scholarly journals P42 Development of an algorithm for determining the stage of innovation of an invasive procedure or device

BJS Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
D L Scroggie ◽  
D Elliott ◽  
K Avery ◽  
S Cousins ◽  
N S Blencowe ◽  
...  

Abstract Introduction The IDEAL framework describes a series of stages through which surgical innovations typically pass. For each stage, the framework makes recommendations with the intention of improving the quality of research in surgery. Its adoption has been slow despite publication of practical guidance. It has been recognized that determining the stage of innovation of an invasive procedure or device can be problematic, and this issue may be hindering adoption of the framework. The aim of this study is to develop a practical algorithm for determining the stage of innovation of any invasive procedure or device. Methods Multiple data sources will be used: published literature, intra-operative video recording, interviews with stakeholders, healthcare datasets, and clinical policies and guidelines. Systematic reviews will be conducted to identify guidance relating to surgical innovation, and evaluations or critiques of guidance. Case studies of surgical innovations will be undertaken, to gain an understanding of problems encountered in determining stage of innovation. An algorithm will be developed through an iterative process of testing and refinement, triangulating data from the literature reviews and case studies. Results The findings of the initial systematic reviews will be presented. This will include guidance relating to surgical innovation, and evaluations or critiques of it. Recognized problems in determining stage of innovation will be summarized, including proposed solutions and suggestions for further development. Conclusion This study will use multiple data sources to develop a practical algorithm for determining the stage of innovation of any invasive procedure or device.

2017 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 64-78 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eileen M. McKinlay ◽  
Sonya J. Morgan ◽  
Ben V. Gray ◽  
Lindsay M. Macdonald ◽  
Susan R.H. Pullon

Background The increase in multimorbidity or co-occurring chronic illnesses is a leading healthcare concern. Patients with multimorbidity require ongoing care from many different professionals and agencies, and often report a lack of integrated care. Objective To explore the daily help-seeking behaviours of patients with multimorbidity, including which health professionals they seek help from, how professionals work together, and perceptions and characteristics of effective interprofessional, interagency multimorbidity care. Design Using a case study observational research design, multiple data sources were assembled for four patients with multimorbidity, identified by two general practitioners in New Zealand. In this paper, two case studies are presented, including the recorded instances of contact and communication between patients and professionals, and between professionals. Professional interactions were categorized as consultation, coordination, or collaboration. Results The two case studies illustrated two female patients with likely similar educational levels, but with different profiles of multimorbidity, social circumstances, and personal capabilities, involving various professionals and agencies. Engagement between professionals showed varying levels of interaction and a lack of clarity about leadership or care coordination. The majority of interactions were one-to-one consultations and rarely involved coordination and collaboration. Patients were rarely included in communications between professionals. Conclusion Cases constructed from multiple data sources illustrate the complexity of day-to-day, interprofessional, interagency multimorbidity care. While consultation is the most frequent mode of professional interaction, targeted coordinated and collaborative interactions (including the patient) are highly effective activities. Greater attention should be given to developing and facilitating these interactions and determining who should lead them.


Author(s):  
Lijing Wang ◽  
Aniruddha Adiga ◽  
Srinivasan Venkatramanan ◽  
Jiangzhuo Chen ◽  
Bryan Lewis ◽  
...  

Omega ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 102479
Author(s):  
Zhongbao Zhou ◽  
Meng Gao ◽  
Helu Xiao ◽  
Rui Wang ◽  
Wenbin Liu

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jin Chen ◽  
Tianyuan Chen ◽  
Yifei Song ◽  
Bin Hao ◽  
Ling Ma

AbstractPrior literature emphasizes the distinct roles of differently affiliated venture capitalists (VCs) in nurturing innovation and entrepreneurship. Although China has become the second largest VC market in the world, the unavailability of high-quality datasets on VC affiliation in China’s market hinders such research efforts. To fill up this important gap, we compiled a new panel dataset of VC affiliation in China’s market from multiple data sources. Specifically, we drew on a list of 6,553 VCs that have invested in China between 2000 and 2016 from CVSource database, collected VC’s shareholder information from public sources, and developed a multi-stage procedure to label each VC as the following types: GVC (public agency-affiliated, state-owned enterprise-affiliated), CVC (corporate VC), IVC (independent VC), BVC (bank-affiliated VC), FVC (financial/non-bank-affiliated VC), UVC (university endowment/spin-out unit), and PenVC (pension-affiliated VC). We also denoted whether a VC has foreign background. This dataset helps researchers conduct more nuanced investigations into the investment behaviors of different VCs and their distinct impacts on innovation and entrepreneurship in China’s context.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document