing countries ethical? The benchmarks of ethical research. J Infect Dis 2004, 189:930-937. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

9. Martin DK, Singer PA: Priority setting for health technologies in Canada. In Reasonable Rationing: International Experience of Priority Setting in Health Care. Edited by: Ham C, Roberts G. Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press; 2003:42-63.

10. Daniels N, Sabin JE: Limits to health care: Fair procedures, democratic deliberations and the legitimacy problem for insurers. Philosophy and Public Affairs 1997, 26:303-502. Publisher Full Text

11. Daniels N, Sabin J: Setting Limits Fairly: Can we learn to share medical resources?. Oxford University Press; 2002.

12. Singer PA: Resource allocation: beyond evidence-based medicine and cost-effectiveness analysis. ACP J Club 1997, 127:A16-A18. PubMed Abstract

13. Yin RK: Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc; 1994.

14. Creswell JW: Qualitative inquiry and research design : choosing among five traditions. California: Sage Publications; 1998.

15. Health Canada: Canada's Health Care System. [http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hcs-sss/medi-assur/index_e.html] webcite Canada Health Act 2006.

16. Kazmers A, Jacobs L, Perkins A, Lindenauer SM, Bates E: Abdominal aortic aneurysm repair in Veterans Affairs medical centers. J Vasc Surg 1996, 23:191-200. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

17. Marin ML, Veith FJ: Endovascular stents and stented grafts for the treatment of aneurysms and other arterial lesions. Adv Surg 1996, 29:93-109. PubMed Abstract

18. Schwartz LB, Baldwin ZK, Curi MA: The changing face of abdominal aortic aneurysm management. Ann Surg 2003, 238:S56-S66. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

19. Dryjski M, O'Brien-Irr MS, Hassett J: Hospital costs for endovascular and open repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm. J Am Coll Surg 2003, 197:64-70. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

20. Katzen BT, Becker GJ, Benenati JF, Zemel G: Stent grafts for aortic aneurysms: the next interventional challenge. Am J Cardiol 1998, 81:33E-43E. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

21. Harris PL, Buth J, Mialhe C, Myhre HO, Norgren L: The need for clinical trials of endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm stent-graft repair: The EUROSTAR Project. EUROpean collaborators on Stent-graft Techniques for abdominal aortic Aneurysm Repair. J Endovasc Surg 1997, 4:72-77. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

22. Veith FJ, Marin ML: Endovascular technology and its impact on the relationships among vascular surgeons, interventional radiologists, and other specialists. World J Surg 1996, 20:687-691. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

23. Endacott R, Botti M: Clinical research 3: sample selection. Intensive Crit Care Nurs 2005, 21:51-55. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

24. Denzin NK: Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications; 2000.

25. Strauss A, Corbin J: Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures of Developing Grounded Theory. 1998.

26. Health Canada: Therapeutic Products Directorate. [http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ahc-asc/branch-dirgen/hpfb-dgpsa/tpd-dpt/index_e.... webcite 2007.

27. Ontario Health Technology Advisory Committee: OHTAC Recommendation: Interim Report on Endovascular Repair of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms (EVAR). Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care; 2005.

28. Bernstein M, Bampoe J: Surgical innovation or surgical evolution: an ethical and practical guide to handling novel neurosurgical procedures. J Neurosurg 2004, 100:2-7. PubMed Abstract

29. Walton NA, Martin DK, Peter EH, Pringle DM, Singer PA: Priority setting and cardiac surgery: a qualitative case study. Health Policy 2007, 80:444-458. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

30. Martin D, Shulman K, Santiago-Sorrell P, Singer P: Priority-setting and hospital strategic planning: a qualitative case study. J Health Serv Res Policy 2003, 8:197-201. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

31. Ramsay CR, Grant AM, Wallace SA, Garthwaite PH, Monk AF, Russell IT: Statistical assessment of the learning curves of health technologies. Health Technol Assess 2001, 5:1-79. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

32. Greer AL: Adoption of medical technology. The hospital's three decision systems. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1985, 1:669-680. PubMed Abstract

33. Greenberg D, Peterburg Y, Vekstein D, Pliskin JS: Decisions to adopt new technologies at the hospital level: insights from Israeli medical centers. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2005, 21:219-227. PubMed Abstract

34. Steiner CA, Powe NR, Anderson GF, Das A: The review process used by US health care plans to evaluate new medical technology for coverage. J Gen Intern Med 1996, 11:294-302. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

35. Madden S, Martin DK, Downey S, Singer PA: Hospital priority setting with an appeals process: a qualitative case study and evaluation. Health Policy 2005, 73:10-20. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text