New Surgical Technology: Adoption or Diffusion? Essay

This article raised an interesting subject surgeons and patients want make betterd treatment often forget that a impertinent proficiency is not necessarily a better one. Human body with its health problems remains the similar but the surgical engine room is always touching towards progress. People develop sweet surgical tools and new surgical procedures constantly. However, do we safeguardfully test all these new tools and procedures before using them on stack? And how? On humans? On animals first perhaps? Is it respectable? How do we know that new tools and procedures are better than the be ones? as well as many questionsNew surgical technology promises improved patient premeditation and, therefore, surgeons may hurry to adopt it despite little record or their advantage over alert procedures. Surgical procedures that are later ground to be ineffective waste resources and endanger lives. Anything new must be carefully tested and proved in fact to be better. Therefo re, the depict to this problem is a cautious and total understanding from the surgeons and the patients of why much(prenominal) new procedures come to be offered as treatment. Lets olfactory property in detail how this new medical technology gets adopted in the US. It may come in the form of* a drug* a device* a procedure* a technique* a touch of careFor the surgical technology in particular, new things come in the form of a new procedure that uses existing devices or drugs, or an existing procedure that uses new devices. Before adopting any new technology, people should thoughtfully consider the following factors * Will this new technology improve the quality of clinical care? * If found successful, will the inventor go on its rapid adoption? * How widely this new technology will be distributed?* Will it pass all known and potential barriers for adoption, (financing, marketing, etc.)? * Is it compatible with the existing technologies and run rooms? From all of these question s the main factor is always the same the new technology MUST improve the quality of clinical care for patients. If this precondition is not satisfied, the technology should be abandoned even a logical and scientifically positive attitude is no substitute for validation in practice. There were cases where surgical technology that was quickly adopted without evidence of its relative benefit, was abandoned after careful examination. For example In 1964, Dr. smith reported that injecting the enzyme chymopapain into an intervertebral disc relieved pain caused by herniation of the lumbar disc.In 1989, the American aesculapian Associations symptomatic and therapeutic technology assessment group questioned the effectiveness of the procedure and raised concerns about its safety. Their evaluation showed that, compared with describebo or no treatment, chymopapain was effective in only if selected patients. In addition, when it was used by less experienced surgeons some patients had serio us complications, including allergic reaction and even damage to the spinal cord. I notice positive about innovation in all fields especially when people can improve the quality of life by repairing and better the human body. However, before adopting any new technology in the operational room, it should be offered to patients for a trial period. Also surgeons shall carefully watch and mull this procedure being done numerous times, and if it can be back up by the already existing equipment and the existing operating rooms.Do we take the patient about the convenience or improvement by the new procedure or equipment? Of course He is the one on the operating table putting his life in the hands of the surgeon. Surgeons always identical the new technology if it can be easily and quickly understood, and added to their existing practice without waste of time. If the input to their practice is great, surgeons will invest to a greater extent time and effort and disregard disruption of their routine day to complicate the competitive advantage that a new technology offers. What I wise(p) from this article is the use of new surgical technology has the potential to add patients with the best mathematical care.On the other hand, if the new procedure or instrument were not carefully tested and approved, it ruined surgeons reputation, wasted resources, and caused harm to patients. Surgeons and institutions must not adopt a new technology without solid evidence of its efficiency and superiority over existing ones. In reality, quite a few innovations in medical technology were often adopted without enough evidence and testing and this was wrong. No press how good the surgeons skill and ability to perform a procedure, it is wrong, if the procedure should not be done in the first place and may potentially harm the patient.Source Article from BMJ British Medical Journal 2006 January 14 332(7533) 112-114. Editorial by Gabbay and Walley and pp 107, 109.Contributors and s ources CBW is senior adviser for the wellness Technology Center and senior fellow at the Institute for the future(a) in California. -References McCulloch P, Taylor I, Sasako M, Lovett B Griffin D. Randomised trials in surgery problems and possible solutions. BMJ 2002 324 1448-51. PMC free article PubMed.