1 Introduction
In the interest of patients, most physicians and medical organizations support
innovative medicine that preserves health and saves lives. Healing patients, by
improving diagnostic and treatment procedures, is the primary motivation of physicians applying new methods and they often use an orderly approach, carefully record
conditions and results, and publish the results of their innovative techniques.
Healthcare has become a growing challenge for many societies, in terms of access
for the population and of cost for national budgets, exhibiting important variety
across countries and disease areas. To cope with it, innovation in healthcare has been
supported by the emergence of new diagnostic tools (Gelijns & Rosenberg, 1999)
and treatment procedures, recently triggered by the growing influence of patient
advocacy groups (Callon & Rabeharisoa, 2008).
From strong empirical evidence, innovation in healthcare has been portrayed as
the introduction and the diffusion of new medical devices, drugs, and clinical
practices in improving healthcare in general and patient care in particular (Consoli
& Mina, 2009; Djellal & Gallouj, 2005). The effort led by service innovation studies
in the healthcare sector (Djellal & Gallouj, 2005; Gallouj & Windrum, 2009) has
notably considered medical innovation in a more broader and systemic approach.
The systemic nature of innovation has been empirically shown by scholars of
innovation in various aspects (Edquist, 1997; Malerba, 2004; Lundvall, 1992;
Nelson, 1993) and more specifically in healthcare (Consoli & Mina, 2009; Metcalfe,
James, & Mina, 2005).
The question of progress in medical technology requires taking into account both
low-level details and high-level entities (Consoli & Mina, 2009). Previous scholars
approaching healthcare innovation from a systemic perspective (Metcalfe et al.,
2005; Mina, Ramlogan, Tampubolon, & Metcalfe, 2007; Consoli & Mina, 2009)
have also investigated properties of medical innovation processes occurring at
various levels. At one level, the interaction between technology market and scientific
community drives possible divergent avenues in terms of medical advances (Consoli
& Mina, 2009). At another level, potential constraints such as regulations to assess
safety, performance, and cost-effectiveness of new procedures influence the health
delivery system and its potential to implement medical innovations (Metcalfe et al.,
2005).
This directs us to study in more details the “practical domain” (Consoli & Mina,
2009) where a practicing physician uses technological advances to diagnose or treat
a medical condition of a patient.
Doctors, nurses, and surgeons are often the pivotal point around the patient’s care.
Yet, clinicians in most specialties are reporting increasing rates of workplace
burnout, with classic symptoms like fatigue, and doubts about the ability of consistently delivering quality clinical care.
1 Some of the highest rates are from those in
critical care, where doctors need to make split second decisions: each patient in these
1 Medscape Lifestyle Report 2016: Bias and Burnout.
102
J. Galbrun
In the interest of patients, most physicians and medical organizations support
innovative medicine that preserves health and saves lives. Healing patients, by
improving diagnostic and treatment procedures, is the primary motivation of physicians applying new methods and they often use an orderly approach, carefully record
conditions and results, and publish the results of their innovative techniques.
Healthcare has become a growing challenge for many societies, in terms of access
for the population and of cost for national budgets, exhibiting important variety
across countries and disease areas. To cope with it, innovation in healthcare has been
supported by the emergence of new diagnostic tools (Gelijns & Rosenberg, 1999)
and treatment procedures, recently triggered by the growing influence of patient
advocacy groups (Callon & Rabeharisoa, 2008).
From strong empirical evidence, innovation in healthcare has been portrayed as
the introduction and the diffusion of new medical devices, drugs, and clinical
practices in improving healthcare in general and patient care in particular (Consoli
& Mina, 2009; Djellal & Gallouj, 2005). The effort led by service innovation studies
in the healthcare sector (Djellal & Gallouj, 2005; Gallouj & Windrum, 2009) has
notably considered medical innovation in a more broader and systemic approach.
The systemic nature of innovation has been empirically shown by scholars of
innovation in various aspects (Edquist, 1997; Malerba, 2004; Lundvall, 1992;
Nelson, 1993) and more specifically in healthcare (Consoli & Mina, 2009; Metcalfe,
James, & Mina, 2005).
The question of progress in medical technology requires taking into account both
low-level details and high-level entities (Consoli & Mina, 2009). Previous scholars
approaching healthcare innovation from a systemic perspective (Metcalfe et al.,
2005; Mina, Ramlogan, Tampubolon, & Metcalfe, 2007; Consoli & Mina, 2009)
have also investigated properties of medical innovation processes occurring at
various levels. At one level, the interaction between technology market and scientific
community drives possible divergent avenues in terms of medical advances (Consoli
& Mina, 2009). At another level, potential constraints such as regulations to assess
safety, performance, and cost-effectiveness of new procedures influence the health
delivery system and its potential to implement medical innovations (Metcalfe et al.,
2005).
This directs us to study in more details the “practical domain” (Consoli & Mina,
2009) where a practicing physician uses technological advances to diagnose or treat
a medical condition of a patient.
Doctors, nurses, and surgeons are often the pivotal point around the patient’s care.
Yet, clinicians in most specialties are reporting increasing rates of workplace
burnout, with classic symptoms like fatigue, and doubts about the ability of consistently delivering quality clinical care.
1 Some of the highest rates are from those in
critical care, where doctors need to make split second decisions: each patient in these
1 Medscape Lifestyle Report 2016: Bias and Burnout.
102
J. Galbrun