Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Evidence Decision Support Program Within the Surgery Strategic Clinical Network of Alberta Health Services in Canada

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Hospital-Based Health Technology Assessment

  • 996 Accesses

Abstract

The Surgery Strategic Clinical Network (SSCN) within Alberta Health Services (AHS) has implemented an “Evidence Decision Support Program (EDSP)” to help identify, prioritize, evaluate, and recommend new technologies for possible introduction into the health-care system, with specific focus on the hospital setting. The EDSP does not conduct health technology assessment (HTA) reports, but rather provides a model to make evidence-informed decision about whether and under what conditions innovations should be adopted. The Program consists of a standing multidisciplinary committee (consisting of scientists, clinicians, nurse managers, and administrators) and uses standardized forms and processes to gather both context-free and context-sensitive evidence on new technologies being considered. The objective is to review the evidence in context and use external professional expertise, when required, to make recommendations to the Surgical Executive Committee for subsequent decision. The goal is to ensure patients receive optimal treatment while safety, training/credentialing, resources, and other organizational issues are considered. Unlike traditional large-scale HTA organizations, the EDSP collects and integrates local data with published HTA reports. This helps to ensure better applicability of HTA report recommendations to meet local needs. The scope of the Program’s impact is varied and may include impact on hospital/operating room budgets, clinical practices, patient outcomes monitoring, training, and credentialing. The EDSP continues to evolve as stakeholder engagement and input with respect to practical issues of implementing recommendations for adoption of new technology are recognized.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 79.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Strategic Clinical Networks, Alberta Health Services. Available at: www.ahs.ca

  2. Barkun JS, Aronson JK, Feldman LS, Maddern GJ, Strasberg SM, Altman DG, Blazeby JM, Boutron IC, Campbell WB, Clavien PA, Cook JA, Ergina PL, Flum DR, Glasziou P, Marshall JC, McCulloch P, Nicholl J, Reeves BC, Seiler CM, Meakins JL, Ashby D, Black N, Bunker J, Burton M, Campbell M, Chalkidou K, Chalmers I, de Leval M, Deeks J, Grant A, Gray M, Greenhalgh R, Jenicek M, Kehoe S, Lilford R, Littlejohns P, Loke Y, Madhock R, McPherson K, Rothwell P, Summerskill B, Taggart D, Tekkis P, Thompson M, Treasure T, Trohler U, Vandenbroucke J (2009) Evaluation and stages of surgical innovations. Lancet 374(9695):1089–1096. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(09)61083-7, S0140-6736(09)61083-7 [pii]

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Ergina PL, Cook JA, Blazeby JM, Boutron I, Clavien PA, Reeves BC, Seiler CM, Altman DG, Aronson JK, Barkun JS, Campbell WB, Feldman LS, Flum DR, Glasziou P, Maddern GJ, Marshall JC, McCulloch P, Nicholl J, Strasberg SM, Meakins JL, Ashby D, Black N, Bunker J, Burton M, Campbell M, Chalkidou K, Chalmers I, de Leval M, Deeks J, Grant A, Gray M, Greenhalgh R, Jenicek M, Kehoe S, Lilford R, Littlejohns P, Loke Y, Madhock R, McPherson K, Rothwell P, Summerskill B, Taggart D, Tekkis P, Thompson M, Treasure T, Trohler U, Vandenbroucke J (2009) Challenges in evaluating surgical innovation. Lancet 374(9695):1097–1104. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(09)61086-2, S0140-6736(09)61086-2 [pii]

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. McCulloch P, Altman DG, Campbell WB, Flum DR, Glasziou P, Marshall JC, Nicholl J, Aronson JK, Barkun JS, Blazeby JM, Boutron IC, Clavien PA, Cook JA, Ergina PL, Feldman LS, Maddern GJ, Reeves BC, Seiler CM, Strasberg SM, Meakins JL, Ashby D, Black N, Bunker J, Burton M, Campbell M, Chalkidou K, Chalmers I, de Leval M, Deeks J, Grant A, Gray M, Greenhalgh R, Jenicek M, Kehoe S, Lilford R, Littlejohns P, Loke Y, Madhock R, McPherson K, Meakins J, Rothwell P, Summerskill B, Taggart D, Tekkis P, Thompson M, Treasure T, Trohler U, Vandenbroucke J (2009) No surgical innovation without evaluation: the IDEAL recommendations. Lancet 374(9695):1105–1112. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(09)61116-8, S0140-6736(09)61116-8 [pii]

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Hivon M, Lehoux P, Denis JL, Tailliez S (2005) Use of health technology assessment in decision making: coresponsibility of users and producers? Int J Technol Assess Health Care 21(2):268–275

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Poulin P, Donnon T, Oddone Paolucci E, Schachar N, Jenkins A, Sigalet D (2006) Interactive HTA education program for health care practitioners in local setting. Paper presented at the 2006 Canadian Agencies for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH) Invitational Symposium: From Evidence to Policy to Practice, Ottawa, April 3–5, 2006

    Google Scholar 

  7. Oddone-Paolucci E, Poulin P, Schuler T, Austen L, Zimmermann G (2013) Interactive health technology assessment (HTA) education workshops for health care practitioners and managers in surgical services. Paper presented at the Canadian Association for Health Services and Policy Research (CAHSPR), Vancouver, May 28–30

    Google Scholar 

  8. Poulin P, Austen L, Oddone-Paolucci E, Zimmermann G, Schuler T (2013) From Education to Engagement to Action: A dynamic, interactive and integrated knowledge translation approach to bring evidence into practice for introducing new health technologies. Alberta Innovates – Health Solutions, Knowledge To Action (grant competition)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Poulin P, Oddone Paolucci E, Austen L, Zimmermann G, Schuler T (2014) Education, engagement, and collaboration for evidence-informed decision making. Paper presented at the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH) 2014 Annual Symposium, Lac-Lemay, Quebec, April 5–8

    Google Scholar 

  10. Leggett LE, Mackean G, Noseworthy TW, Sutherland L, Clement F (2012) Current status of health technology reassessment of non-drug technologies: survey and key informant interviews. Health Res Policy Syst BioMed Central 10:38. doi:10.1186/1478-4505-10-38

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Diaby V, Goeree R, Hoch J, Siebert U (2015) Multi-criteria decision analysis for health technology assessment in Canada: insights from an expert panel discussion. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcome Res 15(1):13–19. doi:10.1586/14737167.2015.965155

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Cromwell I, Peacock SJ, Mitton C (2015) ‘Real-world’ health care priority setting using explicit decision criteria: a systematic review of the literature. BMC Health Serv Res 15:164. doi:10.1186/s12913-015-0814-3

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Gurtner S (2014) Making the right decisions about new technologies: a perspective on criteria and preferences in hospitals. Health Care Manag Rev 39(3):245–254. doi:10.1097/HMR.0b013e3182993b91

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Tanios N, Wagner M, Tony M, Baltussen R, van Til J, Rindress D, Kind P, Goetghebeur MM, International Task Force on Decision C (2013) Which criteria are considered in healthcare decisions? Insights from an international survey of policy and clinical decision makers. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 29(4):456–465. doi:10.1017/S0266462313000573

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Goetghebeur MM, Wagner M, Khoury H, Levitt RJ, Erickson LJ, Rindress D (2008) Evidence and value: impact on DEcisionMaking – the EVIDEM framework and potential applications. BMC Health Serv Res 8:270. doi:10.1186/1472-6963-8-270

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Goetghebeur MM, Wagner M, Khoury H, Levitt RJ, Erickson LJ, Rindress D (2012) Bridging health technology assessment (HTA) and efficient health care decision making with multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA): applying the EVIDEM framework to medicines appraisal. Med Decis Mak: Int J Soc Med Decis Mak 32(2):376–388. doi:10.1177/0272989X11416870

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Johnson AP, Sikich NJ, Evans G, Evans W, Giacomini M, Glendining M, Krahn M, Levin L, Oh P, Perera C (2009) Health technology assessment: a comprehensive framework for evidence-based recommendations in Ontario. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 25(2):141–150, doi:S0266462309090199 [pii]10.1017/S0266462309090199

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Poulin P, Austen L, Kyle A, Poulin M, Scott CM, Lafrenière R (2008) Review of a Local Health Technology Assessment Program by Departments within a Canadian Health Region. Paper presented at the 2008 Health Technology Assessment International – HTAi 5th Annual Meeting, Montreal, July 6–9 2008

    Google Scholar 

  19. Poulin P, Austen L, Kyle A, Poulin M, Scott CM, Lafrenière R (2008) Reviewing and Adapting a Local Health Technology Assessment Program to Departments within a Canadian Health Region. Paper presented at the 2008 International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR): 13th Annual International Meeting, Toronto, May 3–7 2008

    Google Scholar 

  20. Poulin P, Scott CM, Gall N, Seidel J, Poulin M, Lafrenière R (2007) Adapting a Local Health Technology Decision Support Program to Various Departments within a Health Region. Paper presented at the 2007 CADTH Invitational Symposium – Informing Policy, Influencing Practice, Improving Health, Ottawa, April 22–24 2007

    Google Scholar 

  21. Poulin P, Austen L, Scott CM, Waddell CD, Dixon E, Poulin M, Lafreniere R (2013) Multi-criteria development and incorporation into decision tools for health technology adoption. J Health Organ Manag 27(2):246–265. doi:10.1108/14777261311321806

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Poulin P, Austen L, Scott CM, Poulin M, Gall N, Seidel J, Lafreniere R (2013) Introduction of new technologies and decision making processes: a framework to adapt a Local Health Technology Decision Support Program for other local settings. Med Devices (Auckland, NZ) 6:185–193. doi:10.2147/mder.s51384

    Google Scholar 

  23. Mitchell MD, Williams K, Brennan PJ, Umscheid CA (2010) Integrating local data into hospital-based healthcare technology assessment: two case studies. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 26(3):294–300. doi:10.1017/s0266462310000334

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Lewin S, Oxman AD, Lavis JN, Fretheim A, Garcia Marti S, Munabi-Babigumira S (2009) Support Tools for evidence-informed Policymaking (STP) in health 11: finding and using evidence about local conditions. Health Res Policy Syst BioMed Central 7(Suppl 1):S11. doi:10.1186/1478-4505-7-S1-S11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Poulin P, Austen L, Kortbeek JB, Lafreniere R (2012) New technologies and surgical innovation: five years of a local health technology assessment program in a surgical department. Surg Innov 19(2):187–199. doi:10.1177/1553350611421916

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Stafinski T, Topfer LA, Zakariasen K, Menon D (2010) The role of surgeons in identifying emerging technologies for health technology assessment. Can J Surg J Can Chir 53(2):86–92

    Google Scholar 

  27. Lourenco T, Grant AM, Burr JM, Vale L (2012) A framework for the evaluation of new interventional procedures. Health Policy (Amsterdam, Netherlands) 104(3):234–240. doi:10.1016/j.healthpol.2011.11.012

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Lehoux P, Williams-Jones B, Miller F, Urbach D, Tailliez S (2008) What leads to better health care innovation? Arguments for an integrated policy-oriented research agenda. J Health Serv Res Policy 13(4):251–254. doi:10.1258/jhsrp.2008.007173

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Stefanidis D, Fanelli RD, Price R, Richardson W, Committee SG (2014) SAGES guidelines for the introduction of new technology and techniques. Surg Endosc 28(8):2257–2271. doi:10.1007/s00464-014-3587-6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Favaretti C, Cicchetti A, Guarrera G, Marchetti M, Ricciardi W (2009) Health technology assessment in Italy. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 25(Suppl 1):127–133. doi:10.1017/s0266462309090539

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Kidholm K, Ehlers L, Korsbek L, Kjaerby R, Beck M (2009) Assessment of the quality of mini-HTA. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 25(1):42–48. doi:10.1017/s0266462309090060

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Sharma B, Danjoux NM, Harnish JL, Urbach DR (2006) How are decisions to introduce new surgical technologies made? Advanced laparoscopic surgery at a Canadian community hospital: a qualitative case study and evaluation. Surg Innov 13(4):250–256, 13/4/250 [pii] 10.1177/1553350606296341

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Llewellyn S, Procter R, Harvey G, Maniatopoulos G, Boyd A (2014). In: Facilitating technology adoption in the NHS: negotiating the organisational and policy context – a qualitative study. Health Services and Delivery Research. Southampton

    Google Scholar 

  34. Woertman WH, Van De Wetering G, Adang EM (2014) Cost-effectiveness on a local level: whether and when to adopt a new technology. Med Decis Mak: Int J Soc Med Decis Mak 34(3):379–386. doi:10.1177/0272989x13497995

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Owen-Smith A, Coast J, Donovan J (2010) The usefulness of NICE guidance in practice: different perspectives of managers, clinicians, and patients. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 26(3):317–322. doi:10.1017/S0266462310000346

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Milat AJ, Bauman AE, Redman S (2015) A narrative review of research impact assessment models and methods. BMC Health Res Policy Syst 13:18. doi:10.1186/s12961-015-0003-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Gagnon MP, Desmartis M, Poder T, Witteman W (2014) Effects and repercussions of local/hospital-based health technology assessment (HTA): a systematic review. Syst Rev 3:129. doi:10.1186/2046-4053-3-129

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Schumacher I, Zechmeister I (2013) Assessing the impact of health technology assessment on the Austrian healthcare system. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 29(1):84–91. doi:10.1017/s0266462312000748

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Zechmeister I, Schumacher I (2012) The impact of health technology assessment reports on decision making in Austria. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 28(1):77–84. doi:10.1017/s0266462311000729

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Sampietro-Colom L, Morilla-Bachs I, Gutierrez-Moreno S, Gallo P (2012) Development and test of a decision support tool for hospital health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 28(4):460–465. doi:10.1017/s0266462312000487

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Sorenson C, Drummond M, Borlum F, Busse R (2008) How can the impact of health technology assessments be enhanced? World Health Organization. Available at: www.who.int

  42. McGregor M (2008) Impact of Technology Assessment Unit (TAU) reports. McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, Available at www.mcgill.ca/tau

    Google Scholar 

  43. McGregor M, Brophy JM (2005) End-user involvement in health technology assessment (HTA) development: a way to increase impact. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 21(2):263–267

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Brehaut J, Juzwishin D (2005) Bridging the gap: the use of research evidence in policy development. HTA initiative. Alberta Heritage Foundation for Medical Research, Edmonton

    Google Scholar 

  45. Grol R, Wensing M (2004) What drives change? Barriers to and incentives for achieving evidence-based practice. Med J Aust 180(6 Suppl):S57

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Kent B, Hutchinson AM, Fineout Overholt E (2009) Getting evidence into practice–understanding knowledge translation to achieve practice change. Worldviews Evid Based Nurs 6(3):183–185

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Hanney SR, Gonzalez-Block MA (2011) Yes, research can inform health policy; but can we bridge the ‘Do-Knowing It’s Been Done’ gap? Health Res Policy Syst BioMed Central 9:23. doi:10.1186/1478-4505-9-23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Umscheid CA, Williams K, Brennan PJ (2010) Hospital-based comparative effectiveness centers: translating research into practice to improve the quality, safety and value of patient care. J Gen Intern Med 25(12):1352–1355. doi:10.1007/s11606-010-1476-9

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  49. Spigelman AD (2006) Governance and innovation: experience with a policy on the introduction of new interventional procedures. ANZ J Surg 76(1–2):9–13. doi:10.1111/j.1445-2197.2006.03648.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Polisena J, Gagliardi A, Clifford T (2015) How can we improve the recognition, reporting and resolution of medical device related incidents in hospitals? A qualitative study of physicians and registered nurses. BMC Health Serv Res 15:220. doi:10.1186/s12913-015-0886-0

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  51. Cooter RD, Barker S, Carroll SM, Evans GR, von Fritschen U, Hoflehner H, Le Louarn C, Lumenta DB, Mathijssen IM, McNeil J, Mulgrew S, Mureau MA, Perks G, Rakhorst H, Randquist C, Topaz M, Verheyden C, de Waal J (2015) International importance of robust breast device registries. Plast Reconstr Surg 135(2):330–336. doi:10.1097/PRS.0000000000000885

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Lumenta DB, Cooter RD (2015) Medical device registries for breast implants – where to? Safety in Health 1(4). doi:10.1186/2056-5917-1-4

  53. Liu JJ, Maxwell BG, Panousis P, Chung BI (2013) Perioperative outcomes for laparoscopic and robotic compared with open prostatectomy using the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database. Urology 82(3):579–583. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2013.03.080

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Dipankui MT, Gagnon MP, Desmartis M, Legare F, Piron F, Gagnon J, Rhiands M, Coulombe M (2015) Evaluation of patient involvement in a health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1–5. doi:10.1017/s0266462315000240

    Google Scholar 

  55. Facey K, Boivin A, Gracia J, Hansen HP, Lo Scalzo A, Mossman J, Single A (2010) Patients’ perspectives in health technology assessment: a route to robust evidence and fair deliberation. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 26(3):334–340. doi:10.1017/S0266462310000395

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Gagnon MP, Candas B, Desmartis M, Gagnon J, La Roche D, Rhainds M, Coulombe M, Dipankui MT, Legare F (2014) Involving patient in the early stages of health technology assessment (HTA): a study protocol. BMC Health Serv Res 14:273. doi:10.1186/1472-6963-14-273

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  57. Gagnon MP, Desmartis M, Gagnon J, St-Pierre M, Gauvin FP, Rhainds M, Lepage-Savary D, Coulombe M, Dipankui MT, Legare F (2014) Introducing the patient’s perspective in hospital health technology assessment (HTA): the views of HTA producers, hospital managers and patients. Health Expect: Int J Publ Particip Health Care Health Policy 17(6):888–900. doi:10.1111/hex.12010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Gagnon MP, Gagnon J, St-Pierre M, Gauvin FP, Piron F, Rhainds M, Coulombe M, Lepage-Savary D, Desmartis M, Tantchou Dipankui M, Legare F (2012) Involving patients in HTA activities at local level: a study protocol based on the collaboration between researchers and knowledge users. BMC Health Serv Res 12:14. doi:10.1186/1472-6963-12-14

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  59. Conway J, Johnson B, Edgman-Levitan S, Schlucter J, Ford D, Sodomka P, Simmons L (2006) Partnering with patients and families to design a patient and family-centered health care system: a roadmap for the future: a work in progress. Institute for Family-Centered Care, Bethesda

    Google Scholar 

  60. Bridges JF, Jones C (2007) Patient-based health technology assessment: a vision of the future. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 23(1):30–35. doi:10.1017/S0266462307051549

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Bridges JF, Kinter ET, Kidane L, Heinzen RR, McCormick C (2008) Things are looking up since we started listening to patients. Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Res 1(4):273–282

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Brettschneider C, Luhmann D, Raspe H (2011) Informative value of Patient Reported Outcomes (PRO) in Health Technology Assessment (HTA). GMS Health Technol Assess 7:Doc01. doi:10.3205/hta000092

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  63. Coulter A (2012) Patient engagement – what works? J Ambul Care Manag 35(2):80–89. doi:10.1097/JAC.0b013e318249e0fd

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Manchikanti L, Helm S, Hirsch JA (2012) The evolution of the patient-centered outcomes research institute. J Neurointerv Surg 4(3):157–162

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Lévesque M, Hovey R, Bedos C (2013) Advancing patient-centered care through transformative educational leadership: a critical review of health care professional preparation for patient-centered care. J Healthcare Leadership 5:35–46

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Rosstad T, Garasen H, Steinsbekk A, Sletvold O, Grimsmo A (2013) Development of a patient-centred care pathway across healthcare providers: a qualitative study. BMC Health Serv Res 13:121. doi:10.1186/1472-6963-13-121

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  67. Kovacs Burns K, Bellows M, Eigenseher C, Jackson K, Gallivan J, Rees J (2014) Exploring patient engagement practices and resources within a health care system: applying a multi-phased mixed methods knowledge mobilization approach. Int J Mult Res Approaches 8(2):233–247

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Marlett N, Shklarov S, Marshall D, Santana MJ, Wasylak T (2015) Building new roles and relationships in research: a model of patient engagement research. Qual Life Res Int J Qual Life Asp Treat Care Rehab 24(5):1057–1067. doi:10.1007/s11136-014-0845-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Gooch KL, Smith D, Wasylak T, Faris PD, Marshall DA, Khong H, Hibbert JE, Parker RD, Zernicke RF, Beaupre L, Pearce T, Johnston DW, Frank CB (2009) The Alberta Hip and Knee Replacement Project: a model for health technology assessment based on comparative effectiveness of clinical pathways. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 25(2):113–123. doi:10.1017/S0266462309090163

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Neugebauer EA, Becker M, Buess GF, Cuschieri A, Dauben HP, Fingerhut A, Fuchs KH, Habermalz B, Lantsberg L, Morino M, Reiter-Theil S, Soskuty G, Wayand W, Welsch T, European Association for Endoscopic S (2010) EAES recommendations on methodology of innovation management in endoscopic surgery. Surg Endosc 24(7):1594–1615. doi:10.1007/s00464-009-0818-3

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Dr. Ann Kyle and Michelle Poulin for help with preparing and editing the book chapter, and Dr. René Lafrenière, Dr. Douglas Hedden, and Dr. John Kortbeek, for constructive comments. We thank the Surgery Strategic Clinical Network and the Research Priorities and Implementation of Alberta Health Services, for their support. We also sincerely thank past and present members of the EDSP Advisory Committee and all members who participated in reviewing the Program whose valuable contribution and thoughtful input made this project possible.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Alberta Health Services, Department of Surgery, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada

    Paule Poulin PhD

  2. Department of Surgery, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada

    Lea Austen MD, MSc, FRCSC & Luke Rudmik MD, MSc, FRCSC

  3. Department of Surgery, Division of Urology, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada

    Trevor Schuler MD, MSc, FRCSC

Authors
  1. Paule Poulin PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lea Austen MD, MSc, FRCSC
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Luke Rudmik MD, MSc, FRCSC
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Trevor Schuler MD, MSc, FRCSC
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Paule Poulin PhD .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Assessment of Innovations and New Technologies, Hospital Clinic Barcelona, Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain

    Laura Sampietro-Colom

  2. Centre for Medical Evidence, Decision Integrity & Clinical Impact (MEDICI), Department of Anesthesia & Perioperative Medicine, Schulich School of Medicine & Dentistry, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada

    Janet Martin

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Poulin, P., Austen, L., Rudmik, L., Schuler, T. (2016). The Evidence Decision Support Program Within the Surgery Strategic Clinical Network of Alberta Health Services in Canada. In: Sampietro-Colom, L., Martin, J. (eds) Hospital-Based Health Technology Assessment. Adis, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-39205-9_11

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-39205-9_11

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Adis, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-39203-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-39205-9

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation