Health Care Analysis 28 (1):73-97 (2020)

Improving surgical interventions is key to improving outcomes. Ensuring the safe and transparent translation of such improvements is essential. Evaluation and governance initiatives, including the IDEAL framework and the Macquarie Surgical Innovation Identification Tool have begun to address this. Yet without a definition of innovation that allows non-surgeons to identify when it is occurring, these initiatives are of limited value. A definition seems elusive, so we undertook a conceptual study of surgical innovation. This indicated common conceptual areas in discussions of innovation, that we categorised alliteratively under the themes of “purpose”, “place”, “process”, “product” and “person”. These conceptual areas are used in varying—sometimes contradictory—ways in different discussions. Highlighting these conceptual areas of surgical innovation may be useful in clarifying what should be reported in registries of innovation. However our wider conclusion was that the term “innovation” carries too much conceptual baggage to inform normative inquiry about surgical practice. Instead, we propose elimination of the term “innovation” from serious discourse aimed at evaluation and regulation of surgery. In our view researchers, philosophers and policy-makers should consider what it is about surgical activity that needs attention and develop robust definitions to identify these areas: for our own focus on transparency and safety, this means finding criteria that can objectively identify certain risk profiles during the development of surgery.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1007/s10728-019-00380-y
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Translate to english
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 63,417
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Splitting Concepts.Gualtiero Piccinini & Sam Scott - 2006 - Philosophy of Science 73 (4):390-409.
Innovative Surgery and the Precautionary Principle.Denise Meyerson - 2013 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 38 (6):jht047.

View all 13 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Surgical Innovation as Sui Generis Surgical Research.Mianna Lotz - 2013 - Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 34 (6):447-459.
Addressing Within-Role Conflicts of Interest in Surgery.Wendy A. Rogers & Jane Johnson - 2013 - Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 10 (2):219-225.
Innovative Surgery and the Precautionary Principle.Denise Meyerson - 2013 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 38 (6):jht047.
文化•创新文化•自主创新.Shankan He - 2008 - Proceedings of the Xxii World Congress of Philosophy 22:143-157.


Added to PP index

Total views
9 ( #922,979 of 2,449,116 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #442,577 of 2,449,116 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes