Diffusion of Minimally Invasive Procedures across Hospitals and Traits of Fast Adopting Hospitals
- 94 Downloads
The quality and cost of hospital care depends not only on what technologies have been developed, but on how quickly the most promising and cost-effective technologies diffuse across hospitals. Some technologies are high-cost when they are first introduced into the health care system, but improve in cost-effectiveness as doctors use the technologies and innovate. Some such examples are minimally invasive procedures, which have become more common in recent years. We sought to better understand what hospital characteristics are associated with fast adoption of four minimally invasive procedures (appendectomy, lobectomy, hysterectomy and colectomy). Our findings show that a hospital’s adoption of minimally invasive procedures in one type of procedure (e.g., lobectomy) is not predictive of that hospital’s probability of adopting minimally invasive procedures in another procedure type (e.g., zero appendectomies). The only hospital characteristic consistently correlated with adoption for three of the four procedure types was the extent that the hospital’s geographic neighbors had adopted minimally invasive technology for that particular procedure. These findings regarding peer effects fall in line with conclusions about diffusion from the development literature.
KeywordsDiffusion Medical technology Hospitals
- Biere, S. S., van Berge Henegouwen, M. I., Maas, K. W., Bonavina, L., Rosman, C., Garcia, J. R., et al. (2012). Minimally invasive versus open oesophagectomy for patients with oesophageal cancer: a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial. The Lancet, 379(9829), 1887–1892.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Christensen, C. M., Grossman, J. H., & Hwang, J. (2009). The innovator’s prescription: a disruptive solution for health care. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
- Dartmouth Atlas (2017). The Dartmouth Atlas of Health Care. Accessed 16 August 2017. http://www.dartmouthatlas.org/data/region/.
- King, J., Furukawa, M. F., & Buntin, M. B. (2013). Geographic variation in ambulatory electronic health record adoption: implications for underserved communities. Health Services Research, 48(6pt1), 2037–2059.Google Scholar
- Kolata, G. (2010). Results unproven, robotic surgery wins converts. The New York times Google Scholar
- Morgan, J. A., Thornton, B. A., Peacock, J. C., Hollingsworth, K. W., Smith, C. R., Oz, M. C., et al. (2005). Does robotic technology make minimally invasive cardiac surgery too expensive? A hospital cost analysis of robotic and conventional techniques. Journal of Cardiac Surgery, 20(3), 246–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Murray, A., Lourenco, T., De Verteuil, R., Hernandez, R., Fraser, C., McKinley, A., et al. (2006). Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer: systematic reviews and economic evaluation. Health Technology Assessment, 10(45), 141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Orszag, P. R. (2008). CBO testimony statement of Peter R. Orszag "Growth in health care costs", January 31, 2008. Washington, D.C.: United States Congressional Budget Office. https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/89xx/doc8948/01-31-healthtestimony.pdf. Accessed 15 Aug 2017.
- OSHPD Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (2003–2011). Patient discharge data. Accessed 16 August 2017. https://www.oshpd.ca.gov/HID/Patient-Discharge-Data.html.
- Sabik, L. M. (2012). The effect of community uninsurance rates on access to health care. Health Services Research, 47(3pt1), 897–918.Google Scholar
- Singer, E. (2010). The slow rise of the robot surgeon. MIT Technology Review. https://www.technologyreview.com/s/418141/the-slow-rise-of-the-robot-surgeon/. Accessed 15 Aug 2017.
- Verhage, R. J., Hazebroek, E., Boone, J., & Van Hillegersberg, R. (2009). Minimally invasive surgery compared to open procedures in esophagectomy for cancer: a systematic review of the literature. Minerva Chirurgica, 64(2), 135.Google Scholar