Danjoux Nathalie M, Martin Douglas K, Lehoux Pascale N, Harnish Julie L, Shaul Randi Zlotnik, Bernstein Mark, Urbach David R
Department of Health, Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
BMC Health Serv Res. 2007 Nov 15;7:182. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-7-182.
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.
A qualitative case study of the decision to adopt EVAR was conducted using a modified thematic analysis of documents and semi-structured interviews. Accountability for Reasonableness was used as a conceptual framework for fairness in priority setting processes in health care organizations.
There were two key decisions regarding EVAR: the decision to adopt the new technology in the hospital and the decision to stop hospital funding. The decision to adopt EVAR was based on perceived improved patient outcomes, safety, and the surgeons' desire to innovate. This decision involved very few stakeholders. The decision to stop funding of EVAR involved all key players and was based on criteria apparent to all those involved, including cost, evidence and hospital priorities. Limited internal communications were made prior to adopting the technology. There was no formal means to appeal the decisions made.
The analysis yielded recommendations for improving future decisions about the adoption of surgical innovations. ese empirical findings will be used with other case studies to help develop guidelines to help decision-makers adopt surgical innovations in Canadian hospitals.
医疗保健中的优先事项设定是一项挑战,因为服务需求超过了可用资源。患者、医疗机构和行业对侵入性较小的外科手术的需求不断增加,这给外科医生带来了更大压力,要求他们掌握采用创新手术的适当技能。此类创新通常由医院环境中的外科医生发起和引入。医院采用外科创新的决策过程尚未得到充分研究,也不存在引入创新的标准流程。本研究的目的是描述和评估一所学术健康科学中心采用一种用于修复腹主动脉瘤的新技术(血管内动脉瘤修复术[EVAR])的决策过程,以便更好地了解在医院层面如何做出引入外科创新的决策。
采用对文件和半结构化访谈的改进主题分析,对采用EVAR的决策进行了定性案例研究。“合理问责制”被用作医疗保健组织优先事项设定过程中公平性的概念框架。
关于EVAR有两个关键决策:在医院采用新技术的决策和停止医院资金支持的决策。采用EVAR的决策基于对患者预后、安全性的预期改善以及外科医生的创新愿望。这一决策涉及的利益相关者很少。停止对EVAR提供资金的决策涉及所有关键参与者,并且基于所有相关人员都明确的标准,包括成本、证据和医院优先事项。在采用该技术之前,内部沟通有限。对于所做的决策没有正式的上诉途径。
该分析得出了关于改进未来外科创新采用决策的建议。这些实证研究结果将与其他案例研究一起用于帮助制定指导方针,以帮助决策者在加拿大医院采用外科创新。