New Surgical Technology: Adoption or Diffusion? Essay

This article embossed an interesting subject surgeons and patients seeking alter treatment often forget that a tender proficiency is not inevitably a better one. Human eubstance with its health line of works remains the same exclusively the working(a) applied science is always locomote towards progress. People develop unexampled surgical tools and advanced surgical bits constantly. However, do we cautiously test completely these late tools and procedures beforehand using them on people? And how? On humans? On animals prototypic mayhap? Is it ethical? How do we know that smart tools and procedures are better than the existing ones? in addition m both questionsNew surgical engineering science promises improved patient care and, therefore, surgeons may hurry to tackle it despite secondary endorse or their advantage everywhere existing procedures. Surgical procedures that are afterward found to be ineffective counteract resources and endanger lives. Anything n ew must be carefully tried and proved in fact to be better. Therefore, the key to this problem is a cautious and total grounds from the surgeons and the patients of why such new procedures fuck to be offered as treatment. Lets look in detail how this new medical engine room gets adopted in the US. It may rise up in the tune of* a drug* a doodad* a procedure* a technique* a process of careFor the surgical applied science in particular, new things come in the form of a new procedure that implements existing devices or drugs, or an existing procedure that uses new devices. forwards adopting any new engineering science, people should hard consider the following constituents * Will this new engine room improve the quality of clinical care? * If found successful, will the craftsman promote its rapid adoption? * How widely this new technology will be distributed?* Will it pass all know and cap exponent barriers for adoption, (financing, marketing, etc.)? * Is it compatible with the existing technologies and operate rooms? From all of these questions the main factor is always the same the new technology MUST improve the quality of clinical care for patients. If this precondition is not satisfied, the technology should be remiss even a logical and scientifically confirmative military strength is no substitute for proof in practice. There were cases where surgical technology that was readily adopted without evidence of its relative benefit, was abandoned after careful examination. For example In 1964, Dr. Smith reported that injecting the enzyme chymopapain into an intervertebral magnetic disc relieved pain caused by herniation of the lumbar disc.In 1989, the Ameri merchant ship medical examination Associations diagnostic and sanative technology assessment group questioned the military capability of the procedure and raised concerns about its safety. Their rating showed that, compared with placebo or no treatment, chymopapain was effective in only selected patients. In addition, when it was used by less experienced surgeons some patients had adept complications, including allergic reaction and even ill-treat to the spinal cord. I feel positive about innovation in all fields especially when people dope improve the quality of life by repairing and healing the human body. However, before adopting any new technology in the run room, it should be offered to patients for a trial period. excessively surgeons shall carefully watch and study this procedure being done numerous times, and if it can be supported by the already existing equipment and the existing operating rooms.Do we ask the patient about the lash-up or improvement by the new procedure or equipment? Of course He is the one on the operating evade putting his life in the turn everywhere of the surgeon. Surgeons always like the new technology if it can be easily and quickly understood, and added to their existing practice without waste of time. If the intro duce to their practice is great, surgeons will invest more than time and effort and disregard fracture of their routine day to expand the agonistical advantage that a new technology offers. What I learned from this article is the use of new surgical technology has the potential to provide patients with the best possible care.On the other hand, if the new procedure or instrument were not carefully tested and approved, it ruined surgeons reputation, supererogatory resources, and caused aggrieve to patients. Surgeons and institutions must not adopt a new technology without unscathed evidence of its efficiency and superiority over existing ones. In reality, quite a few innovations in medical technology were often adopted without enough evidence and testing and this was wrong. No matter how safe the surgeons skill and ability to perform a procedure, it is wrong, if the procedure should not be done in the first place and may potentially harm the patient.Source Article from BMJ Bri tish medical examination Journal 2006 January 14 332(7533) 112-114. Editorial by Gabbay and Walley and pp 107, 109.Contributors and sources CBW is senior adviser for the Health engineering Center and senior fellow at the Institute for the Future in California. -References McCulloch P, Taylor I, Sasako M, Lovett B Griffin D. Randomised trials in mathematical process problems and possible solutions. BMJ 2002 324 1448-51. PMC free article PubMed.