Information standards for innovative surgery: what patients need to know.

IF 8.8 1区 医学 Q1 SURGERY
Christin Hoffmann,Daisy Elliott,Leila Rooshenas,Cynthia Ochieng,Barry Main,Pete Wheatstone,Samuel Lawday,Abigail Vallance,Jane M Blazeby,Angus G K McNair,
{"title":"Information standards for innovative surgery: what patients need to know.","authors":"Christin Hoffmann,Daisy Elliott,Leila Rooshenas,Cynthia Ochieng,Barry Main,Pete Wheatstone,Samuel Lawday,Abigail Vallance,Jane M Blazeby,Angus G K McNair, ","doi":"10.1093/bjs/znaf140","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"BACKGROUND\r\nThere are repeated and ongoing failures in shared decision-making and informed consent for innovative surgical procedures. Governments and regulatory bodies internationally recommend establishing information standards to support safe and transparent surgical innovation. The aim of this study was to develop a core information set (CIS) for surgical innovation.\r\n\r\nMETHODS\r\nThis was a mixed-method study in three phases: a provisional CIS was generated from multiple data sources (interviews with patients/professionals (44), recorded consultations (34), policy documents (58), and published studies (213)) using qualitative content analysis; the CIS was refined, with input from key stakeholders (patient representatives, surgeon innovators, anaesthetists, lawyers, ethicists, medical directors, academic experts, and regulatory representatives) using a modified nominal group technique; and the CIS was finalized through public consultation.\r\n\r\nRESULTS\r\nThe final CIS comprised seven themes that included: what is 'new' about the procedure; potential conflicts of interest; reasons for the innovation (including why the innovation is believed to be appropriate for the patient); treatment alternatives; unknowns (including uncertain safety/efficacy and that the procedure may be abandoned/modified); expertise with the innovation; and governance, oversight, and accountability (including how safety will be monitored and recompense if anything goes wrong). Two themes require follow-up discussions after the procedure.\r\n\r\nCONCLUSION\r\nA seven-theme CIS for surgical innovation was co-developed, with input from key stakeholders. International implementation of these information standards may support safe and transparent surgical innovation.","PeriodicalId":136,"journal":{"name":"British Journal of Surgery","volume":"12 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":8.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British Journal of Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/bjs/znaf140","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

BACKGROUND There are repeated and ongoing failures in shared decision-making and informed consent for innovative surgical procedures. Governments and regulatory bodies internationally recommend establishing information standards to support safe and transparent surgical innovation. The aim of this study was to develop a core information set (CIS) for surgical innovation. METHODS This was a mixed-method study in three phases: a provisional CIS was generated from multiple data sources (interviews with patients/professionals (44), recorded consultations (34), policy documents (58), and published studies (213)) using qualitative content analysis; the CIS was refined, with input from key stakeholders (patient representatives, surgeon innovators, anaesthetists, lawyers, ethicists, medical directors, academic experts, and regulatory representatives) using a modified nominal group technique; and the CIS was finalized through public consultation. RESULTS The final CIS comprised seven themes that included: what is 'new' about the procedure; potential conflicts of interest; reasons for the innovation (including why the innovation is believed to be appropriate for the patient); treatment alternatives; unknowns (including uncertain safety/efficacy and that the procedure may be abandoned/modified); expertise with the innovation; and governance, oversight, and accountability (including how safety will be monitored and recompense if anything goes wrong). Two themes require follow-up discussions after the procedure. CONCLUSION A seven-theme CIS for surgical innovation was co-developed, with input from key stakeholders. International implementation of these information standards may support safe and transparent surgical innovation.
创新手术的信息标准:患者需要知道什么。
背景在创新外科手术的共同决策和知情同意方面一再出现失败。各国政府和监管机构在国际上建议建立信息标准,以支持安全和透明的外科创新。本研究的目的是为外科创新开发一个核心信息集(CIS)。方法:这是一项分为三个阶段的混合方法研究:使用定性内容分析,从多个数据源(与患者/专业人员的访谈(44)、记录咨询(34)、政策文件(58)和发表的研究(213))生成临时CIS;根据主要利益相关者(患者代表、外科医生创新者、麻醉师、律师、伦理学家、医疗主任、学术专家和监管代表)的意见,使用改进的名义团体技术,对CIS进行了改进;《独联体》是通过公众咨询最后定稿的。最终的CIS包括七个主题,包括:手术的“新”之处;潜在的利益冲突;创新的原因(包括为什么认为该创新适合患者);治疗选择;未知因素(包括不确定的安全性/有效性以及程序可能被放弃/修改);专业与创新;以及治理、监督和问责制(包括如何监控安全以及在出现问题时如何进行补偿)。有两个主题需要在程序之后进行后续讨论。结论在关键利益相关者的参与下,共同制定了外科创新的七大主题CIS。这些信息标准的国际实施可以支持安全和透明的外科创新。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
12.70
自引率
7.30%
发文量
1102
审稿时长
1.5 months
期刊介绍: The British Journal of Surgery (BJS), incorporating the European Journal of Surgery, stands as Europe's leading peer-reviewed surgical journal. It serves as an invaluable platform for presenting high-quality clinical and laboratory-based research across a wide range of surgical topics. In addition to providing a comprehensive coverage of traditional surgical practices, BJS also showcases emerging areas in the field, such as minimally invasive therapy and interventional radiology. While the journal appeals to general surgeons, it also holds relevance for specialty surgeons and professionals working in closely related fields. By presenting cutting-edge research and advancements, BJS aims to revolutionize the way surgical knowledge is shared and contribute to the ongoing progress of the surgical community.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信