4.5 Article

How Do Academic Otolaryngologists Decide to Implement New Procedures Into Practice?

Journal

OTOLARYNGOLOGY-HEAD AND NECK SURGERY
Volume 167, Issue 2, Pages 253-261

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1177/01945998211047434

Keywords

innovation; implementation science; otolaryngology; surgery; practice change

Funding

  1. National Institute for Deafness and Other Communication Disorder, National Institute of Health [K23DC013559, R21DC016724]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study identified factors that facilitate or hinder the adoption of a new surgical procedure in otolaryngology. Improving patient outcomes and addressing clinical needs were facilitators, while high costs and lack of improved outcomes were barriers. Trust establishment and communication were found to facilitate the implementation process, while a substantial learning curve for the new procedure acted as a barrier. Successful outcomes and patient satisfaction were key in sustaining the adoption of new procedures.
Objective To identify barriers and facilitators to adoption of a new surgical procedure via an implementation science framework to characterize associated socioemotional, clinical, and decision-making processes. Study Design Qualitative study with a semistructured interview approach. Setting Large tertiary care referral center. Methods Academic otolaryngologists with at least 2 years of practice were identified and interviewed. Transcripts were thematically coded and separated into steps in the clinical pathway. Synthesis of major themes characterized facilitators and barriers to uptake of a new surgical technique. Results Of 22 otolaryngologists, 19 were interviewed (85% male). They had a median 18 years of practice (interquartile range, 7.8-26.3), and 65% were subspecialty trained. In the decision to implement a new procedure, improving patient outcomes and addressing unmet clinical needs facilitated adoption, whereas costs and adopting profit-driven technologies without improved outcomes were barriers. In patient consults, establishing trust facilitated implementation of new techniques; barriers included participants' hesitation to communicate about the unknowns of a new procedure. Intraoperatively, little change to existing workflow or improved efficiency facilitated adoption, while a substantial learning curve for the new procedure was a barrier. Achieving favorable outcomes and patient satisfaction sustained implementation of new procedures. Too few referrals or indications for the new procedure hindered implementation. Conclusion Our study demonstrates that innovation in otolaryngology is often an individual iterative process that providers pursue to improve patients' outcomes. Although models for the oversight of surgical innovation emphasize the need for evidence, obtaining sufficient numbers of providers and patients to generate evidence remains a challenge in specialty surgical practice.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available