Introduction of new technologies and decision making processes: a framework to adapt a Local Health Technology Decision Support Program for other local settings

Purpose Introducing new health technologies, including medical devices, into a local setting in a safe, effective, and transparent manner is a complex process, involving many disciplines and players within an organization. Decision making should be systematic, consistent, and transparent. It should involve translating and integrating scientific evidence, such as health technology assessment (HTA) reports, with context-sensitive evidence to develop recommendations on whether and under what conditions a new technology will be introduced. However, the development of a program to support such decision making can require considerable time and resources. An alternative is to adapt a preexisting program to the new setting. Materials and methods We describe a framework for adapting the Local HTA Decision Support Program, originally developed by the Department of Surgery and Surgical Services (Calgary, AB, Canada), for use by other departments. The framework consists of six steps: 1) development of a program review and adaptation manual, 2) education and readiness assessment of interested departments, 3) evaluation of the program by individual departments, 4) joint evaluation via retreats, 5) synthesis of feedback and program revision, and 6) evaluation of the adaptation process. Results Nine departments revised the Local HTA Decision Support Program and expressed strong satisfaction with the adaptation process. Key elements for success were identified. Conclusion Adaptation of a preexisting program may reduce duplication of effort, save resources, raise the health care providers’ awareness of HTA, and foster constructive stakeholder engagement, which enhances the legitimacy of evidence-informed recommendations for introducing new health technologies. We encourage others to use this framework for program adaptation and to report their experiences.

[1]  Markus Graefen,et al.  Downsides of robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: limitations and complications. , 2010, European urology.

[2]  R. Aggarwal,et al.  Technology as applied to patient safety: an overview , 2010, Quality and Safety in Health Care.

[3]  L. Erickson,et al.  Evidence and Value: Impact on DEcisionMaking – the EVIDEM framework and potential applications , 2008, BMC health services research.

[4]  R. Norman,et al.  Introduction and uptake of new medical technologies in the Australian health care system: a qualitative study. , 2011, Health policy.

[5]  V. Nieva,et al.  Development of a Planning Tool to Guide Research Dissemination , 2005 .

[6]  Steven Wooding,et al.  Assessing the impact of health technology assessment in the Netherlands , 2008, International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care.

[7]  C. Deal,et al.  Combining multicriteria decision analysis, ethics and health technology assessment: applying the EVIDEM decisionmaking framework to growth hormone for Turner syndrome patients , 2010, Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E.

[8]  Elijah Dixon,et al.  Multi-criteria development and incorporation into decision tools for health technology adoption. , 2013, Journal of health organization and management.

[9]  Saifudin Rashiq,et al.  Creating clinically relevant knowledge from systematic reviews: the challenges of knowledge translation. , 2007, Journal of evaluation in clinical practice.

[10]  P. Wallner,et al.  A changing paradigm in the study and adoption of emerging health care technologies: coverage with evidence development. , 2008, Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR.

[11]  J Raftery,et al.  An assessment of the impact of the NHS Health Technology Assessment Programme. , 2007, Health technology assessment.

[12]  G. Buess,et al.  EAES recommendations on methodology of innovation management in endoscopic surgery , 2010, Surgical Endoscopy.

[13]  M. Harrison,et al.  Facilitating the use of evidence in practice: evaluating and adapting clinical practice guidelines for local use by health care organizations. , 2002, Journal of obstetric, gynecologic, and neonatal nursing : JOGNN.

[14]  Gisselle Gallego,et al.  Decision makers' perceptions of health technology decision making and priority setting at the institutional level. , 2008, Australian health review : a publication of the Australian Hospital Association.

[15]  J. Raftery,et al.  Assessing the impact of England's National Health Service R&D Health Technology Assessment program using the “payback” approach , 2009, International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care.

[16]  D. Nash,et al.  Accelerating Best Care in Pennsylvania: Adapting a Large Academic System's Quality Improvement Process to Rural Community Hospitals , 2008, American journal of medical quality : the official journal of the American College of Medical Quality.

[17]  Maurice McGregor,et al.  End-user involvement in health technology assessment (HTA) development: A way to increase impact , 2005, International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care.

[18]  M. Weinstein,et al.  Adoption and spread of new imaging technology: a case study. , 2009, Health affairs.

[19]  A. Culyer International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment , 2014 .

[20]  G. Robert,et al.  Adopting and assimilating new non-pharmaceutical technologies into health care: A systematic review , 2010, Journal of health services research & policy.

[21]  K. Facey,et al.  Health technology assessment to optimize health technology utilization: Using implementation initiatives and monitoring processes , 2010, International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care.

[22]  S. Ziebland,et al.  Analysing qualitative data , 2000, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[23]  M. S. Richards,et al.  Physician attitudes toward strategies to promote the adoption of medical evidence into clinical practice. , 2003, The American journal of managed care.

[24]  J. Shemer,et al.  Medical technology management: bridging the gap between theory and practice. , 2005, The Israel Medical Association journal : IMAJ.

[25]  J. M. Davies,et al.  Qualitative Research in Health Care , 1996, Journal of the Royal College of Physicians of London.

[26]  P. Lehoux,et al.  What medical specialists like and dislike about health technology assessment reports , 2009, Journal of health services research & policy.

[27]  Resource allocation and health technology assessment in Australia: Views from the local level , 2009, International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care.

[28]  Linda C. Li,et al.  Use of communities of practice in business and health care sectors: A systematic review , 2009, Implementation science : IS.

[29]  Jörg F. Debatin,et al.  Healthcare costs for new technologies , 2009, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.

[30]  Sue Ziebland,et al.  Analysing qualitative data , 2000, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[31]  M. Krahn,et al.  Health technology assessment: A comprehensive framework for evidence-based recommendations in Ontario , 2009, International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care.

[32]  Ian D Graham,et al.  Adapting National and International Leg Ulcer Practice Guidelines for Local Use: The Ontario Leg Ulcer Community Care Protocol , 2005, Advances in skin & wound care.

[33]  M. Gagnon,et al.  Integration of health technology assessment recommendations into organizational and clinical practice: A case study in Catalonia , 2006, International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care.

[34]  G. Maddern,et al.  Evaluating new surgical techniques in Australia: the Australian Safety and Efficacy Register of New Interventional Procedures-Surgical experience. , 2006, The Surgical clinics of North America.

[35]  M. de Hoog,et al.  Information technology cannot guarantee patient safety , 2007, BMJ : British Medical Journal.