Key result
An expert committee identified dominant failures in technological innovation and clinical beliefs across surgical subspecialties to highlight the need for vigilance and skepticism toward new innovations.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Highlights the importance of maintaining skepticism and relying on science-based conclusions when adopting new surgical innovations.
Innovation can be variably defined, but when applied to healthcare is often considered to be the introduction of something new, whether an idea, method or device, into an unfilled void or needy environment. Despite the introduction of many positive surgical subspecialty altering concepts/devices however, epic failures are not uncommon. These failures can be dramatic in regards to both their human and economic costs. They can also be very public or more quiet in nature. As surgical leaders in our communities and advocates for patient safety and outcomes, it remains crucial that we meet new introductions in technology and patient care with a measured level of curiosity, skepticism and science-based conclusions. The aim of an expert committee was to identify the most dominant failures in technological innovation and/or dogmatic clinical beliefs within each major surgical subspecialty. In summary, this effort was pursued to highlight the past failures and remind surgeons to remain vigilant and appropriately skeptical with regard to the introduction of new innovations and clinical beliefs within our craft.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ball et al. (2018) conducted a review in Surgical innovation failures. An expert committee identified dominant failures in technological innovation and clinical beliefs across surgical subspecialties to highlight the need for vigilance and skepticism toward new innovations.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: