• Lindsay A McNair and Walter L Biffl.
• *WIRB-Copernicus Group, Princeton, NJ †The Bioethics Program of Union Graduate College, Schenectady, NY ‡Department of Surgery, Denver Health Medical Center/University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO.
• Ann. Surg. 2015 Dec 1;262(6):941-8.

ObjectiveIn 2008, a Position Statement of the Society of University Surgeons (SUS) recommended the creation of institutional surgical innovation committees (SICs) to ensure appropriate oversight of surgical innovations. The purpose of this study was to determine the level of awareness of the position statement, and how innovations are handled in academic departments of surgery.MethodsAn electronic survey was designed to determine the level of awareness of the SUS recommendations among members of the Society of Surgical Chairs; the existence and characteristics of SICs; and alternative means of oversight of surgical innovations.ResultsThe survey was distributed to 150 persons, and 65 (43%) surveys were returned; 84% reported their institution promoted innovative surgery as a strength, but 55% were unaware of the SUS recommendations; 23% reported that their institution has an SIC, and 20% said their institution has discussed or plans an SIC. Existing SICs have a median of 7 members; 57% reviewed 3 or fewer procedures in the prior year; and only 7% reviewed 10 or more. The majority of respondents reported alternative mechanisms of oversight, including morbidity/mortality conferences (88%), peer review (77%), and outcomes registries (51%).ConclusionsA minority of Surgery Department Chairs is aware of the SUS Position Statement. Although most reported surgical innovation was an institutional strength, only 23% had an SIC and most rely on other mechanisms of oversight. It is unclear whether academic surgical departments are committed to providing education and awareness of the appropriate development and implementation of surgical innovations.

37 keywords...

hide…