Abstract
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.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Article number | 104706 |
| Pages (from-to) | 1-10 |
| Number of pages | 10 |
| Journal | Health Policy |
| Volume | 129 |
| Early online date | 5 Jan 2023 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - Mar 2023 |
Bibliographical note
Accepted Author Manuscript version archived for private and non-commercial use with the permission of the author/s and according to publisher conditions. For further rights please contact the publisher.Keywords
- Governance
- Innovation
- Review