Cargando…
Surgical innovation: the ethical agenda: A systematic review
The aim of the present article was to systematically review the ethics of surgical innovation and introduce the components of the learning health care system to guide future research and debate on surgical innovation. Although the call for evidence-based practice in surgery is increasingly high on t...
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Wolters Kluwer Health
2016
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4998304/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27336866 http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000003790 |
_version_ | 1782449913202737152 |
---|---|
author | Broekman, Marike L. Carrière, Michelle E. Bredenoord, Annelien L. |
author_facet | Broekman, Marike L. Carrière, Michelle E. Bredenoord, Annelien L. |
author_sort | Broekman, Marike L. |
collection | PubMed |
description | The aim of the present article was to systematically review the ethics of surgical innovation and introduce the components of the learning health care system to guide future research and debate on surgical innovation. Although the call for evidence-based practice in surgery is increasingly high on the agenda, most surgeons feel that the format of the randomized controlled trial is not suitable for surgery. Innovation in surgery has aspects of, but should be distinguished from both research and clinical care and raises its own ethical challenges. To answer the question “What are the main ethical aspects of surgical innovation?”, we systematically searched PubMed and Embase. Papers expressing an opinion, point of view, or position were included, that is, normative ethical papers. We included 59 studies discussing ethical aspects of surgical innovation. These studies discussed 4 major themes: oversight, informed consent, learning curve, and vulnerable patient groups. Although all papers addressed the ethical challenges raised by surgical innovation, surgeons hold no uniform view of surgical innovation, and there is no agreement on the distinction between innovation and research. Even though most agree to some sort of oversight, they offer different alternatives ranging from the formation of new surgical innovation committees to establishing national registries. Most agree that informed consent is necessary for innovative procedures and that surgeons should be adequately trained to assure their competence to tackle the learning curve problem. All papers agree that in case of vulnerable patients, alternatives must be found for the informed consent procedure. We suggest that the concept of the learning health care system might provide guidance for thinking about surgical innovation. The underlying rationale of the learning health care system is to improve the quality of health care by embedding research within clinical care. Two aspects of a learning health care system might particularly enrich the necessary future discussion on surgical innovation: integration of research and practice and a moral emphasis on “learning activities.” Future research should evaluate whether the learning health care system and its adjacent moral framework provides ethical guidance for evidence-based surgery. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-4998304 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2016 |
publisher | Wolters Kluwer Health |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-49983042016-09-02 Surgical innovation: the ethical agenda: A systematic review Broekman, Marike L. Carrière, Michelle E. Bredenoord, Annelien L. Medicine (Baltimore) 7100 The aim of the present article was to systematically review the ethics of surgical innovation and introduce the components of the learning health care system to guide future research and debate on surgical innovation. Although the call for evidence-based practice in surgery is increasingly high on the agenda, most surgeons feel that the format of the randomized controlled trial is not suitable for surgery. Innovation in surgery has aspects of, but should be distinguished from both research and clinical care and raises its own ethical challenges. To answer the question “What are the main ethical aspects of surgical innovation?”, we systematically searched PubMed and Embase. Papers expressing an opinion, point of view, or position were included, that is, normative ethical papers. We included 59 studies discussing ethical aspects of surgical innovation. These studies discussed 4 major themes: oversight, informed consent, learning curve, and vulnerable patient groups. Although all papers addressed the ethical challenges raised by surgical innovation, surgeons hold no uniform view of surgical innovation, and there is no agreement on the distinction between innovation and research. Even though most agree to some sort of oversight, they offer different alternatives ranging from the formation of new surgical innovation committees to establishing national registries. Most agree that informed consent is necessary for innovative procedures and that surgeons should be adequately trained to assure their competence to tackle the learning curve problem. All papers agree that in case of vulnerable patients, alternatives must be found for the informed consent procedure. We suggest that the concept of the learning health care system might provide guidance for thinking about surgical innovation. The underlying rationale of the learning health care system is to improve the quality of health care by embedding research within clinical care. Two aspects of a learning health care system might particularly enrich the necessary future discussion on surgical innovation: integration of research and practice and a moral emphasis on “learning activities.” Future research should evaluate whether the learning health care system and its adjacent moral framework provides ethical guidance for evidence-based surgery. Wolters Kluwer Health 2016-06-24 /pmc/articles/PMC4998304/ /pubmed/27336866 http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000003790 Text en Copyright © 2016 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0 This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial License 4.0 (CCBY-NC), where it is permissible to download, share, remix, transform, and buildup the work provided it is properly cited. The work cannot be used commercially. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0 |
spellingShingle | 7100 Broekman, Marike L. Carrière, Michelle E. Bredenoord, Annelien L. Surgical innovation: the ethical agenda: A systematic review |
title | Surgical innovation: the ethical agenda: A systematic review |
title_full | Surgical innovation: the ethical agenda: A systematic review |
title_fullStr | Surgical innovation: the ethical agenda: A systematic review |
title_full_unstemmed | Surgical innovation: the ethical agenda: A systematic review |
title_short | Surgical innovation: the ethical agenda: A systematic review |
title_sort | surgical innovation: the ethical agenda: a systematic review |
topic | 7100 |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4998304/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27336866 http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000003790 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT broekmanmarikel surgicalinnovationtheethicalagendaasystematicreview AT carrieremichellee surgicalinnovationtheethicalagendaasystematicreview AT bredenoordannelienl surgicalinnovationtheethicalagendaasystematicreview |