Register      Login
Australian Health Review Australian Health Review Society
Journal of the Australian Healthcare & Hospitals Association
RESEARCH ARTICLE

Research as the gatekeeper: introduction ofrobotic-assisted surgery into the public sector

Kate E. McBride A E , Daniel Steffens https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9715-860X B C , Michael J. Solomon A B C , Teresa Anderson A , Jane Young A B C , Scott Leslie A B , Ruban Thanigasalam A B and Paul G. Bannon A B D
+ Author Affiliations
- Author Affiliations

A RPA Institute of Academic Surgery (IAS), Royal Prince Alfred Hospital and University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2050, Australia. Email: Teresa.Anderson@health.nsw.gov.au; scottleslie@me.com; drruban.urology@gmail.com

B University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2000, Australia. Email: Daniel.Steffens@health.nsw.gov.au

C Surgical Outcomes Research Centre (SOuRCe), Sydney, NSW 2050, Australia. Email: professor.solomon@sydney.edu.au; jane.young@sydney.edu.au

D The Baird Institute, Sydney, NSW 2050, Australia. Email: pgbannon@gmail.com

E Corresponding author. Email: Kate.McBride@health.nsw.gov.au

Australian Health Review 43(6) 676-681 https://doi.org/10.1071/AH19045
Submitted: 25 February 2019  Accepted: 8 May 2019   Published: 16 July 2019

Abstract

Objective Within Australia, robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) has largely been undertaken within the private sector, and predominately based within urology. This is rapidly developing, with RAS becoming increasingly prevalent across surgical specialties and within public hospitals. At this point in time there is a need to consider how this generation of the technology can be appropriately and safely introduced into the public health system given its prohibitive costs and lack of high-level long-term evidence.

Methods This paper describes a unique approach used to govern the establishment of a new RAS program within a large public tertiary referral hospital in Australia. This included the creation of a comprehensive governance framework that covered research, training and operational components, with research being the ultimate gatekeeper to accessing the technology.

Results Taking this novel approach, both benefits and challenges were encountered. Although initially there was a trade-off of activity to enable time for the research program to be developed, it was found the model strengthened patient safety in introducing the technology, fostered a breadth of surgical speciality involvement, ensured uniformity of data collection and, in the longer term, will enable a significant contribution to be made to the evidence regarding the appropriateness of RAS being used across several surgical specialties.

Conclusions There is potential for this comprehensive governance framework to be transferred to other public hospitals commencing or with existing RAS programs and to be applied to the introduction of other new and expensive surgical technology.

What is known about the topic? RAS is rapidly evolving and becoming increasingly prevalent across surgical specialities in major public hospitals. Consequently, it is important that this new technology is safely and appropriately implemented into the public health system.

What does this paper add? This article describes the benefits and implementation challenges of a novel RAS approach, including a comprehensive governance framework that covered research, training and operational components, with research being the ultimate gatekeeper to accessing the technology.

What are the implications for practitioners? This comprehensive governance framework can be transferred to other public hospitals introducing, or already using, new and expensive surgical technology.


References

[1]  Device Technologies. Program locations – da Vinci surgery. 2018, July 25. Available at: https://www.roboticsurgery.com.au/program-locations/ [verified 10 December 2018].

[2]  Murphy DG, Hall R, Tong R, Goel R, Costello AJ. Robotic technology in surgery: current status in 2008. ANZ J Surg 2008; 78 1076–81.
Robotic technology in surgery: current status in 2008.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 19087046PubMed |

[3]  Diana M, Marescaux J. Robotic surgery. Br J Surg 2015; 102 e15–28.
Robotic surgery.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 25627128PubMed |

[4]  AlAsari S, Min BS. Robotic colorectal surgery: a systematic review. ISRN Surg 2012; 2012 293894
Robotic colorectal surgery: a systematic review.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 22655207PubMed |

[5]  Jung M, Morel P, Buehler L, Buchs NC, Hagen ME. Robotic general surgery: current practice, evidence, and perspective. Langenbecks Arch Surg 2015; 400 283–92.
Robotic general surgery: current practice, evidence, and perspective.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 25854502PubMed |

[6]  Steffens D, Thanigasalam R, Leslie S, Maneck B, Young JM, Solomon M. Robotic surgery in uro-oncology: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Urology 2017; 106 9–17.
Robotic surgery in uro-oncology: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 28336286PubMed |

[7]  Spigelman AD. Governance and innovation: experience with a policy on the introduction of new interventional procedures. ANZ J Surg 2006; 76 9–13.
Governance and innovation: experience with a policy on the introduction of new interventional procedures.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 16483287PubMed |

[8]  Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, Payne J, Gonzalez N, Conde JG. Research electronic data capture (REDCap) – a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform 2009; 42 377–81.
Research electronic data capture (REDCap) – a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 18929686PubMed |

[9]  Goh AC, Goldfarb DW, Sander JC, Miles BJ, Dunkin BJ. Global evaluative assessment of robotic skills: validation of a clinical assessment tool to measure robotic surgical skills. J Urol 2012; 187 247–52.
Global evaluative assessment of robotic skills: validation of a clinical assessment tool to measure robotic surgical skills.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 22099993PubMed |

[10]  Karunaratne S, Duan M, Pappas E, Fritsch B, Boyle R, Gupta S, Stalley P, Horsley M, Steffens D. The effectiveness of robotic hip and knee arthroplasty on patient-reported outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int Orthop 2019; 43 1283–95.
The effectiveness of robotic hip and knee arthroplasty on patient-reported outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 30219968PubMed |