Skip to content

Conceptualising Surgical Innovation: An Eliminativist Proposal

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1-25
Number of pages25
JournalHealth Care Analysis
DOIs
DateAccepted/In press - 10 Jul 2019
DatePublished (current) - 20 Jul 2019

Abstract

Improving surgical interventions is key to improving outcomes. Ensuring the safe and transparent translation of such improvements is essential. Evaluation and governance initiatives, including the IDEAL framework and the Macquarie Surgical Innovation Identification Tool have begun to address this. Yet without a definition of innovation that allows non-surgeons to identify when it is occurring, these initiatives are of limited value. A definition seems elusive, so we undertook a conceptual study of surgical innovation. This indicated common elements in discussions of (surgical) innovation, that we categorised alliteratively under the headings of “purpose” (about drivers of innovation), “place” (about contexts of innovation), “process” (about differentiating innovation), “product” (about tangible and intangible results of innovation) and “person” (about personal factors and viewpoint). These elements are used in varying – sometimes contradictory – ways in different discussions. Highlighting these elements of surgical innovation may be useful in clarifying what should be reported in registries of innovation. However our wider conclusion was that the term “innovation” carries too much conceptual baggage to inform normative inquiry about surgical practice. Instead, we propose elimination of the term “innovation” from surgical ethics and the wider surgical discourse. In our view researchers, philosophers and policy-makers should consider what it is about surgical activity that needs attention and develop robust definitions to identify these areas: for our own focus on transparency and safety, this means finding criteria that can objectively identify certain risk profiles during the development of surgery.

    Research areas

  • Conceptualisation, Ethics, Governance, IDEAL framework, Research, Surgical innovation

    Structured keywords

  • Centre for Surgical Research

Download statistics

No data available

Documents

Documents

  • Full-text PDF (final published version)

    Rights statement: This is the final published version of the article (version of record). It first appeared online via Springer Nature at https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10728-019-00380-y. Please refer to any applicable terms of use of the publisher. were made.

    Final published version, 1 MB, PDF document

    Licence: CC BY

DOI

View research connections

Related faculties, schools or groups