• Sian Cousins, Hollie S Richards, Jez Zahra, Harry Robertson, Johnny A Mathews, AveryKerry N LKNLNational Institute for Health Research Bristol Biomedical Research Centre Surgical Innovation Theme, Bristol Centre for Surgical Research, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK., Daisy Elliott, Natalie S Blencowe, Barry Main, Robert Hinchliffe, Adrian Clarke, and Jane Blazeby.
• National Institute for Health Research Bristol Biomedical Research Centre Surgical Innovation Theme, Bristol Centre for Surgical Research, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
• Br J Surg. 2022 Sep 9; 109 (10): 100410121004-1012.

BackgroundThe governance for introducing innovative surgical procedures/devices differs from the research requirements needed for new drugs. New invasive procedures/devices may be offered to patients outside of research protocols with local organization oversight alone. Such institutional arrangements exist in many countries and written policies provide guidance for their use, but little is known about their scope or standards.MethodsOne hundred and fifty acute NHS trusts in England and seven health boards in Wales were systematically approached for information about their policies. A modified framework approach was used to analyse when policies considered new procedures/devices to be within local organization remit and/or requiring research ethics committee (REC) approval.ResultsOf 113 policies obtained, 109 and 34 described when local organization and REC approval was required, respectively. Procedures/devices being used for the first time in the organization (n = 69) or by a clinician (n = 67) were commonly within local remit, and only 36 stated that evidence was required. Others stated limited evidence as a rationale for needing REC approval (n = 13). External guidance categorizing procedures as 'research only' was the most common reason for gaining REC approval (n = 15). Procedures/devices with uncertain outcomes (n = 28), requiring additional training (n = 26), and not previously used (n = 6) were within the remit of policies, while others recommended REC application in these situations (n = 5, 2 and 7, respectively).ConclusionThis study on NHS policies for surgical innovation shows variability in the introduction of procedures/devices in terms of local oversight and/or need for REC approval. Current NHS standards allow untested innovations to occur without the safety of research oversight and thus a standard approach is urgently needed.© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of BJS Society Ltd.

6 keywords...

hide…