Editor's Spotlight/Take 5: Mapping the Diffusion of Technology in Orthopaedic Surgery: Understanding the Spread of Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair in the United States.

P. Manner
{"title":"Editor's Spotlight/Take 5: Mapping the Diffusion of Technology in Orthopaedic Surgery: Understanding the Spread of Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair in the United States.","authors":"P. Manner","doi":"10.1097/CORR.0000000000000984","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Why are some technologies adopted quickly, while others are not? Why are some surgical procedures adopted wholeheartedly and others simply dismissed? Why does this vary from place to place? In this month’s Editor’s Spotlight/Take 5, Daniel C. Austin MD, MS and his team from Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, already known for their work on surgical variation [2], show profound differences in adoption of arthroscopic repair of rotator cuff tears between hospital referral regions across the United States [1]. Why might this be so? Providers may surmise that a patient in Paris, TX, USA and one in Rome, GA, USA (to borrow half a line from a country song) both will receive the same surgical recommendation if they present with the same clinical problem. But while variation is typically quite low for straightforward problems— surgery is appropriate for almost all patients with hip fractures—the degree of variation for other diagnoses is surprising. For example, coils are used to treat cerebral aneurysms in 99% of patients covered byMedicare in Tacoma, WA, USA, while less than 40% of patients treated for unruptured aneurysms received coiling in Modesto, CA, USA, Madison, WI, USA and Manchester, NH, USA [2]. What about when new procedures or approaches are introduced? Presumably, we’re all reading the same studies and getting the same information on the risks and benefits of a new technique. It’s reasonable to think that adoption would occur with similar patterns, and over the same amount of time. But this is almost never the case. There are notable differences in how individuals approach technological novelty. The first systematic assessment on how to incorporate new practice into daily life dates back to the early 20th century. Ryan and Gross [7] looked at how Iowa farmers used hybrid seed corn and found features that resonate even today: There was a time lag of about 5 years between first knowledge and first adoption; those who tried the approach earliest were somewhat tentative in incorporating new seed; late adopters were more likely to carry out a full conversion, and “almost all had heard of the new trait before more than a handful were planting it” [7]. Farmers fell into several categories: Innovators, early adopters, early majority, late majority, and laggards—familiar territory for surgeons. In the early 1960s, Everett Rogers developed the theory of diffusion of innovations, and proposed four elements that influence the spread of a new idea: (1) The innovation itself, (2) communication channels, (3) time, and (4) a social system [6]. Although Rogers did not write specifically about medical or surgical techniques, his model resonates with providers trying out new forms of therapy. A note from the Editor-In-Chief: In “Editor’s Spotlight,” one of our editors provides brief commentary on a paper we believe is especially important and worthy of general interest. Following the explanation of our choice, we present “Take 5,” in which the editor goes behind the discovery with a oneon-one interview with an author of the article featured in “Editor’s Spotlight.” The author certifies that neither he, nor any members of his immediate family, have any commercial associations (such as consultancies, stock ownership, equity interest, patent/licensing arrangements, etc.) that might pose a conflict of interest in connection with the submitted article. All ICMJE Conflict of Interest Forms for authors and Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research editors and board members are on file with the publication and can be viewed on request. The opinions expressed are those of the writer, and do not reflect the opinion or policy of CORR or The Association of Bone and Joint Surgeons. This comment refers to the article available at: DOI: 10.1097/CORR.0000000000000860. P.A. Manner MD, FRCSC (✉), Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, 1600 Spruce St., Philadelphia, PA 19013 USA, Email: sleopold@clinorthop.org P. A. Manner, Senior Editor, Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research Philadelphia, PA, USA","PeriodicalId":10465,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research","volume":"2 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/CORR.0000000000000984","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Why are some technologies adopted quickly, while others are not? Why are some surgical procedures adopted wholeheartedly and others simply dismissed? Why does this vary from place to place? In this month’s Editor’s Spotlight/Take 5, Daniel C. Austin MD, MS and his team from Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, already known for their work on surgical variation [2], show profound differences in adoption of arthroscopic repair of rotator cuff tears between hospital referral regions across the United States [1]. Why might this be so? Providers may surmise that a patient in Paris, TX, USA and one in Rome, GA, USA (to borrow half a line from a country song) both will receive the same surgical recommendation if they present with the same clinical problem. But while variation is typically quite low for straightforward problems— surgery is appropriate for almost all patients with hip fractures—the degree of variation for other diagnoses is surprising. For example, coils are used to treat cerebral aneurysms in 99% of patients covered byMedicare in Tacoma, WA, USA, while less than 40% of patients treated for unruptured aneurysms received coiling in Modesto, CA, USA, Madison, WI, USA and Manchester, NH, USA [2]. What about when new procedures or approaches are introduced? Presumably, we’re all reading the same studies and getting the same information on the risks and benefits of a new technique. It’s reasonable to think that adoption would occur with similar patterns, and over the same amount of time. But this is almost never the case. There are notable differences in how individuals approach technological novelty. The first systematic assessment on how to incorporate new practice into daily life dates back to the early 20th century. Ryan and Gross [7] looked at how Iowa farmers used hybrid seed corn and found features that resonate even today: There was a time lag of about 5 years between first knowledge and first adoption; those who tried the approach earliest were somewhat tentative in incorporating new seed; late adopters were more likely to carry out a full conversion, and “almost all had heard of the new trait before more than a handful were planting it” [7]. Farmers fell into several categories: Innovators, early adopters, early majority, late majority, and laggards—familiar territory for surgeons. In the early 1960s, Everett Rogers developed the theory of diffusion of innovations, and proposed four elements that influence the spread of a new idea: (1) The innovation itself, (2) communication channels, (3) time, and (4) a social system [6]. Although Rogers did not write specifically about medical or surgical techniques, his model resonates with providers trying out new forms of therapy. A note from the Editor-In-Chief: In “Editor’s Spotlight,” one of our editors provides brief commentary on a paper we believe is especially important and worthy of general interest. Following the explanation of our choice, we present “Take 5,” in which the editor goes behind the discovery with a oneon-one interview with an author of the article featured in “Editor’s Spotlight.” The author certifies that neither he, nor any members of his immediate family, have any commercial associations (such as consultancies, stock ownership, equity interest, patent/licensing arrangements, etc.) that might pose a conflict of interest in connection with the submitted article. All ICMJE Conflict of Interest Forms for authors and Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research editors and board members are on file with the publication and can be viewed on request. The opinions expressed are those of the writer, and do not reflect the opinion or policy of CORR or The Association of Bone and Joint Surgeons. This comment refers to the article available at: DOI: 10.1097/CORR.0000000000000860. P.A. Manner MD, FRCSC (✉), Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, 1600 Spruce St., Philadelphia, PA 19013 USA, Email: sleopold@clinorthop.org P. A. Manner, Senior Editor, Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research Philadelphia, PA, USA
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
编者聚焦/专题5:绘制骨科手术技术扩散图:了解关节镜下肩袖修复术在美国的传播。
为什么有些技术被迅速采用,而另一些却没有?为什么有些外科手术被全心全意地接受,而另一些则被简单地抛弃?为什么各地的情况不同呢?在本月的编辑聚焦/第5篇中,达特茅斯-希区柯克医疗中心的Daniel C. Austin MD, MS和他的团队已经以手术变异的研究而闻名[2],他们展示了美国不同医院转诊地区在采用关节镜修复肩袖撕裂方面的巨大差异[1]。为什么会这样呢?提供者可能会推测,一个在美国德克萨斯州巴黎的病人和一个在美国佐治亚州罗马的病人(借用一首乡村歌曲的半句歌词),如果他们表现出相同的临床问题,他们会得到相同的手术建议。但是,尽管对于直接的问题来说,手术通常是非常低的——几乎所有髋部骨折的患者都可以接受手术——但其他诊断的差异程度却令人惊讶。例如,在美国华盛顿州塔科马市,99%的医疗保险患者使用线圈治疗脑动脉瘤,而在美国加利福尼亚州莫德斯托市、美国威斯康星州麦迪逊市和美国新罕布什尔州曼彻斯特市,只有不到40%的未破裂动脉瘤患者接受了线圈治疗[2]。当引入新的程序或方法时怎么办?大概,我们都在阅读同样的研究,并得到同样的信息,关于一项新技术的风险和好处。有理由认为,采用将以类似的模式发生,并在相同的时间内。但这种情况几乎从未发生过。不同个体对待新技术的方式存在显著差异。关于如何将新的实践融入日常生活的第一次系统评估可以追溯到20世纪初。Ryan和Gross[7]研究了爱荷华州农民如何使用杂交玉米种子,并发现了一些即使在今天也能引起共鸣的特征:从第一次知道到第一次采用之间大约有5年的时间滞后;那些最早尝试这种方法的人在加入新种子方面有些犹豫不决;较晚的采用者更有可能进行完全的转化,而且“在少数人种植这种新性状之前,几乎所有人都听说过它”[7]。农民分为几类:创新者、早期采用者、早期多数、晚期多数和落后者——这是外科医生熟悉的领域。20世纪60年代初,埃弗雷特·罗杰斯(Everett Rogers)发展了创新扩散理论,提出了影响新思想传播的四个因素:(1)创新本身;(2)传播渠道;(3)时间;(4)社会制度[6]。虽然罗杰斯没有专门写关于医疗或外科技术的文章,但他的模型与尝试新形式治疗的提供者产生了共鸣。总编辑的注释:在“编辑聚焦”中,我们的一位编辑对一篇我们认为特别重要且值得普遍关注的论文提供了简短的评论。在解释了我们的选择之后,我们将呈现“第5条”,在这条视频中,编辑将通过对“编辑聚焦”中这篇文章的一位作者的一对一采访,深入了解这一发现的背后。提交人证明,他本人及其直系亲属均无任何可能与所提交文章产生利益冲突的商业协会(如咨询公司、股票所有权、股权、专利/许可安排等)。所有ICMJE作者和临床骨科及相关研究编辑和董事会成员的利益冲突表都在出版物中存档,可以根据要求查看。所表达的观点是作者的观点,不反映CORR或骨关节外科医生协会的观点或政策。此评论参考的文章可在:DOI: 10.1097/CORR.0000000000000860。P.A. Manner医学博士,临床骨科及相关研究,美国费城1600 Spruce St, PA 19013 USA,电子邮件:sleopold@clinorthop.org P.A. Manner,美国费城临床骨科及相关研究高级编辑
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
CORR Insights®: What is the Geographic Distribution of Women Orthopaedic Surgeons Throughout the United States? What Are the Rates and Trends of Women Authors in Three High-Impact Orthopaedic Journals from 2006-2017? CORR Insights®: Chair Versus Chairman: Does Orthopaedics Use the Gendered Term More Than Other Specialties? CORR Insights®: Does the Proportion of Women in Orthopaedic Leadership Roles Reflect the Gender Composition of Specialty Societies? Women Are at Higher Risk for Concussions Due to Ball or Equipment Contact in Soccer and Lacrosse.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1