IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0273696.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Barriers and enablers to the effective implementation of robotic assisted surgery

Author

Listed:
  • Louisa Lawrie
  • Katie Gillies
  • Eilidh Duncan
  • Loretta Davies
  • David Beard
  • Marion K Campbell

Abstract

Background: Implementation of Robotic Assisted Surgery (RAS) is complex as it requires adjustments to associated physical infrastructure, but also changes to processes and behaviours. With the global objective of optimising and improving RAS implementation, this study aimed to: 1) Explore the barriers and enablers to RAS service adoption, incorporating an assessment of behavioural influences; 2) Provide an optimised plan for effective RAS implementation, with the incorporation of theory-informed implementation strategies that have been adapted to address the barriers/enablers that affect RAS service adoption. Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with RAS personnel and stakeholders, including: surgeons, theatre staff, managers, industry representatives, and policy-makers/commissioners. The Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) and the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) was used to identify barriers and enablers that represent individual behaviours, capabilities, attitudes, beliefs, and external organisational factors that influence the implementation of RAS. Results: Findings suggest that implementation planning has three separate phases–pre-, early, and late implementation. For pre-implementation, barriers and enablers identified included the cost of RAS equipment and issues of economic viability, weak outcome evidence for RAS, a preponderance of an eminence driven model, the clinician/manager relationship, and views around the uptake and expansion of RAS in the future. Early implementation findings revealed role changes for theatre personnel and an enhanced team approach, reliance on industry for training provision, and changes in skill sets and attentional processes. Late implementation factors included equipment maintenance costs, technological limitations, changes to cognition during RAS routine use, and benefits to institutions/healthcare professionals (such as ergonomic improvement). Conclusion: Together, findings suggest the factors that affect RAS implementation are multi-faceted and change across the life-cycle of intervention adoption. Theory-informed strategies are suggested which can optimise implementation of RAS. Optimisation strategies need planning from the outset.

Suggested Citation

  • Louisa Lawrie & Katie Gillies & Eilidh Duncan & Loretta Davies & David Beard & Marion K Campbell, 2022. "Barriers and enablers to the effective implementation of robotic assisted surgery," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(8), pages 1-21, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0273696
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0273696
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0273696
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0273696&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0273696?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0273696. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.