Teaching Hospitals and the Disconnect Between Technology Adoption and Comparative Effectiveness Research: The Case of the Surgical Robot

Abstract

The surgical robot, a costly technology for treatment of prostate cancer with equivocal marginal benefit, rapidly diffused into clinical practice. We sought to evaluate the role of teaching in the early adoption phase of the surgical robot. Teaching hospitals were the primary early adopters: data from the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project showed that surgical robots were acquired by 45.5% of major teaching, 18.0% of minor teaching and 8.0% of non-teaching hospitals during the early adoption phase. However, teaching hospital faculty produced little comparative effectiveness research: By 2008, only 24 published studies compared robotic prostatectomy outcomes to those of conventional techniques. Just ten of these studies (41.7%) were more than minimally powered, and only six (25%) involved cross-institutional collaborations. In adopting the surgical robot, teaching hospitals fulfilled their mission to innovate, but failed to generate corresponding scientific evidence.

Keywords

prostate cancer new technology diffusion of innovation comparative effectiveness research teaching hospitals

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Association of American Medical Colleges. (2014). AAMC mission, vision, and strategy. Retrieved from https://www.aamc.org/download/330254/data/mission.pdf

Barbash

G. I.

Friedman

Glied

S. A.

Steiner

C. A.

(2014). Factors associated with adoption of robotic surgical technology in US hospitals and relationship to radical prostatectomy procedure volume. Annals of Surgery, 259, 1-6.

Barbash

G. I.

Glied

S. A.

(2010). New technology and health care costs–the case of robot-assisted surgery. New England Journal of Medicine, 363, 701-704.

Dahm

Sedrakyan

McCulloch

(2014). Application of the IDEAL framework to robotic urologic surgery. European Urology, 65, 849-851.

David

P. A.

(1985). Clio and the Economics of QWERTY. American Economic Review, 75, 332-337.

Dhruva

S. S.

Bero

L. A.

Redberg

R. F.

(2009). Strength of study evidence examined by the FDA in premarket approval of cardiovascular devices. Journal of the American Medical Association, 302, 2679-2685.

French

C. E.

Ferlie

Fulop

N. J.

(2014). The international spread of Academic Health Science Centres: A scoping review and the case of policy transfer to England. Health Policy, 117, 382-391.

Gandaglia

Sammon

J. D.

Chang

S. L.

Choueiri

T. K.

J. C.

Karakiewicz

P. I.

. . . Trinh

Q. D.

(2014). Comparative effectiveness of robot-assisted and open radical prostatectomy in the postdissemination era. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 32, 1419-1426.

Gelijns

A. C.

Brown

L. D.

Magnell

Ronchi

Moskowitz

A. J.

(2005). Evidence, politics, and technological change. Health Affairs (Millwood), 24, 29-40.

10.

Gold

H. T.

Pitrelli

Hayes

M. K.

Murphy

M. M.

(2014). Decision to adopt medical technology: Case study of breast cancer radiotherapy techniques. Medical Decision Making, 34, 1006-1015.

11.

Hines

J. Z.

Lurie

Wolfe

(2010). Left to their own devices: Breakdowns in United States medical device premarket review. PLoS Medicine, 7, e1000280.

12.

Hoag

N. A.

Mamut

Afshar

Amling

Mickelson

J. J.

Macneily

A. E.

(2012). Trends in urology resident exposure to minimally invasive surgery for index procedures: A tale of two countries. Journal of Surgical Education, 69, 670-675.

13.

IDEAL Collaboration. (2015). Retrieved from http://ideal-collaboration.org

14.

Lauer

M. S.

(2011). Commentary: Will academia embrace comparative effectiveness research? Academic Medicine, 86, 671-673.

15.

Lowrance

W. T.

Eastham

J. A.

Savage

Maschino

A. C.

Laudone

V. P.

Dechet

C. B.

. . . Sandhu

J. S.

(2012). Contemporary open and robotic radical prostatectomy practice patterns among urologists in the United States. Journal of Urology, 187, 2087-2092.

16.

Makarov

D. V.

J. B.

Desai

R. A.

Penson

D. F.

Gross

C. P.

(2011). The association between diffusion of the surgical robot and radical prostatectomy rates. Medical Care, 49, 333-339.

17.

Meadows

(2002). Robots lend a helping hand to surgeons. FDA Consumer, 36(3), 10-15.

18.

Menon

Tewari

Baize

Guillonneau

Vallancien

(2002). Prospective comparison of radical retropubic prostatectomy and robot-assisted anatomic prostatectomy: The Vattikuti Urology Institute experience. Urology, 60, 864-868.

19.

New Academic Health Science Networks announced. (2013, May 23). NHS England. Retrieved from https://www.england.nhs.uk/2013/05/acc-health-sci-ntwrk/

20.

Rogers

E. M.

(2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York, NY: Free Press.

21.

Schroeck

F. R.

Krupski

T. L.

Sun

Albala

D. M.

Price

M. M.

Polascik

T. J.

. . . Moul

J. W.

(2008). Satisfaction and regret after open retropubic or robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. European Urology, 54, 785-793.

22.

Sox

H. C.

(2011). Commentary: Academic health centers and comparative effectiveness research: Opportunities and challenges. Academic Medicine, 86, 664-666.