Addressing the ethical grey zone in surgery: a framework for identification and safe introduction of novel surgical techniques and procedures

Innovation versus Experimentation: An Application of Ethical Frameworks to the Acceptance of Fluorescence-Guided Pediatric Surgery

Innovation is essential to the advancement of the field of pediatric surgery. The natural skepticism toward new technologies in pediatrics leads to frequent confusion of surgical innovation and research. Using fluorescence-guided surgery as an archetype for this ethical discussion, we apply existing conceptual frameworks of surgical innovation to understand the distinction between innovation and experimentation, acknowledging the spectrum and "grey zone" in between. In this review, we discuss the role of Institutional Review Boards in evaluating surgical practice innovations, and the aspects of certain surgical innovations that are distinct from experimentation, including a thorough understanding of the risk profile, preexisting use in humans, and adaptation from related fields. Examining fluorescence-guided surgery through these existing frameworks as well as the concept of equipoise, we conclude that new applications of indocyanine green do not constitute human subjects research. Most importantly, this example gives practitioners a lens through which they may appraise potential surgical innovations to allow for a sensible and efficient improvement of the field of pediatric surgery. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: V.

Clinical innovation ethics frameworks: A systematic narrative review

BACKGROUND

It is common for doctors to engage in clinical innovation-i.e. to use novel interventions that differ from standard practice, and that have not yet been shown to be safe or effective according to the usual standards of evidence-based medicine-in the belief that this will benefit their patients. Clinical innovation is currently poorly defined and lacks cohesive oversight mechanisms.

METHODS

A systematic narrative review, with the aim of identifying areas of similarity and divergence in innovation ethics frameworks developed across different medical specialties.

RESULTS

47 articles were included in the review. Few ethical issues raised by the ethics frameworks appear to be unique to distinct areas of practice. While variations exist in the oversight mechanisms suggested, these are again not specific to areas of practice, but rather reflect either cautious or more permissive attitudes towards clinical innovation.

CONCLUSIONS

There is considerable overlap amongst ethics frameworks developed for use in diverse areas of practice. This reflects a tendency to treat innovative interventions in each area of practice as "exceptional" and a failure to develop "higher order" frameworks such as those that have been developed for research. Those involved in the oversight of clinical innovation need to aim for a balance between exceptionalism and harmonisation.

Healthcare organization policy recommendations for the governance of surgical innovation: review of NHS policies

BACKGROUND

The governance for introducing innovative surgical procedures/devices differs from the research requirements needed for new drugs. New invasive procedures/devices may be offered to patients outside of research protocols with local organization oversight alone. Such institutional arrangements exist in many countries and written policies provide guidance for their use, but little is known about their scope or standards.

METHODS

One hundred and fifty acute NHS trusts in England and seven health boards in Wales were systematically approached for information about their policies. A modified framework approach was used to analyse when policies considered new procedures/devices to be within local organization remit and/or requiring research ethics committee (REC) approval.

RESULTS

Of 113 policies obtained, 109 and 34 described when local organization and REC approval was required, respectively. Procedures/devices being used for the first time in the organization (n = 69) or by a clinician (n = 67) were commonly within local remit, and only 36 stated that evidence was required. Others stated limited evidence as a rationale for needing REC approval (n = 13). External guidance categorizing procedures as 'research only' was the most common reason for gaining REC approval (n = 15). Procedures/devices with uncertain outcomes (n = 28), requiring additional training (n = 26), and not previously used (n = 6) were within the remit of policies, while others recommended REC application in these situations (n = 5, 2 and 7, respectively).

CONCLUSION

This study on NHS policies for surgical innovation shows variability in the introduction of procedures/devices in terms of local oversight and/or need for REC approval. Current NHS standards allow untested innovations to occur without the safety of research oversight and thus a standard approach is urgently needed.